Trump Class Battleship 2025

Status
Not open for further replies.
Felocie said:
if the predicted role of manned ships is sensor and shooter nodes for USVs then why on earth do they focus more on sheer weapons than sensors?
Click to expand...
Albert Speer wants a word with you.
 
When i first came across this i thought it's a joke, but no they are serious about it. So they think they can build their 10 uber duper 'uge beautiful battleships (probably at 10 billion a pop or likely much more) and no one will react? Do they really want to go into a "battleship" race with China, THE economic engine of the world and THE shipbuilder of the world?

Perhaps someone should remind them how the last naval races went, between Germany and UK in WW1 and Japan and US in WW2, with today's US being yesterday's Germany/Japan.

But hey, at least naval fanboys won't get bored.
 
The PLAN would probably be able to build and complete a similar ship before the 2nd Trump term ends, and at 1/10th of the cost .....

Jokes aside, I do not see this thing to become a reality ......
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/2003240856233607483
View: https://x.com/__CJohnston__/status/2003240856233607483?s=20

Trump Announces Nuclear-Armed Battleships for the U.S. Navy​

www.navalnews.com

Trump Announces Nuclear-Armed Battleships for the U.S. Navy - Naval News

The U.S. Navy will take delivery of new-build battleships, the largest ever built, in an announcement from President Trump in Florida.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
President Trump also confirmed the ships will be armed with the Sea-Launched Cruise Missile – Nuclear (SLCM-N) nuclear-tipped cruise missile being developed for the fleet, adding a new element of the nuclear triad to the surface force.
Click to expand...
 
isayyo2 said:
Official from the USN

Golden Fleet

www.goldenfleet.navy.mil www.goldenfleet.navy.mil

View attachment 796099
Click to expand...

So based on that specs.. I'm trying to calculate how much it costs.. based on empirical equations given here :

1766482655677.png

The equations are as follows :

1766482695185.png

Using that website, and setting some limits e.g 40K tons and 40 knots. and buy of 25 ships with assuming 95% learning curve (complex build). Basically initial cost of the USS Defiant is about 18.6 B USD FY-2025, with subsequent batch hopefully down to 14.2 B USD FY-2025 per copy.

1766482820760.png

To compare that with Burke.. well, for every Defiant. 6-7 Burkes can be build. But for the capability and much expanded weapons, guess that's worth it ?
 

Attachments

  • UJM2-12113893.pdf
    5 MB · Views: 14
The US Navy has form on asking for big warships that never materialise


Just as it ended up being an AEGIS variant of the Spruance class I imagine the Defiant class will be another large destroyer.
Russia has tried to keep one of its Kirov battlecruisers in service for years so as in the 70s onwards it is natural for US planners to look at something similar.
 
Fortunately, it already have BB-47, though its outcome wasn’t too good.
 
I keep asking myself what this gets you that two Burkes (one modified with the large VLS cells) doesn't?

The answer to a mid- late-life crisis?
 
stealthflanker said:
Using that website, and setting some limits e.g 40K tons and 40 knots. and buy of 25 ships with assuming 95% learning curve (complex build). Basically initial cost of the USS Defiant is about 18.6 B USD FY-2025, with subsequent batch hopefully down to 14.2 B USD FY-2025 per copy.
Click to expand...
40kn for 40k ship will certainly cost. They're claiming 30+ though.
DWG said:
I keep asking myself what this gets you that two Burkes (one modified with the large VLS cells) doesn't?

The answer to a mid- late-life crisis?
Click to expand...
2 times short range weapons suit (over two ships), growth space/power, survivability.
If they manage to stick within 5-6 billion, may be actually worth it. Especially if it'll allow replacing Burke design itself with something less packed.
 
stealthflanker said:
So based on that specs.. I'm trying to calculate how much it costs.. based on empirical equations given here :

View attachment 796126

The equations are as follows :

View attachment 796127

Using that website, and setting some limits e.g 40K tons and 40 knots. and buy of 25 ships with assuming 95% learning curve (complex build). Basically initial cost of the USS Defiant is about 18.6 B USD FY-2025, with subsequent batch hopefully down to 14.2 B USD FY-2025 per copy.

View attachment 796128

To compare that with Burke.. well, for every Defiant. 6-7 Burkes can be build. But for the capability and much expanded weapons, guess that's worth it ?
Click to expand...
Isn't the Ford costing around $13 bil? They think they can afford 10 ships class each price point of a carrier???
 
isayyo2 said:
Apparently this IS the DDG(X) now...

