US Navy News

The theory and practice of the Profession of Arms through the ages.
Paul Nuttall
Posts: 477
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: 6083
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: 2133
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: 6083
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: 2133
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: 3869
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: 1540
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: 477
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??
Post Reply