<< Dallas TX, MAY 5 2025 >> USN: USX-1 -- The most important weapon you've never heard of Here at TDM we usually tend to be Aerospace oriented. While we now reside on the prairies of Texas, we all grew up in a coastal area near naval bases. So naval and nautical issues are always dear to us. So this article will deal with a very real problem the US navy has. That is the issue of not having enough vessels that carry the Mk 41 VLS launch system. Today naval power is measured not in tonnage, but in the number of available VLS cells. So what is a Mk 41 VLS launcher ?? The Mark 41 Vertical Launch System The Mk 41 Vertical Launching System (VLS) is a modular, canister-based missile launching system developed by the United States Navy to provide surface combatants with a flexible and rapid-response strike capability. Introduced in the 1980s and still in widespread use today, the Mk 41 VLS is installed on a variety of U.S. and allied naval ships, including Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and Ticonderoga-class cruisers. Its design enables missiles to be launched vertically from cells below the ship’s deck, allowing for 360-degree coverage and a faster response time compared to angled launchers. The modular architecture allows different types and numbers of launch cells to be configured based on the mission needs of each ship. One of the Mk 41 VLS system’s major strengths is its ability to fire a wide variety of missile types, making it a highly versatile component of naval warfare. It can launch surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) such as the RIM-66 Standard Missile (SM-2), SM-3, and SM-6, which are used for area air defense and ballistic missile defense. It should also be noted the latest SM-6 versions can be used as an active radar terminally guided anti ship and ground attack missile. Its a real "All Up" round. The Mk 41 also supports the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) for point defense against aircraft and incoming missiles. In addition to defensive weapons, the Mk 41 can launch offensive munitions like the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM), providing long-range strike capabilities against land targets. This variety enables ships to perform multiple mission types without changing launchers or platforms. The Mk 41 is designed with multiple configurations: the Strike Length, Tactical Length, and Self-Defense Length. The Strike-length variant is the longest and can accommodate any missile type, including long-range Tomahawks and SM-3s. The Tactical-length version supports most SAMs but not longer-range weapons like the Tomahawk. The Self-Defense-length variant is shorter still and primarily used for ESSMs or similar shorter missiles. Each launcher module contains eight or more vertical cells, and a ship may carry dozens of these cells depending on its size and mission—up to 122 on a Ticonderoga-class cruiser. A key feature of the Mk 41 is its hot-launch capability, where the missile ignites inside its launch canister and exits vertically using its own propulsion. This system requires advanced exhaust gas management and deck cooling, which are integrated into the VLS architecture. The Mk 41 has proven highly reliable and has become a NATO standard, deployed not only by the U.S. Navy but also by the navies of allies such as Japan, Australia, South Korea, and several European countries. Its proven track record and upgrade potential ensure it will remain in service for decades, with current upgrades supporting new weapons like hypersonic missiles and enhanced command-and-control integration. So Whats the Problem ?? For the navy surface fleet, the problem is the retirement of the Ticonderoga class cruisers. These are basically ships from the 1980s. They really aren't even cruisers, they are a "stretched" version of the even older Spruance class destroyer with a Aegis missile system crammed in. Very much a compromise ship. The Ticonderoga-class cruiser is a class of guided missile warships in the United States Navy, originally introduced in the early 1980s. Designed during the Cold War, these ships were the first to be equipped with the Aegis Combat System, making them among the most advanced surface combatants of their time. They are primarily tasked with air and missile defense, command and control, anti-submarine warfare, and surface strike missions. The Ticonderoga-class was also notable for being the first class of U.S. Navy ships to incorporate the Mk 41 Vertical Launching System (VLS), giving them tremendous versatility in launching a variety of missile types, including SM-series air defense missiles, Tomahawk land-attack missiles, and ASROC anti-submarine rockets. With a displacement of over 9,800 tons and a crew complement