I think they shoot simple solid type of rods to keep the loading simple, the barrel short, and the energy requirement low. So these shots are unlikely for anti-tank but more for range and probably fragmentation/incendary.
Thanks for the reply. I know the goal for EM rail guns is to create massive kinetic energy destruction, I just don't think this will be the case for naval use. I know the Textron Systems Hornet Anti-Armor Kinetic Kill weapon uses a Beryllium, explosive shaped projectile which does penetrate the top if the turret and then basically obliterates everything internally but at a very close range (in feet).
Ton of wasted space there. And good luck finding 250,000 shipbuilders with the complete dogshit job the Dept of "Edukashun" has done over the last 20 years.
Six moths ago I could not speel Eingonear, now I are one. They also would not award me my Bachelor's degree because I was married.
www.twz.com
I wonder why so much empty space up front.Discussion of lasers on BBG(X), and another phto of the model.
Trump Class Battleships Could Get Megawatt Lasers: Navy's Top Officer
The dream of laser weapons has not materialized nearly as fast as the Pentagon once thought it would, but the Navy's top officer wants to overcome that.
View attachment 798532
to fit in all the carriers and their air wing that couldn't be built to get money for this computer model.
Yes, that is going to suck. Really suck.
Crew has to live somewhere.
Space for Cher to sing?
I don't think that this model or the renderings we've seen are accurate representations of whatever design there might be, at whatever stage it might be. Others have pointed out fundamental design flaws, such as putting laser directors where they'd have limited coverage and an aft helideck too close to the waterline. If this is somewhat accurate, I'd guess a lot more VLSs.
Considering useful railguns don't exist yet and may never exist. The Japanese one fire unguided APFSDS without sufficient space for explosives and guidance, not to mention the rail erosion issue. I hope they don't design those in.
Should be five since that's what we're demanding of other NATO members.Relevant:
Navy chief calls for defense spending to hit ‘new normal’ of 4% GDP
Navy chief calls for defense spending to hit 'new normal' of 4% GDP - Breaking Defense
“We need to make a dent into that,” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle said of the Navy's 355-ship requirement. “I think the chairman, and I think the secretary of Navy and the secretary of War agree that that the Navy needs a budget commensurate with its mission set.”breakingdefense.com
Well, a Burke has a crew of
IIRC it was in need of new power supplies, faster cycling ones.
IIRC the one the USN was working on was technically a coilgun, not rails. But everyone called it a railgun.
It'll probably have the same as a Burke 3. And yes, likely Mk58, as the LWT launchers are effectively worthless. No sub should be getting within Mk54 range of a surface ship!
Ah, yeah, I did mess that up. Should be ~325 for Burke crew. But we're still talking a good 150 more bodies for the Flag CIC and flag staff. ~13-20 people on watch times 5 watches is 65-100 just for the CIC, plus the Admiral/Commodore and staff (~20), plus the extra cooks and stewards (yes they still exist) needed to feed house and clothe all of them.
Oh? Interesting!
In isolation, yes.
www.navalnews.com
Because the R&D costs always get lumped into the first ship of the class. I don't think that the follow on ships would cost $10b nevermind $15b.Holy crap!
CBO: Initial battleship could cost $15B-$21B
CBO: Initial battleship could cost $15B-$21B | InsideDefense.com
The Trump-class battleship could cost $15 billion to $21 billion for the lead vessel if it was ordered in 2030 and average $10 billion to $15 billion for follow-on ships, according to early estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.insidedefense.com
If you include the development costs, sure.
Probably. I'm expecting the final thing to be a 25kton ship, more or less a Des Moines-class CA, not an Iowa or rather a North Carolina-class BB.
That's what I've been assuming, the Blue Ridge LCCs are ancient.
This assumes that the Dems actually retake congress in 2026.
I assume at 25k it isn't possible to combine everything in a desired package. DDGX lost even gun.
DDGX was only like 15k tons, though.
Agreed.
I'm assuming that we're going to end up with BBGs and then something roughly Burke sized or ~12-13ktons as the replacements for the Burkes.
Overall agreed, but my assumption at this point is that BBGs aren't meant to form SAGs with DDs. Burke is much of BBG capability minus offensive capability - which is the entire point), but little of its survivability. It honestly doesn't make too much sense to operate them together in harm's way.
