Progress of the DD(X) Destroyer Program (14-JUN-05, GAO-05-752R).
                                                                 
The Navy is developing a new destroyer, the DD(X), to serve as a 
next-generation multimission surface combatant ship. It will	 
provide advanced land attack capability to support forces ashore 
and contribute to military dominance in shallow coastal water	 
environments. To reduce program risk and demonstrate the ship's  
12 technologies, the Navy is building 10 engineering development 
models that represent the ship's most critical subsystems. This  
approach is intended to improve the assessment of these key	 
subsystems by designing, developing, and testing working models  
early in the process. In September 2004, we reported that while  
the engineering development model process could be beneficial,	 
the program's schedule does not allow enough time to acquire	 
appropriate levels of knowledge before key decisions are made. We
also reported that some of the engineering development models	 
were progressing according to plan, but others faced significant 
technical challenges. This letter provides an update on the	 
progress of DD(X) subsystems, as demonstrated by recent tests and
design reviews of the engineering development models. Our review 
concentrated on five of the ten engineering development models.  
These five development models were chosen because of their	 
importance to the overall ship design, congressional interest in 
specific models, or the occurrence of recent test events. We	 
provide more limited information on the remaining five		 
development models.						 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-752R					        
    ACCNO:   A26500						        
  TITLE:     Progress of the DD(X) Destroyer Program		      
     DATE:   06/14/2005 
  SUBJECT:   Defense capabilities				 
	     Engineering					 
	     Military research and development			 
	     Military systems analysis				 
	     Military vessels					 
	     Naval procurement					 
	     Operational testing				 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Procurement planning				 
	     Procurement practices				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Schedule slippages 				 
	     Ships						 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Systems design					 
	     Weapons research and development			 
	     DD(X) Destroyer					 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-05-752R

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548

June 14, 2005

The Honorable James M. Talent
Chairman
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Seapower
Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate

The Honorable Roscoe G. Bartlett
Chairman
The Honorable Gene Taylor
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Projection Forces
Committee on Armed Services
House of Representatives

Subject: Progress of the DD(X) Destroyer Program

The Navy is developing a new destroyer, the DD(X), to serve as a
next-generation multimission surface combatant ship. It will provide
advanced land attack capability to support forces ashore and contribute to
military dominance in shallow coastal water environments. To reduce
program risk and demonstrate the ship's 12 technologies, the Navy is
building 10 engineering development models that represent the ship's most
critical subsystems. This approach is intended to improve the assessment
of these key subsystems by designing, developing, and testing working
models early in the process.

In September 2004, we reported that while the engineering development
model process could be beneficial, the program's schedule does not allow
enough time to acquire appropriate levels of knowledge before key
decisions are made. We also reported that some of the engineering
development models were progressing according to plan, but others faced
significant technical challenges.

This letter provides an update on the progress of DD(X) subsystems, as
demonstrated by recent tests and design reviews of the engineering
development models. Our review concentrated on five of the ten engineering
development models. These five development models were chosen because of
their importance to the overall ship design, congressional interest in
specific models, or the occurrence of recent test events. We provide more
limited information on the remaining five development models. We conducted
our work under the Comptroller General's authority and are addressing the
report to you because of your subcommittee's jurisdiction on the issues
discussed in this report.

Enclosure I: Integrated Power System

Background

The program currently is approaching two key decision points. One is
Milestone B, when the Navy will decide on whether to authorize the award
of a detail design and construction contract for production of the lead
ship(s). In an August 2004 memorandum to the Secretary of the Navy, the
acting Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics detailed specific exit criteria to be met before Milestone B.
Milestone B was planned for March 2005 but has been delayed several times
and is now expected to take place before the end of the fiscal year.

In addition to the Milestone B decision, the program will complete a
critical design review by August 2005. This review is intended to
demonstrate the design maturity of the ship and its readiness to proceed
to production.

To develop and test the ship's twelve critical technologies, the Navy is
building ten engineering development models that represent the ship's most
critical subsystems. The development models are described in Table 1.

             Table 1: Description of Engineering Development Models

Engineering
development models Description

Advanced gun system	Will provide long-range fire support for forces ashore
through the use of unmanned operations and the long-range land attack
projectile.

Autonomic fire suppression system Intended to reduce crew size by
providing a fully automated response to fires.

Dual band radar Horizon and volume search improved for performance in
adverse environments.

Hull form Designed to significantly reduce radar cross section.

Infrared mockup Seeks to reduce ship's heat signature in multiple areas.

