US Navy News

The theory and practice of the Profession of Arms through the ages.
Paul Nuttall
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 5:19 pm

Re: US Navy News

Post by Paul Nuttall »

General Dynamics Unveils AD(X) VLS-Reloading Destroyer Tender

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... er-tender/

Image

General Dynamics NASSCO is looking to U.S. Navy for interest in new VLS reloading destroyer tenders, known as AD(X), as part of a combined buy of common hulls with the future AS(X) submarine tender.

Crystal City, Va — General Dynamics NASSCO unveiled its internally developed concept for an AD(X) destroyer tender at the Surface Navy Association’s National Symposium in Washington last week, pitching the ship class as a near-identical ship to the AS(X) submarine tender NASSCO is building for the U.S. Navy.

NASSCO provided new details on AS(X) as well as the potential AD(X) destroyer tender in an interview with Brett Hershman, Director of Government Relations & Business Development at General Dynamics NASSCO.

The destroyer tender concept is based on the AS(X) submarine tender hull which NASSCO is on contract to deliver in coming years. The submarine tenders will replace the Emory S. Land-class tenders homeported in Apra Harbor, Guam, and will add capability to service Block V Virginia-class attack submarines as well as Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines.

“The submarine tender is a two-ship program of record to replace the two ships that are out at Guam,” Hershman explained to Naval News. “It’s a one-to-one replacement that is more capable of tending Virginia Block V and Columbia.”

The destroyer tender, unlike AS(X), is an internal NASSCO effort. “You can take a submarine tender. It’s the same concept, same hull, and a big floating maintenance facility,” Hershman explained, justifying the reasoning behind NASSCO’s work. “If you wanted to, rather than make it two ships, you can make it a larger program.”

Having a common hull across both ship designs can reduce costs and build experience with yard workers. Short programs with few ships comes with more risk and higher cost by laws of economic ordering quantities, but with more ships in a class—or in this case sub-classes, cost and risk can be reduced while adding shipyard experience, confidence, and resilience.


A key demand signal NASSCO recognized ahead of its development of the destroyer tender concept was the U.S. Navy’s need to reload VLS at-sea and underway. The fleet has previously used T-AKRs and T-AKEs for reloading, according to Hershman, and a common hull used for reloading would build skill and proficiency for the crews that will eventually work VLS reloading mechanisms in development.

The tenders will have a VLS-reloading capability for up to four destroyers with only minor modifications to the parent AS(X) design. Those changes could even save costs rather than add them, according to Hershman. The modifications include changes to crane length and maintenance areas—removing radiation shielding from the AS(X) submarine tender and adding crane length capability to service wider destroyer-sized ships.

AS(X) already has dynamic positioning systems to keep the ship static in place, enabling Navy CONOPS that seek out reloading capability in harbors or atolls that are protected from open ocean environments. AD(X) would have the same dynamic positioning equipment to hold steady for reloading and material transfer missions.

Work to deliver a VLS reloading capability is still in progress with additional testing planned on the USNS Montford Point, an Expeditionary Transfer Dock, in 2026. That work will inform the ultimate possibility of a new destroyer tender being added to the fleet.
User avatar
jemhouston
Posts: 6232
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 12:38 am

Re: US Navy News

Post by jemhouston »

If they had build some of those for the LCS squadrons, would that have helped the program?
Nightwatch2
Posts: 2190
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:50 am

Re: US Navy News

Post by Nightwatch2 »

jemhouston wrote: Sat Jan 31, 2026 2:29 pm If they had build some of those for the LCS squadrons, would that have helped the program?
Maybe. Depends upon how the LCS squadrons would be deployed.

The key purpose of a tender is to support forward deployed forces away from homeport or other shipyard facilities. If an LCS squadron were forward deployed as a squadron then a supporting tender would absolutely be essential.

And to your point, LCS are being forward deployed. So far with overseas shipyards under contract to support them.

As a side note, the remaining LCS ships are finally finding their “sea legs” with additional weapons and mission packages installed along with a better manning plan, training tracks and support. The mine warfare system in particular is working out well.

We have 28 (?) of these ships and we need hulls in the water and forward deployed. Properly supported and employed, these ships are proving useful.
User avatar
jemhouston
Posts: 6232
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 12:38 am

Re: US Navy News

Post by jemhouston »

Was it Stuart or someone else that said, "The best purpose of LCS is weeding out poor COs before they get to a major vessel."
Nightwatch2
Posts: 2190
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:50 am

Re: US Navy News

Post by Nightwatch2 »

jemhouston wrote: Sun Feb 01, 2026 12:20 am Was it Stuart or someone else that said, "The best purpose of LCS is weeding out poor COs before they get to a major vessel."
Perhaps.

But I think that as the growing pains have been worked out they can be put to good use.

We do need numbers
Johnnie Lyle
Posts: 3912
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:27 pm

Re: US Navy News

Post by Johnnie Lyle »

Paul Nuttall wrote: Sat Jan 31, 2026 1:08 pm General Dynamics Unveils AD(X) VLS-Reloading Destroyer Tender

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... er-tender/

Image

General Dynamics NASSCO is looking to U.S. Navy for interest in new VLS reloading destroyer tenders, known as AD(X), as part of a combined buy of common hulls with the future AS(X) submarine tender.

Crystal City, Va — General Dynamics NASSCO unveiled its internally developed concept for an AD(X) destroyer tender at the Surface Navy Association’s National Symposium in Washington last week, pitching the ship class as a near-identical ship to the AS(X) submarine tender NASSCO is building for the U.S. Navy.

NASSCO provided new details on AS(X) as well as the potential AD(X) destroyer tender in an interview with Brett Hershman, Director of Government Relations & Business Development at General Dynamics NASSCO.

The destroyer tender concept is based on the AS(X) submarine tender hull which NASSCO is on contract to deliver in coming years. The submarine tenders will replace the Emory S. Land-class tenders homeported in Apra Harbor, Guam, and will add capability to service Block V Virginia-class attack submarines as well as Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines.

“The submarine tender is a two-ship program of record to replace the two ships that are out at Guam,” Hershman explained to Naval News. “It’s a one-to-one replacement that is more capable of tending Virginia Block V and Columbia.”

The destroyer tender, unlike AS(X), is an internal NASSCO effort. “You can take a submarine tender. It’s the same concept, same hull, and a big floating maintenance facility,” Hershman explained, justifying the reasoning behind NASSCO’s work. “If you wanted to, rather than make it two ships, you can make it a larger program.”

Having a common hull across both ship designs can reduce costs and build experience with yard workers. Short programs with few ships comes with more risk and higher cost by laws of economic ordering quantities, but with more ships in a class—or in this case sub-classes, cost and risk can be reduced while adding shipyard experience, confidence, and resilience.


A key demand signal NASSCO recognized ahead of its development of the destroyer tender concept was the U.S. Navy’s need to reload VLS at-sea and underway. The fleet has previously used T-AKRs and T-AKEs for reloading, according to Hershman, and a common hull used for reloading would build skill and proficiency for the crews that will eventually work VLS reloading mechanisms in development.

The tenders will have a VLS-reloading capability for up to four destroyers with only minor modifications to the parent AS(X) design. Those changes could even save costs rather than add them, according to Hershman. The modifications include changes to crane length and maintenance areas—removing radiation shielding from the AS(X) submarine tender and adding crane length capability to service wider destroyer-sized ships.

AS(X) already has dynamic positioning systems to keep the ship static in place, enabling Navy CONOPS that seek out reloading capability in harbors or atolls that are protected from open ocean environments. AD(X) would have the same dynamic positioning equipment to hold steady for reloading and material transfer missions.

Work to deliver a VLS reloading capability is still in progress with additional testing planned on the USNS Montford Point, an Expeditionary Transfer Dock, in 2026. That work will inform the ultimate possibility of a new destroyer tender being added to the fleet.
Commander Salamander commented pretty extensively on both this and the subtender contract, and his verdict was “more please.”