of around 330 personnel, these cruisers were built on a modified Spruance-class destroyer hull. They feature 122 VLS cells, making them among the most heavily armed surface combatants ever built. Their primary sensor suite includes the AN/SPY-1 radar, the backbone of the Aegis system, which allows for real-time tracking and engagement of dozens of air and surface threats simultaneously. Ticonderogas have also played a central role in ballistic missile defense (BMD) operations and serve as the air warfare commander in carrier strike groups due to their robust command and control capabilities. However, despite their capabilities, the Ticonderoga-class cruisers face significant aging and maintenance issues. Many of the ships are over 30 years old and have hull fatigue, outdated electrical systems, and structural wear that make them increasingly difficult and expensive to maintain. Modern weapons and sensor systems have grown in power requirements and cooling demands, outstripping the original design limits of these vessels. The Navy has found that upgrades to extend their life are not cost-effective, particularly given the high operational tempo that these ships have maintained over the decades. The Navy has attempted phased retirements of the class, but Congress has often intervened to keep some of them active due to capability gaps. The aging cruisers also suffer from habitability and sustainability issues. Crew quarters and maintenance spaces are considered outdated by modern standards, and the complexity of the systems makes them manpower-intensive. Also these ships have a very narrow beam and high forcastle making them quite top heavy. They roll like a Son of a B**TCH. If you don't get sea sick on a TICO, you probably never will. Moreover, the lack of flexibility for future upgrades—due to space, power, and cooling constraints—means that they are reaching the limits of their operational relevance. While the Aegis system remains potent, newer platforms like the Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and the planned DDG(X) large surface combatants are better suited to integrate future technologies like directed energy weapons and advanced sensors. As such, the Navy is steadily moving toward decommissioning the Ticonderoga-class fleet and replacing their roles through these next-generation platforms. Enter the new cruiser program DDG(X) or CG(X) ?? The CG(X) cruiser program, also known as the Next Generation Cruiser, was a U.S. Navy initiative launched in 2001 to develop a successor to the Ticonderoga-class Aegis cruisers. The program aimed to produce a fleet of 19 advanced warships focused on air and missile defense, particularly ballistic missile defense (BMD), to protect carrier strike groups and other naval assets. Initially, the CG(X) was envisioned to be based on the DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer hull, incorporating a larger and more powerful radar system, the Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR), to enhance detection and tracking capabilities. As the program evolved, considerations were made for a two-class solution: a 14,000-ton escort cruiser and a larger, 23,000-ton BMD-focused ship, potentially nuclear-powered. The nuclear propulsion option was explored to meet the high energy demands of advanced radar systems and future weaponry, such as directed-energy weapons and rail guns. However, this approach raised concerns about cost and feasibility. Cost estimates for the CG(X) program varied. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that building 32 CG(X) cruisers would cost a total of about $70 billion, averaging approximately $2.2 billion per ship. The first ship was projected to cost around $3.2 billion, accounting for design and initial production expenses. A nuclear-powered variant was estimated to have a unit procurement cost of $5 billion or more, due to the complexities and expenses associated with nuclear propulsion systems. Ultimately, the CG(X) program was canceled in 2010, primarily due to escalating costs and shifting strategic priorities. The Navy decided to focus on enhancing the existing Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, developing the Flight III variant equipped with the AMDR system, to fulfill the roles initially intended for the CG(X). Looking ahead, the Navy plans to develop the DDG(X) program, aiming to create a new class of large surface combatants with the capacity to integrate future technologies and address emerging threats. The U.S. Navy is planning to replace the aging Ticonderoga-class cruisers with a combination of the Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and the forthcoming DDG(X) program. While the Constellation-class frigates are being developed to enhance the Navy's capabilities, they are not intended as direct replacements for the Ticonderoga-class cruisers. The Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyers are equipped with the advanced AN/SPY-6 radar system, providing enhanced air and missile defense capabilities. These destroyers are designed to fulfill some of the roles previously held by the Ticonderoga-class, particularly in air defense and command and control. However, due to limitations in space, weight, power, and cooling margins, the Flight III destroyers may not fully accommodate future technological advancements. To address these limitations, the Navy is developing the DDG(X) program, which aims to create a new class of large surface combatants. The DDG(X) is envisioned to incorporate lessons from both the Arleigh Burke and Zumwalt-class designs, featuring larger missile launch systems, improved survivability, and greater capacity for future growth in terms of space, weight, power, and cooling. This program is intended to eventually replace both the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and the Ticonderoga-class cruisers. As of now, the U.S. Navy does not have a dedicated "next-generation cruiser" program in the traditional sense. Instead, the Navy has shifted its focus to the development of a next-generation large surface combatant under the DDG(X) program, which is intended to eventually replace both the Ticonderoga-class cruisers and older Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. Here's the current status: CG(X) Cruiser Program – Canceled The Navy’s original next-gen cruiser program, known as CG(X), was canceled in 2010 due to high costs, shifting mission needs, and technological risk. It was meant to be a large, potentially nuclear-powered cruiser with advanced missile defense and radar systems. Current Cruiser Role Transition The Navy is phasing out the Ticonderoga-class cruisers and covering the gap in capabilities with: Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyers (with SPY-6 radar and upgraded systems). Enhanced command-and-control capabilities being integrated into other platforms (like carriers and amphibious ships). DDG(X) – Future Large Surface Combatant The DDG(X) program is the true successor in terms of capability to what a next-generation cruiser would be: Significantly larger and more capable than current destroyers. Designed with greater power and cooling capacity to support future weapons (e.g., directed-energy weapons, hypersonic missiles). Will incorporate lessons from both the Arleigh Burke and Zumwalt classes. Expected to begin production in the early-to-mid 2030s. Strategic Context The Navy has moved away from traditional ship type labels (like “cruiser”) and is instead focusing on roles and mission sets. The DDG(X) will likely fulfill the air defense command and area missile defense roles traditionally held by cruisers. In Summary: No, the U.S. Navy does not have a standalone next-generation cruiser program. Instead, it is consolidating that capability into the DDG(X) program — a next-gen multi-role destroyer that will effectively replace the Ticonderoga-class in mission scope. Our Solution - The modified LPD-17 Arsenal Ship the ARS-17 Here at TDM we have spent many nights around our fireplace with a nice Orvieto Classico wine discussing this problem. So we proposed an Arsenal ship based on the LPD -17 hull. Why The LPD -17. Its big, spacious, in production, and built to MIL standards. This is evolutionary, not revolutionary. It would also have logistics commonality with the amphibious fleet. So what would a ARS-17 look like ?? If you convert the LPD-17 San Antonio-class hull into a dedicated arsenal ship—removing the well deck, vehicle bays, and troop quarters—you could realistically install 256 Mk 41 VLS cells, depending on internal reconfiguration, structural reinforcements, and support systems. Key Modifications Assumed: Remove well deck and amphibious support systems: This alone clears out approximately 15,000–20,000 ft² of deck and volume space below the flight deck. Eliminate troop and vehicle storage: Frees up extensive internal space in the lower and main decks for VLS modules and support infrastructure. Use mission bay and lower hangar space for VLS and system support. No aviation capability or only a small landing pad (minimal flight deck facilities). Mk 41 VLS Footprint and Layout: Each Mk 41 8-cell module: Requires ~25' (L) × 8' (W) floor space per module. Needs at least 20–25 feet of vertical depth for the launcher and exhaust. Assuming tight packing, reinforced decks, and centralized exhaust handling, you could install: 256 cells using two-tiered or split-deck arrangements in former cargo/well deck zones and additional modules beneath the flight deck area. This