Integrated deckhouse and apertures 	A composite structure that integrates
apertures of radar and communications systems.

Integrated power system	Power system that integrates power generation,
propulsion, and power distribution and management.

Integrated undersea warfare system	System for mine avoidance and submarine
warfare with automated software to reduce workload.

Peripheral vertical launch system Multipurpose missile launch system
located on the periphery of the ship to reduce

                                       a

                            damage to ship systems.

Total ship computing environment 	Provides single computing environment
for all ship systems to speed command while reducing manning.

Source: DD(X) program office and contractors.

aThe Navy refers to both the enclosure for the launcher and the full
subsystem as the Peripheral vertical launch system.

As a baseline for assessing developmental progress and for informing
decision making, the program has established two sets of quantitative
metrics, one for the ship as a whole, referred to as performance
parameters, and one for the engineering development models, referred to as
critical technical

Enclosure I: Integrated Power System

parameters. According to the DD(X) program's test and evaluation plan,
"failure to achieve a critical technical parameter should be considered a
reliable indicator that the system is behind in the planned development
schedule or will likely not achieve an operational requirement."

Summary

The DD(X) program's demonstrations and component tests met the exit
criteria for its engineering development models established by the
Undersecretary's August 2004 memorandum. While progress has been made, the
level of technology maturity demonstrated remains below what is
recommended by best practices, as outlined in our September 2004 report.
Tests of several engineering development models resulted in successful
demonstration of exit criteria. In other cases, tests identified technical
problems that will need to be overcome before ship installation or that
have led to changes in the ship design. The permanent magnet motor, a key
element of the integrated power system, failed tests, and was replaced by
the advanced induction motor. Because the Navy maintained the induction
motor as a fallback technology, the integrated power system was able to
meet the exit criteria. The substitution of the advanced induction motor
does change the noise, weight, and space usage of the power system, which
could have implications for the ship design. The multifunction radar, a
segment of the dual band radar, successfully completed the land-based
testing described in the exit criteria, but the volume search radar has
encountered technical problems with a key component. The integrated
deckhouse and apertures development model will soon begin testing for
antenna placement and radar cross section. Questions about the properties
of the proposed component materials are delaying production of an article
for fire and shock testing. The advanced gun system demonstrated exit
criteria through modeling, and additional component tests have verified
this performance. An early failure in required munitions flight testing
was overcome, and two further flight tests have been completed
successfully. Tests of the peripheral vertical launch system led to a
redesign effort; tests to determine the suitability of the new design will
complete in June 2005. Additional information on these five engineering
development models is presented in enclosures I to V. The status of the
other five engineering development models is discussed in enclosure VI.

Weight is a challenge for individual subsystems and the ship as a whole.
The integrated power system, advanced gun system, and integrated deckhouse
all have encountered problems staying within weight limits. These problems
have contributed to overall weight growth in DD(X). As a result, the
current design is slightly over the margin reserved for weight in the
system development phase, which ends with critical design review in
August.1 A number of key events to demonstrate technology will occur near
the end of this phase, and it remains to be seen whether they will have
any impact on weight. Other elements of the design for certain subsystems,
including space issues for the power system and materials issues on the
deckhouse, remain unclear. These challenges could result in changes late
in design or during construction, leading to higher costs.

1 There is additional margin for weight in later phases of design that
allow for growth.

Enclosure I: Integrated Power System

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

The Department of Defense reviewed a draft of this letter and provided
technical comments which we incorporated as appropriate. Their response is
included as Enclosure VII.

Scope and Methodology

To complete our review, we examined the DD(X) program's operational
requirements document, test
and evaluation master plan, developmental test reports, early operational
assessment, and risk
management plan. We supplemented this information with discussions with
Navy program and test
officials as well as key contractors. In addition, we visited selected
facilities to further enrich the quality
of our analysis. We conducted our work between January and June 2005 in
accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.

We are sending copies of this letter to the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld,
Secretary of Defense; the
Honorable Gordon R. England, Secretary of the Navy; and interested
congressional committees. We will
make copies available to other interested parties upon request. In
addition, the letter will be available at
no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

Please contact me at (202) 512-4841 if you or your staff have any
questions concerning this letter. Other
major contributors to this letter were Karen Zuckerstein, J. Kristopher
Keener and Marc Castellano.

Paul L. Francis, Director
Acquisition and Sourcing Management

Enclosures

                      Enclosure I: Integrated Power System

Summary

Design of the propulsion and power distribution systems has changed
significantly. Due to problems discovered in component testing, the
advanced induction motor will be used in the design instead of the
permanent magnet motor, which will alter the ship's layout and increase
weight.