Click to expand...

I had been thinking: the specs and subsystems sounded an awful lot like the DDG(X). Canceling the DDG(X), or morphing it into this much larger ship is going to be a huge mistake. It would actually make more sense for this thing to be the nuclear-powered 69-RMA SPY(6) cruiser that we thought it was going to be, slotting in above a DDG(X). At least that would allow the DDG(X) to nominally continue work.

Why are the subsystems so underwhelming for a 30k ton ship? Why are they saying 128 cells when the graphics and the original Naval News reporting indicated 192 cells? Why only 37 RMAs? I don't see why this ship needs to be 30k tons as a lower bound.

Regardless, this ship will be canceled in 5 years time for a more normal-sized destroyer. And in the meantime, Burke Flt IV, V, VI.
 
I had to pinch myself to check that I hadn't entered a time warp and it was April Fool's Day.

Ok I can see that DDG(X) may have been size constrained but I can't really see the logic of an 840-880ft long hull displacing 35,000 tons.
That is 300ft longer and twice the tonnage - not much for one extra Mk.41 and 12 (ignoring the railgun that probably is a non-starter). While the CPS probably takes more space (only 4 on Zumwalt), I doubt that 12 tubes would account for that much growth.

Another comparison is the Japanese AESV with 128-cells, SPY-7 and still over 200ft shorter and 20,000 tons lighter.

Admiral Nakhimov still outpaces it in terms of VLS count - 60 cruise missile VLS and 96 S-400.
The Type 055 has 112 VLS on a third of the displacement of this monster.

So it feels to me probably 200-150ft longer than I'd expect - even including the space needed for the CPS - and where that 20,000 tons is going is a mystery (even assuming some of it is going into armour).

Dilandu said:
From industrial point of view, it seems to be an attempt to fight quantity (of PLAN) with quality (of USN). I.e. USN acknowleged, that it just can't have anything like numerical parity with PLAN in future, and decided instead to turn for larger, heavier units (which US shipyards have less problems constructing).
Click to expand...
Historically the IJN attempted that and we all know how that turned out.
 
Hood said:
Ok I can see that DDG(X) may have been size constrained but I can't really see the logic of an 840-880ft long hull displacing 35,000 tons.
That is 300ft longer and twice the tonnage - not much for one extra Mk.41 and 12 (ignoring the railgun that probably is a non-starter). While the CPS probably takes more space (only 4 on Zumwalt), I doubt that 12 tubes would account for that much growth.
Click to expand...

The Navy's graphic says 12 missiles, which would mean 4 tubes. Even worse than you thought, huh?
 
Big_Zukini said:
That sounds like a logical conclusion. I do believe the intent is to replace Ticonderogas, which increases the navy's capacity. Something will have to be done about that crew size though. 850 is excessive, even if deemed necessary for such size.
Click to expand...
How big is the AAW Flag crew? 100? (Considering that it's a whole second CIC team across at least 4 watches plus all the Admiral's staff.)



DWG said:
I keep asking myself what this gets you that two Burkes (one modified with the large VLS cells) doesn't?
Click to expand...
Flag space. Which none of the Burkes have. Not even the Flight IIIs.
 
Hood said:
Ok I can see that DDG(X) may have been size constrained but I can't really see the logic of an 840-880ft long hull displacing 35,000 tons.
That is 300ft longer and twice the tonnage - not much for one extra Mk.41 and 12 (ignoring the railgun that probably is a non-starter). While the CPS probably takes more space (only 4 on Zumwalt), I doubt that 12 tubes would account for that much growth.
Click to expand...
My IMHO - they are quietly planning to "reluctantly downgrade" the ship to 15.000-20.000 tons, as soon as Congress start to make fuzz. So it would basically turns into reasonably-size missile cruiser, that would be able to handle DDG(X) functional with additional bonuses of hypersonic missile tubes and "growing space".
 
Hood said:
Historically the IJN attempted that and we all know how that turned out.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but it's not like USN have any better choice. Trying to compete with PLAN in numbers would be a hopeless proposition from the beginning; USA simply don't have industrial capabilities to build as much, and having two operational theaters to cover basically dictate USN numerical inferiority. So beating quantity with quantity is out of question.
 
I maintain that this project is a direct update on the Baseline Cruiser concept, which means it's not utterly bonkers (although one has to see how it goes in metal). And the provision for the railgun provides a tonnage offset that can be cut if required.

