Under [Roughhead's] proposal, the first two DDG-1000s would provide opportunities to cultivate technologies that could be incorporated later in other vessels, an aspect of the program Roughead has touted before.Via InsideDefense.
“But what the DDG-1000 brings to our Navy and the two ships that we put on contract recently is an introduction of new technologies that will be very important to how we go forward,” he told Senate appropriators during a March 5 hearing.
This has been coming for awhile, and the "stop at 2" hints I believe we have discussed before, but expect some more heat but little light from Congress as on shipbuilding DDG-1000 looks dead at DDG-1001.
If there is justice in the world they will simply call it a CG or CLG or sump'n but a DDG. Odds are, CG(X) will just be an improved and modified DDG-1000 unless the two we make are total white elephants. One way or another, we should keep DDG numbers for the additional Arleigh Burkes that we will need to keep building until we get our shipbuilding head straight.
What a great loss of treasure only to validate what we all know - evolutionary beats revolutionary every time. PPT does not a ship make. Math is hard - engineering is harder.
Hat tip Lee.