Description

The integrated power system centrally generates and distributes power to
the ship for all functions, including propulsion. This design allows
greater flexibility in power use and will allow the integration of high
energy weapons in the future. The integrated power system consists of
three primary components: turbine generator sets, a power distribution
system, and propulsion motors. A significant technical challenge is
development of propulsion motors which are used to turn the shaft and
propeller. To reduce risk the program is carrying two designs of
propulsion motor, the permanent magnet motor and the advanced induction
motor.

      Table 2: Performance Parameters Relating to Integrated Power System

Performance parameters                       Threshold         Objective 
Speed - rate at which the ship travels       30 knots          30+ knots 
Endurance - nautical miles the ship can      4500 nm             6000 nm 
travel                                                     

Acoustic signature - low noise to avoid detection

  Classified Classified Survivability - ability to produce power Identify and
                             isolate faults, supply

Steady state power at set rate with one or more faults

                      when damaged power as user requires

          Sources: U.S. Navy (data); GAO (analysis and presentation).

Table 3: Critical Technical Parameters Relating to Integrated Power System

Critical technical parameters          Description           Demonstrated? 
      Generator no load open      Ability of turbine generator       Yes      
          circuit voltage                   sets to             
                                 produce amount of power needed 
Generator full rated current   Ability of turbine generator       Yes      
             at rated                       sets to             
               speed              produce rate of power needed  
    Motor and drive rated speed  Ability of propulsion motor to      Yes      
             at rated            produce                        
              voltage              power needed to turn shaft   
    Main turbine generator set      Amount of fuel needed by       Future     
               fuel                         turbine             
consumption at endurance load     generator set to reach     
                                           endurance            
    Propulsion motor torque at   Ability of propulsion motor to    Future     
              maximum            turn shaft                     
            rated speed                and produce speed        

Sources: U.S. Navy (data); GAO (analysis and presentation).

Enclosure I: Integrated Power System

Progress of Engineering Development Model

In order to complete Milestone B for DD(X) the integrated power system was
required by the August 2004 memorandum to complete factory acceptance
testing1 on a number of critical components. All the required tests have
been performed and met expectations, with the exception of the permanent
magnet motor.

      Table 4: Schedule of Key Events Relating to Integrated Power System

2004 2005 2006 and beyond

October: Main turbine generator set January: Auxiliary turbine generator
To be determined: Full power load test factory acceptance test factory
acceptance test To be determined: Integration and

October: Advanced induction motor January: Permanent magnet motor test
testing with ship control system factory acceptance test failure

November: Auxiliary turbine generator July-September: Land-based testing
of factory acceptance test integrated power system

Source: U.S. Navy.

The program has completed initial testing on propulsion motors for DD(X).
The program is carrying two designs of propulsion motor, the permanent
magnet motor and the advanced induction motor. The program prefers to use
the permanent magnet motor due to its ability to meet requirements with
less weight and noise, but was carrying the advanced induction motor as a
backup. Recently, the permanent magnet motor failed to demonstrate the
speed needed to produce the required power. The advanced induction motor
tested successfully in October 2004 and has now been selected as the
propulsion motor for DD(X). This change has implications for design as the
advanced induction motor is heavier and less efficient than the permanent
magnet motor and will require more space. The change to advanced induction
motor also has implications for testing scheduled for this summer. As
these tests were designed to use both propulsion motors, it is unclear
whether the same knowledge can be gained with just the advanced induction
motor. The program manager has stated that there is the possibility of
reintroducing the permanent magnet motor should it resolve its problems.

Factory acceptance tests on turbine generators were performed to
demonstrate their ability to produce the power needed for DD(X). The
design for DD(X) requires two main turbine generators and two auxiliary
turbine generators which are tested to similar requirements. The main
turbine generator set, a Rolls-Royce MT-30 turbine and a generator
produced by Curtiss-Wright, was tested in October 2004. Due to limitations
of contractor facilities the turbine engine and the generator were tested
separately. Some problems with heat were experienced in testing of the
turbine engine, but program officials have stated these issues have been
resolved. The program tested two different turbine engines for the
auxiliary generator sets, a Rolls-Royce MT-5 and a General Electric
LM-500. Both turbine generator sets

1 Factory acceptance testing generally demonstrates the basic performance
of a component as specified by the contractor.

Enclosure I: Integrated Power System

demonstrated they were able to produce the power necessary and actually
produced more power than predicted.