matches or exceeds current arsenal submarines like the Modified Ohio-class SSGN (154 cells) or theoretical “Arsenal Ship” designs from the 1990s. The Missile mix would be the usual : Tomahawk cruise missiles, SM-series (SM-2/3/6), ESSM, LRASM, ASROC, and possibly hyper sonics (if cells are modified). The ARS-17 could be used for Strategic strike, theater missile defense, distributed lethality, and saturation salvo launcher, basically anything you could use a Mk 41 for. Crew: Could be reduced vs LPD-17 (from ~350 to ~100–150) due to reduced operations and automation. One subject we hotly debated was whether or not this ship should have strike planning capability on board or just get it from a neighboring cruiser or via satellite from the continental USA. ARS 17 Summary: A fully converted LPD-17 arsenal ship could accommodate 256 Mk 41 VLS cells, giving it firepower on par with or exceeding a Ticonderoga-class cruiser or even an Ohio-class SSGN. The actual number would depend on exact layout, deck reinforcement, and support infrastructure design. This concept has a least one MAJOR problem. "Never put all your Eggs in one Basket". These ARS-17 ships would be a very high priority target for any naval adversary in a shooting war. To lose 256 VLS cells with one hit would hurt. How to fix this issue ?? Enter USX-1 Defiant. The Better Solution - The USX-1 Defiant The USX-1 Defiant is a groundbreaking experimental unmanned surface vessel (USV) developed by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) under the No Manning Required Ship (NOMARS) program. Launched in February 2025, this 180-foot, 240-metric-ton vessel is designed to operate autonomously without any onboard crew, marking a significant shift in naval architecture and operational concepts. By eliminating all human-centric design elements, the Defiant aims to achieve enhanced reliability, reduced costs, and improved performance in various maritime conditions . Constructed by Serco at the Nichols Brothers Boat Builders shipyard in Washington State, the Defiant embodies a novel approach to ship design. Its architecture excludes traditional features such as crew quarters, ventilation systems, and life-support infrastructure, allowing for a more compact and efficient design. This streamlined configuration not only reduces construction and maintenance costs but also enhances hydrodynamic efficiency and stealth capabilities, making the vessel more resilient to detection and adverse sea conditions . The Defiant is equipped with advanced autonomous systems that enable it to perform extended missions without human intervention. Notably, it features an autonomous refueling capability, allowing it to remain operational at sea for up to a year. This endurance is facilitated by a hybrid propulsion system and sophisticated onboard sensors that manage navigation, system diagnostics, and environmental monitoring. Such capabilities are critical for missions that require prolonged presence in contested or remote maritime regions . In terms of operational deployment, the Defiant is envisioned to play a pivotal role in future naval strategies, particularly in scenarios that demand rapid and flexible responses. Its modular design allows for the integration of various payloads, including surveillance equipment and potentially missile systems. This versatility makes it suitable for a range of missions, from intelligence gathering to offensive operations. The U.S. Navy is considering the deployment of such unmanned vessels in strategic areas like the Taiwan Strait to enhance deterrence and operational reach . Currently, the USX-1 Defiant is undergoing a series of rigorous sea trials to validate its autonomous systems, endurance, and overall performance. These tests are crucial for assessing the vessel's readiness for integration into the Navy's operational fleet. The outcomes will inform future developments in unmanned maritime technologies and could lead to the mass production of similar vessels, fundamentally transforming naval warfare and maritime operations . Here are the key performance specifications and system details of the USX-1 Defiant unmanned surface vessel (USV), based on the most current information from DARPA and defense sources: Performance Specifications Feature Specification Length Approximately 180 feet (55 meters) Displacement 240 metric tons (approximate) Speed Estimated 20–25 knots (37–46 km/h) Endurance Up to 1 year at sea autonomously Range Thousands of nautical miles (exact range not publicly disclosed, but designed for ocean-crossing missions) Propulsion System The USX-1 Defiant uses a hybrid diesel-electric propulsion system, which provides both: Efficient long-duration cruising using electric motors, especially during low-speed or