We need more tenders and other assorted ships to enable ships in forward operating areas can be maintained and refurbished in said forward operating areas, just as we did in WWII.
User avatar
Pdf27
Posts: 1563
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 10:49 pm

Re: US Navy News

Post by Pdf27 »

Johnnie Lyle wrote: Sun Feb 01, 2026 3:32 amWe need more tenders and other assorted ships to enable ships in forward operating areas can be maintained and refurbished in said forward operating areas, just as we did in WWII.
Particularly as host nation basing is going to get a lot more unavailable over the coming 3 years, based on the past year's performance.
War is less costly than servitude. The choice is always between Verdun and Dachau. - Jean Dutourd
Paul Nuttall
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 5:19 pm

Re: US Navy News

Post by Paul Nuttall »

Question on the bow, it it that design, almost PCTC design, to maximise volume??
Paul Nuttall
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 5:19 pm

Re: US Navy News

Post by Paul Nuttall »

https://news.usni.org/2026/04/21/navy-w ... in-fy-2028

Navy Wants to Buy $17B Trump-class Battleship in FY 2028

THE PENTAGON – The Navy wants to buy the first Trump-class battleship in next year’s budget submission, a schedule that would allow the service to make the purchase before President Donald Trump leaves office.

The first battleship, known as BBG(X), is currently programmed in the five-year budget outlook for Fiscal Year 2028, according to the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2027 budget request, reviewed by USNI News.

Speaking to reporters on Friday ahead of the budget rollout, Navy deputy assistant secretary for budget Rear Adm. Ben Reynolds dismissed observers who say the battleship is not a Navy requirement.

“We’ve been pursuing a larger surface combatant for many years. I think we’ve invested over five years in DDG(X) large surface combatant,” Reynolds said.

Building the 30,000-ton battleship allows the Navy to avoid tradeoffs it would need to make if it pursued a smaller ship, he said.

“This will be able to do many, many things that our DDGs cannot, just like the frigate fills a hole that our DDG doesn’t,” Reynolds said. “We’re down to now – with cruisers going away – you’re down to one kind of ship.”

In the FY 2027 budget submission, formally unveiled Tuesday at the Defense Department, the Navy is seeking $1 billion in advance procurement funding out of the shipbuilding account for the battleship. The service is also asking Congress for $837 million in research and development funding for the program.

“We are already moving out right now. So I think we’re using about $134 million of design money now. I think we will likely go to Congress – likely – to ask for additional funds through above threshold reprogramming for this year in ‘26 for R&D, to move now in ‘26. Then that will go with our AP and R&D in ‘27 to get after … beginning construction in ‘28.” Reynolds told reporters.

Across the future years defense program, the Pentagon’s five-year budget outlook, the Navy plans to spend $43.5 billion in procurement funding on the battleship, Reynolds said.

In the FY 2028 budget submission the Defense Department will unveil next year when it buys the first ship, the Navy projects asking for $17 billion in procurement funding. The service currently projects buying the second ship in FY 2030, when it will seek $13 billion, and the third ship in FY 2031, when it will ask Congress for $11.5 billion, according to Reynolds. The Navy is not planning to use incremental funding authority.

In 2021, the Navy said it wanted to buy the first DDG(X) in FY 2028. The service in 2022 unveiled the DDG(X) concept, the large surface combatant program slated to follow the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer.

In the FY 2026 budget justification books – which did not include a five-year outlook – the Navy’s documents said: “A formal acquisition strategy for DDG(X) is still being developed.”

Trump and Navy Secretary John Phelan announced in December that the service would pursue a new battleship, which anchors the Trump administration’s pursuit of the Golden Fleet concept. Before announcing the battleship, Phelan cancelled the Constellation-class frigate program and has since said the Navy will buy a frigate based on the Coast Guard’s National Security Cutter built by HII’s Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Miss.
User avatar
jemhouston
Posts: 6232
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 12:38 am

Re: US Navy News

Post by jemhouston »

As much as I like the battleships, the USN doesn't need them. We need a replacement for the CG47 class and a clean sheet DDG.
Johnnie Lyle
Posts: 3912
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:27 pm

Re: US Navy News

Post by Johnnie Lyle »

jemhouston wrote: Tue Apr 21, 2026 10:08 pm As much as I like the battleships, the USN doesn't need them. We need a replacement for the CG47 class and a clean sheet DDG.
A clean sheet DDG is going to be as big or bigger than the TICONDEROGAs. The Japanese ATAGOs are already TICO size.

We’re already seeing contemporary Chinese cruiser proposals in the same size range as the KIROVs, so roughly 25K tons. So basically a CG-47 replacement is going to roughly start in that range.
Post Reply