Design of the power distribution system was also changed to reduce weight
and improve performance. According to officials, the Navy will use a
system it has been developing called "integrated fight through power,"
which includes the use of solid state components and rapid switching
technologies.

                         Enclosure II: Dual Band Radar

Summary

Of the two major parts of the dual band radar subsystem, the multifunction
radar is proceeding well while the volume search radar faces several
technical challenges. Specifically, a core component of the volume search
radar encountered problems in testing, creating additional pressure on an
already challenging schedule.

Background

The dual band radar monitors airborne and surface activities, guides
weaponry to targets, and conducts environmental mapping. The dual band
radar is made up of two major radar systems, the multifunction radar and
the volume search radar, unique technologies that are brought to bear
jointly on a range of critical tasks to improve overall depth and quality
of battlespace "vision." The volume search radar specializes in providing
information on aircraft, missiles, and other activities in the vast, open
sky environment. In contrast, the multifunction radar is designed to
monitor airspace at "horizon" or nearthe-surface levels for threats such
as low-flying antiship cruise missiles.

    Table 5: Performance Parameters Relating to Dual Band Radar Performance
                         parameters Threshold Objective

Ability to identify and engage antiship missiles, aircraft, Classified
Classified and other aerial threats

Ability to identify and engage swarm boat groups, Classified Classified
surface ships, and periscopes (submarines)

          Sources: U.S. Navy (data); GAO (analysis and presentation).

       Table 6: Critical Technical Parameters Relating to Dual Band Radar

       Critical technical                Description            Demonstrated? 
           parameters                                           
Search and track multitask    Ability to search and track    VSR - Future  
                                       simultaneously           
           capability                                           MFR - Future  
        Firm track range      Distance from which an object's   VSR - Future  
         (sensitivity)        exact location, speed,            
                              and trajectory can be identified                
                                        definitively              MFR - Yes

Clutter rejection 	Ability to operate in a maritime environment and
maintain VSR - Future full functionality under good or bad weather
conditions MFR - Yes

Sources: U.S. Navy (data); GAO (analysis and presentation).

Progress of Engineering Development Model

Testing and development of the multifunction radar is proceeding well.
There have been a number of design changes, including a power/cooling
system redesign that reduced weight. These changes will be validated in
land based tests with the volume search radar in August 2007. Tests of the
multifunction

Enclosure II: Dual Band Radar

radar's clutter rejection capabilities and firm track range, two critical
technical parameters required for demonstration by the August 2004
memorandum, have been proven in demonstrations with realistic targets. In
a simulated scenario, the multifunction radar has demonstrated the ability
to guide an Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile against an inbound cruise missile.
Testing of the radar's ability to communicate with one of its own outbound
missiles will take place in 2007, when the fully assembled dual band radar
undergoes land-based tests. A significant risk remaining is ensuring that
the shape and placement of the multifunction radar meets radar cross
section requirements.

          Table 7 - Schedule of Key Events Relating to Dual Band Radar

                         2004 2005                       2006 2007 and beyond 
        September-October: September: Multifunction           
     Multifunction radar tests for radar cross section        
                           tests                              
             clutter rejection and sensitivity                

February: Integration and test of volume search radar array

February-May: Multifunction radar at sea tests

May: Engineering development model "string" test for the volume search
radar

June: Volume search radar array delivery August: Dual band radar
land-based tests

To be determined: continued development of volume search radar to meet
requirements

Source: U.S. Navy.

The transmit/receive units, the individual radiating elements that are the
essence of the volume search radar, encountered difficulties when a key
component failed in testing. Officials believe they have identified a
solution to the problem, but a further design iteration is needed to fully
satisfy performance requirements for the engineering development model.
Additional iterations of design will be necessary before ship
installation.

The schedule for construction of the dual band radar is already
challenging, with the radar for the first DD(X) scheduled for placement
after the ship is already afloat. Additional delay in development of the
volume search radar could further endanger the schedule for ship
construction.

Enclosure III: Integrated Deckhouse and Apertures

Summary

Construction of the fire and shock test article, one of two test articles
for the integrated deckhouse, was postponed until the detailed design and
construction phase and will not be tested until after DD(X) critical
design review. The second article, designed to test radar cross section
and interference between antennas, is nearly complete and will begin
testing in May and June of this year.

Background

Integrated deckhouse and apertures refers to the superstructure on the
deck of the ship and the openings in which radar, sensor, and
communication equipment are placed. A major focus of deckhouse design is
to reduce the ship's radar cross section signature. A separate technical
challenge, referred to as co-site interference, involves placing apertures
in precise locations to ensure the signals from the multitude of antennas
do not interfere with one another.

        Table 8: Performance Parameters Relating to Integrated Deckhouse

                  Performance parameters                Threshold   Objective 
    Radar cross section - Needs to be reduced so that   Classified Classified 
                       enemy radar                                 
            cannot easily identify the DD(X)a                      
    Interoperability - Ensuring all systems within the  Classified Classified 
                      deckhouse work                               
                together without conflicta                         
     Survivability - Deckhouse resilience to fire and   Classified Classified 
                          shock                                    

Sources: U.S. Navy (data); GAO (analysis and presentation).

aKey performance parameter.

Table 9: Critical Technical Parameters Relating to Integrated Deckhouse

Critical technical parameters Description Demonstrated?

Co-site interference	Ensuring operation of deckhouse Future antennas and
equipment do not interfere with one another

Radar cross section reduction	The deckhouse will contribute to total
Ongoing ship radar cross section reduction

Sources: U.S. Navy (data); GAO (analysis and presentation).

Progress of Engineering Development Model

The contractor, Northrop Grumman, is building two test articles to fulfill
requirements for the testing of the deckhouse. One is a fire and shock
test article that will be subjected to underwater explosions, and

Enclosure III: Integrated Deckhouse and Apertures

the other is an integrated deckhouse article that will be tested for radar
cross section and antenna placement.

Northrop Grumman halted construction on the fire and shock test article
because of issues pertaining to design of the joints that hold panels of
composite material together. A contractor official has stated that
specifications required that no damage be experienced in testing, as has
been the case with composite structures in other programs. The Navy
decided that these specifications were too conservative as the rest of the
ship is not held to the same requirement. According to the contractor, the
Navy relaxed this specification. Construction of the fire and shock test
article has been further delayed because facilities for shock testing are
not available until 2006. In addition, further time is needed to conduct
analysis of composite properties regarding issues such as structural
strength, corrosion, toxicity of fumes when composites catch fire, and
ability to bind composites with the steel hull. The program office states
that the ability of the deckhouse design to meet requirements will
continue to be analyzed in support of the critical design review. Testing
of the fire and shock article is now scheduled for the next contract
period, after DD(X) critical design review.

Table 10: Schedule of Key Events Relating to Integrated Deckhouse

2004 2005 2006 and beyond

August: Begin antenna predelivery tests February: End antenna predelivery
tests August: Begin antenna pre-delivery

November: Begin fire and shock testing March: Shielding effectiveness
tests November: Begin fire and shock testing

(postponed) April: Lightning-protection tests (postponed)

June: Co-site interference tests

July: End fire and shock testing (postponed)

September: Radar cross section tests

Source: U.S. Navy.

Since May 2004, a series of changes involving equipment, antenna size, and
positioning have been made to the deckhouse, which has caused changes in
the placement of apertures. The integrated deckhouse test article is now
nearly complete as are preparations at the test range. Tests of radar
cross section, including all deckhouse antennas and the multifunction
radar (half of the dual band radar system), will begin in May 2005.
Co-site tests for interference will follow in June 2005.

The deckhouse has experienced some problems remaining within its margins
for weight. To reduce weight the program has made a number of changes to
the design including modifications to fragmentation protection, and
redesigned power and cooling systems for the radars and other components.
The program office states that the deckhouse is now in compliance with its
weight budget.

A contract official has indicated that lessons learned from production of
the test articles has reduced risk and validated processes.

                       Enclosure IV: Advanced Gun System

Summary

Tests performed for the advanced gun system in support of Milestone B were
completed with modeling of a virtual prototype and partially validated
with subsequent component tests. Two of three munition flight tests were
completed successfully. Final design of the advanced gun system exceeds
previous weight margins due to changes made to facilitate ship
construction.

Description

The advanced gun system is a large caliber, unmanned gun system designed
to fire long-range projectiles in support of land attack missions, such as
strikes at specific targets or suppressing fire in support of ground
troops. The DD(X) design calls for two gun systems with approximately 300
rounds in each magazine, with an additional 320 rounds in an auxiliary
magazine. Because the gun system provides supporting fire for land attack,
a fundamental mission objective of the DD(X), it needs to be able to
quickly and accurately hit a substantial number of land-based targets from
a significant distance. The system consists of the mount (the gun together
with its housing and movement mechanisms), a fully automated magazine, and
a munition known as the long range land attack projectile.

        Table 11: Performance Parameters Relating to Advanced Gun System

               Performance parameters               Threshold     Objective   
          aNumber of advanced gun systems               2             2       
      Total ship advanced gun systems magazine         600          1200      
                     capacitya                                  
    aShip personnel (with helicopter detachment)       175           125      
Gun ready - time required to execute a mission   2.5 min.       1 min.     
    Maximum rate of fire - number of rounds per        10            12       
                       minute                                   
     Sustained rate of fire - rounds at maximum        300           600      
                        rate                                    
     Accuracy - distance of impact from target     Classified    Classified   
    Range - distance in nautical miles munition        63            100      
                     can travel                                 
      Lethality - explosive power of munition     current 155mm current 155mm 

Sources: U.S. Navy (data); GAO (analysis and presentation).

aKey performance parameter

Enclosure IV: Advanced Gun System

Table 12: Critical Technical Parameters Relating to Advanced Gun System

Critical technical parameters Description Demonstrated?

Pallet unloading rate (which Time required to unload pallet of Yes
demonstrates gun ready time and rate of munitions (8 munitions per pallet)
fire)

Projectile muzzle velocity 	Speed at which the projectile exits the Yes
barrel

Sources: U.S. Navy (data); GAO (analysis and presentation).

Progress of Engineering Development Model

In order to complete Milestone B for DD(X), the advanced gun system was
required by the Under Secretary's memorandum of August 2004 to demonstrate
its required firing rate through modeling. In October 2004, it did so by
using a physics-based software model that includes the software
functionality for all major components of the advanced gun system and
incorporates the results of physical testing. Results met or exceeded
expectations for response time, rate of fire, sustained rate of fire,
range, and pallet unloading rate. The contractor has begun verifying the
results through testing of physical components. In April, the magazine
component of the advanced gun system successfully completed factory
acceptance testing by demonstrating its ability to meet requirements and
has been shipped to Dugway, Utah, for integration into further land-based
tests. Land-based tests will demonstrate the entire firing sequence of the
advanced gun system. These tests will not demonstrate the ability of the
gun system to communicate target information to the munition or the
ability to move the gun side to side. The munition will not be tested with
the gun until after ship installation.

        Table 13: Schedule of Key Events Relating to Advanced Gun System

2004 2005 2006 and beyond

October: Virtual testing to meet DD(X) First quarter: Component testing
ends To be determined: Munition firing from

Milestone B criteria April: Factory acceptance testing of the gun system
Second quarter: Component testing magazine

begins January-February: Munition guided December: First munition guided
flight flight tests

test 	May: Factory acceptance testing of the mount

May: Long-range land attack projectile preliminary design review

July: Land-based testing of the mount and magazine

April-September: Further guided flight tests of munition

Source: U.S. Navy.

Enclosure IV: Advanced Gun System

The munition for advanced gun system, known as long-range land attack
projectile, has completed three flight tests at Point Mugu, California;
and has successfully demonstrated launch, tail fin deployment, canard
deployment, rocket motor ignition, global positioning system acquisition,
and some flight maneuvers. The first guided flight test failed when the
canards deployed improperly and controlled flight was lost. The issue was
identified, corrected, and successfully resolved in later flight tests.
The current schedule calls for completion of an additional twelve flight
tests by the end of September 2005. There is a proposal to reduce the
number of tests in this time period to four or five but to continue to
test requirements for all phases of flight including distance. Information
is incomplete about what details of testing might be lost under this
proposal.

Recently, the design of the advanced gun system was changed to support
ease of production for DD(X). The advanced gun system will now be
constructed as a single modular unit, transported to the shipyard, and
installed as a block. This redesign has added some weight which has been
accounted for in the current design.

                 Enclosure V: Peripheral Vertical Launch System

Summary

A demonstration to test the peripheral vertical launch system against
expected threats resulted in a dramatic destruction of the test article
that necessitated redesign and further testing. A second test replicating
the same conditions with the new design and representative materials will
be held in June 2005.

Description

The peripheral vertical launch system consists of the missile launcher,
referred to as the advanced vertical launch system, and the enclosure for
the launcher, referred to as the peripheral vertical launch system. The
system is located on the sides of the ship to improve survivability,
rather than the more traditional central positioning. The launcher is an
evolutionary improvement on the existing design to ease introduction of
new missile types. The enclosure is a revolutionary design that prevents
damage by directing explosions away from the ship.

Table 14: Performance Parameters Relating to Peripheral Vertical Launch

                   Performance parameters Threshold Objective

Number of advanced vertical launch 80 128

a

cells

                      Survivability Classified Classified

                       Launch time Classified Classified

Sources: U.S. Navy (data); GAO (analysis and presentation).

aKey performance parameter.

Table 15: Critical Technical Parameters Relating to Peripheral Vertical
Launch

Critical technical
parameters Description Demonstrated?

Antipropagation wall impact velocity 	The wall will not impact the cell
canister Future of adjacent stored missiles with velocity of greater than
a certain number of meters per second

Blast overpressure       Blast pressure in the adjacent module  Yes 
                              shall be less than the ordinance    
                           sensitivity threshold                  
Launcher response time     Time between mission request and     Yes 
                           launch                                 

          Sources: U.S. Navy (data); GAO (analysis and presentation).

Enclosure V: Peripheral Vertical Launch System

Progress of Engineering Development Model

In May 2004, the program conducted a test to verify the design of the
peripheral vertical launch system enclosure by detonating a surrogate of
an enemy missile among the missiles the DD(X) is expected to carry. The
design operates by allowing the wall facing away from the interior spaces
of the ship to fragment first and release pressure. During the test the
walls intended to protect the ship and adjacent launchers from explosion
were pierced by shrapnel. The result was an immense explosion that
severely damaged the test article. While program officials believe that
the critical technical parameters were partially demonstrated in the test,
the amount of damage caused by shrapnel has led to a redesign effort.
Program officials are concerned that this shrapnel could cause explosions
in adjacent enclosures and have proposed adding material, Kevlar or a
similar material, and some additional steel bracing, to the inside of the
enclosures to prevent this. The new design has been partially validated
through component testing, and will be fully demonstrated in June.

Table 16: Schedule of Key Events Relating to Peripheral Vertical Launch

2004 2005 2006 and beyond

      May: Initial most     April: Launcher factory  To be determined: 8-cell 
     credible detonation    acceptance                            full system 
event test for enclosure         testing                    test           
                            May: Peripheral vertical 
                            launch system            
                                 four cell test      
                            June: Repeat of          
                            detonation event test    
                             May: 8-cell full system 
                                    test (postponed) 

Source: U.S. Navy.

Although the new design of the peripheral vertical launch system calls for
Kevlar, which is in short supply, or a similar material for ballistic
protection, the contractor does not believe the construction times will be
affected. Officials have also stated that the weight added by the redesign
does not push the peripheral vertical launch system beyond its margins.

According to a contractor official, scheduling of a new most credible
detonation event test will push a planned eight-cell test, which would
have demonstrated the ability of both the enclosure and the launcher to
survive an explosion, into the next phase of the contract. To mitigate
risk the program will perform a similar test with a four-cell test article
before the ship's critical design review.

               Enclosure VI: Other Engineering Development Models

                          Integrated Undersea Warfare

Description

The integrated undersea warfare system is used to detect mines and
submarines in the littorals and consists of medium and high frequency
arrays, towed arrays, and decision-making software to reduce workload. The
undersea warfare system is tested for three performance parameters
(manning, mine avoidance, and ability to attack submarines) by
demonstrating three critical technical parameters (detection and
classification of mines, angle of approach of mines, and detection and
classification of submarines). Tests for the demonstration of mine
warfare's critical technical parameters were scheduled for May; submarine
warfare tests were scheduled for June.

Progress

o  	According to program officials, at-sea tests of algorithms for
antisubmarine warfare have been changed to laboratory testing due to a
lack of test ships.

o  	Significant advances in the automation of submarine detection and
tracking may be required to meet manpower goals.

o  	The portion of the sonar array used to detect mines experienced some
issues receiving sonar beams in recent testing. The program office states
that these issues have been resolved.

    Table 17: Schedule of Key Events Relating to Integrated Undersea Warfare

           2003                       2004                      2005          
November: Preliminary March: Critical design review  May: At-sea tests for 
       design review                                           mine avoidance 
                         December: Array interference   June: Lab tests for   
                         tests at                       antisubmarine         
                                  Seneca Lake                  warfare        

Source: U.S. Navy.

Infrared Signature Mockups Description The DD(X) program seeks to reduce
the heat signature of the ship using material treatments on the deckhouse,
passive air cooling for engine exhaust, and a sheeting water system on the
hull. The infrared signature mockups support the ship's performance
parameters for survivability by demonstrating three critical technical
parameters, all of which relate to heat signatures of various parts of the
ship.

Progress

o  	The use of infrared materials to reduce heat signature has changed due
to design tradeoffs for performance, weight, and cost. Program officials
state that the operational requirements are still achievable using the new
design.

Enclosure VI: Other Engineering Development Models

o  	Program officials have determined that further testing of exhaust
suppressors for the main turbine generator is no longer necessary.
Previously the program had tested the suppressors with a surrogate main
turbine engine.

o  	Sheeting water system for the hull has been deleted from the ship
design and replaced with an alternate system.

Table 18: Schedule of Key Events Relating to Infrared Signature Mockups

                                 2003 2004 2005

March: Preliminary       March: Completion of at-sea Third Quarter: Small  
     design review                            materials        exhaust        
                                   testing                 suppressor testing 
                                                            (cancelled due to 
                       March-April: At-sea panel tests  change in materials)  
                       October: Critical design review  
                           December: Design tests       

Source: U.S. Navy.

                                   Hull Form

Description

DD(X) uses a radically new hull design to reduce the radar cross section
of the ship. Development also includes design of a new propeller. The hull
form development model supports ship performance parameters for
survivability, operations in various ocean environments, and speed. Models
are currently being tested for three critical technical parameters: hull
form resistance, efficiency of the propeller, and capsize probability.

Progress

o  Development of software model used to predict hull form behavior is
continuing.

             Table 19: Schedule of Key Events Relating to Hull Form

2004 2005 2006 to Future

December: Initial model   February: Resistance, powering, To be determined 
            tests                                        and 
September: Maneuvering  cavitation tests with design      
            tests          propeller                         
                           March: Sea keeping and loads      
                           tests                             
                           July: Hull form scale model tests 
                             July: Critical design review    

Source: U.S. Navy.

Enclosure VI: Other Engineering Development Models

                       Autonomic Fire Suppression System

Description

The autonomic fire suppression system utilizes new technologies such as
smart valves, flexible hosing, nozzles, sensors, and autonomic operations
to reduce the crew and time needed for damage control. This system is
vital for meeting performance parameters for ship survivability and
manning as measured by three critical technical parameters: time for
automatic reconfiguration of fire suppression systems and the autonomic
reduction of temperature in the primary and adjacent damage areas. Testing
for these critical technical parameters was performed on two Navy test
ships and has been successful.

Progress

o  	An initial test aboard the ex-Peterson, a test ship, successfully
demonstrated the system's ability to detect damage and control fires.

o  	Tests aboard the ex-Shadwell, another test ship, are demonstrating the
same abilities for specific ship environments.

o  	Because the exact components used in testing aboard the ex-Shadwell
may not be the ones used in ship construction, Navy officials state that
it is unclear how the engineering development model will translate into
final ship design.

Table 20: Schedule of Events Relating to Autonomic Fire Suppression System

2003 2004 2005

September: Preliminary design review	January: Weapons effects testing on
January-April: Testing for specific ship ex-Peterson environments on
ex-Shadwell

                       September: Critical design review

Source: U.S. Navy.

                        Total Ship Computing Environment

Description

This engineering development model seeks to demonstrate a single computing
environment for all ship systems to speed command while reducing manning.
This development model consists primarily of software, with program
officials estimating that it will require a total of 20 million lines of
new and reused code. The system contributes to manning, interoperability,
and survivability performance parameters and is measured by six critical
technical parameters. These include speed of data delivery, defense
against information security threats, the ability to both track and engage
targets, contribution to ship threat response times, and time required to
recover after equipment failure. The program office states that the
ability of the total ship computing environment to achieve these
parameters was demonstrated through testing of the second software
release.

               Enclosure VI: Other Engineering Development Models

Progress

o  Two of seven software blocks released.

o  Software production following disciplined development plan.

o  Schedule has limited margin for correction of defects found in testing.

Table 21: Schedule of Events Relating to Total Ship Computing Environment

                                 2003 2004 2005

September: Preliminary   May: Critical design    March: Software release 2 
       design review               review                       certification 
                          June: Software release 1 May-September: Land-based  
                          certification            tests                      
                                                      September: Software     
                                                           release 3          
                                                         certification        

Source: U.S. Navy.

                         Enclosure VII: Agency Comments

                                    (120403)

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone 	The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: 	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

To Report Fraud, Contact:

Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400Congressional U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street
NW, Room 7125 Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs 	Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

                                   PRINTED ON
*** End of document. ***