loitering operations. Diesel engines for higher-speed transits and energy-demanding operations. This hybrid setup enables: Autonomous refueling (currently under development and testing). Reduced acoustic and thermal signatures. Lower maintenance and improved fuel efficiency. Additionally, the vessel lacks traditional human-support systems, freeing up internal space and reducing energy demand. Weapons & Payload Systems As of now, the USX-1 Defiant has no confirmed offensive weapon systems, but it is designed with modular payload bays to support: 2 Mk 41 VLS strike length launchers carrying 16 missiles. Surveillance and reconnaissance gear (electro-optical, radar, sonar). Electronic warfare equipment. Possible future integration of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) launch systems. DARPA has indicated that the vessel is a technology demonstrator, meaning it can be used to test and validate future naval weapons, sensors, and operational doctrines for unmanned warfare. Key Design Benefits Crew less architecture: Allows for cost-effective and risk-free deployment in contested zones. Reduced maintenance needs: Designed to operate for extended periods without human intervention. Stealth: Lacks typical superstructure, minimizing radar and infrared signature. NOTE: All pictures of the USX-1 have the superstructure covered by tarps, obviously something classified . Very rough cost estimate for a combat coded Defiant class USV with 2 Mk 41 VLS cells would realistically aim for a unit cost in the $90–120 million range, depending on sensor suite and combat integration. This makes it a highly affordable missile platform, particularly if procured in numbers to augment existing destroyers and cruisers. With Mk 41 cells we can see the Defiant has offensive and defensive missile punch. What is not clear is what its sensor capability is and how those sensors would be "netted" into the fleet. The Defiant could be a VERY powerful ISR node. With Flight III Burkes and many USX-1 Defiants, who needs a new cruiser ?? Basically with Flight III Burke Destoyers queueing and controlling several Defiant USVs you may not need an expensive new surface combatant. The Flight III Burkes would operate as "Destroyer Leaders" herding large groups of these VLS armed drone ships. What is unclear about the USX-1 is its power generation capacity and its ability to carry future directed energy weapons. In TDMs humble opinion, this is how we beat the PLA navy at Sea. SUMMARY This article discusses the challenges facing the U.S. Navy due to the aging Ticonderoga-class cruisers, which were once at the forefront of naval power thanks to their integration of the Mk 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS). The Mk 41 VLS provides ships with the capability to launch a wide range of missiles, making it a flexible and powerful tool for both defensive and offensive operations. With VLS cell count now serving as a key measure of naval firepower, the retirement of Ticonderoga-class ships, which carry 122 VLS cells each, represents a significant capability gap. Newer destroyers like the Arleigh Burke-class Flight III offer advanced systems like the AN/SPY-6 radar but may not be able to fully replace the cruisers' large VLS capacity or accommodate future technologies due to space and power constraints. To address this gap, past and current naval programs have explored replacements. The CG(X) next-generation cruiser initiative, which aimed to field large, heavily armed, and possibly nuclear-powered ships, was eventually canceled due to high costs and shifting defense priorities. Instead, the Navy shifted focus to enhancing the Arleigh Burke-class and initiating the DDG(X) program—a future class of large surface combatants designed with growth margins for next-gen weapons like lasers and hypersonics. The DDG(X) will carry more VLS cells and offer better integration of new technologies, though it will not arrive until the 2030s. In the meantime, the Navy is relying on a combination of upgraded destroyers and shifting some command and control roles to other platforms. As a creative solution, TDM proposes converting the LPD-17 amphibious ship into an “Arsenal Ship” (ARS-17), capable of carrying up to 256 VLS cells—more than any current U.S. surface combatant. However, this presents a high-value single target, raising survivability concerns. As an alternative, the article introduces the USX-1 Defiant, an unmanned surface vessel developed under DARPA's NOMARS program. The Defiant has no crew and is designed for long-endurance, low-maintenance missions with modular payload capability—including VLS cells. While still in testing, it represents a promising direction for distributed, survivable missile firepower in future naval warfare.