Hope they would raise the flight deck, though.

And yes, it is likely intended to be a leader of Burkes, not their replacement. Considering Burkes are to play a role of very large frigates, this is a very large destroyer.

The most problematic aspects are whether those ships are buildable in any numbers (like USN would need ~10 of them to make any impact) and whether they are buildable at all considering the industrial situation, and how building them would impact parallel Burke production.
 
Dilandu said:
My IMHO - they are quietly planning to "reluctantly downgrade" the ship to 15.000-20.000 tons, as soon as Congress start to make fuzz. So it would basically turns into reasonably-size missile cruiser, that would be able to handle DDG(X) functional with additional bonuses of hypersonic missile tubes and "growing space".
Click to expand...
Agreed.

It's going to be Zumwalt to Des Moines class in size, not 35ktons.
 
Martes said:
I maintain that this project is a direct update on the Baseline Cruiser concept, which means it's not utterly bonkers (although one has to see how it goes in metal). And the provision for the railgun provides a tonnage offset that can be cut if required.

And yes, it is likely intended to be a leader of Burkes, not their replacement. Considering Burkes are to play a role of very large frigates, this is a very large destroyer.

The most problematic aspects are whether those ships are buildable in any numbers (like USN would need ~10 of them to make any impact) and whether they are buildable at all considering the industrial situation, and how building them would impact parallel Burke production.
Click to expand...
The USN is going to need ~30 of them. 1 for each carrier group (~11), 1 for each ARG (~11), 1 for each numered Fleet as Fleet flagships, and a few extras to stash around. I know Japan will strongly request a trio or more.
 
Martes said:
The most problematic aspects are whether those ships are buildable in any numbers (like USN would need ~10 of them to make any impact) and whether they are buildable at all considering the industrial situation, and how building them would impact parallel Burke production.
Click to expand...
They most likely replace San-Antonio class in construction.
 
Dilandu said:
They most likely replace San-Antonio class in construction.
Click to expand...
Not if they're nuclear powered. Only 2 shipyards remain that can do nuclear construction: EB/Groton and Newport News.

Now, if the "battleship" ends up as a turbine-IEP cruiser or stupidly-large-destroyer, then yes HII can build them down in Pascagoula.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Not if they're nuclear powered. Only 2 shipyards remain that can do nuclear construction: EB/Groton and Newport News.

Now, if the "battleship" ends up as a turbine-IEP cruiser or stupidly-large-destroyer, then yes HII can build them down in Pascagoula.
Click to expand...
Currently stated to be CODAG. So seemingly could replace San-Antonio in production line; they are roughly of comparable size (approximately).
 
Scott Kenny said:
Not if they're nuclear powered. Only 2 shipyards remain that can do nuclear construction: EB/Groton and Newport News.

Now, if the "battleship" ends up as a turbine-IEP cruiser or stupidly-large-destroyer, then yes HII can build them down in Pascagoula.
Click to expand...
Current plan is the same propulsion as DDG(X)
 
Scott Kenny said:
I know Japan will strongly request a trio or more.
Click to expand...
They would set a whole new standard.

It would be ironic, though, if Japan builds it's own implementation before the US, and would be interesting to see whether and how they would affect the Chinese deployment program.

And wouldn't it be more sensible for Japan to go for a fast carrier series instead :)
 
Dilandu said:
Currently stated to be CODAG. So seemingly could replace San-Antonio in production line; they are roughly of comparable size (approximately).
Click to expand...
Isn't this ship another 200 feet larger than San Antonio? Anyway as far as i can tell tho NNS and Ingel are the only yards that can build them
 
kqcke for you said:
Isn't this ship another 200 feet larger than San Antonio? Anyway as far as i can tell tho NNS and Ingel are the only yards that can build them
Click to expand...
Yeah, but Ingalls seems to have big enough facilities. They could also reopen the former Avondale shipyard, which have facilities for at least 290 meters long ships.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The USN is going to need ~30 of them. 1 for each carrier group (~11), 1 for each ARG (~11), 1 for each numered Fleet as Fleet flagships, and a few extras to stash around. I know Japan will strongly request a trio or more.
Click to expand...
That's way too much of a ship for that I believe. Even 10-12 is a stretch.
Martes said:
It could (unwittingly?) serve as a conceptual Trojan horse, forcing building equivalents on foes and allies alike.
Click to expand...
I remember reading that both Kiev and Kirov were very close to making USN to go for equiuvalents, indeed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom