BBG(X) - DISCUSSION ONLY

[Training_Dummy]

this thread has become an incredibly understandable sharing of strong preferences; here are mine:

- BBG(X) should be designed to be upgradable
- BBG(X) should be survivable not only in the sense of plating and spacing, but highly redundant systems which means being able to fight the ship from multiple locations.
- no matter how shitty and expensive BBG(X) becomes, the US should build at least 20, provided the above. The US overweights sunk cost logic for platforms that start poorly but can be upgraded to value-relevance… can you imagine if the US has 500 Raptors, double digit Seawolves AND Zummies, 40-60 B-2s, has anyone said anything recently about the value of an extra flattop to throw around (just asking)?

That could be useful. Right?

 

[Brett Davidson]

Discussion of lasers on BBG(X), and another phto of the model.

https://www.twz.com/news-features/t...s-could-get-megawatt-lasers-navys-top-officer

 

[Scott Kenny]

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.

Yes, that is going to suck. Really suck.

That said, IIRC Pascagoula is going to have nothing to do soon, which will help with building the BBGs.

I wonder why so much empty space up front.

Crew has to live somewhere.

And they may have a very large magazine for the 5" guns taking up that space if they're planning on firing 5" HVPs at incoming missiles.

=================

How do you turn a webp into an actually useful format on Linux? I wanted to bring the specifications image over here.

================

Anyways, the missile battery is looking like 12x3 CPS plus SLCM-Ns for some reason and 128x Mk41 cells. IMO they could stick 40x PVLS cells on the port&starboard sides of the helo pad.

The gun battery is interesting. Railgun, 2x 5", possibly 2x 600kw and 4x 300kw lasers per the article text, either 2x 300kw OR 2x 600kw per the image.

Then we get to the "anti torpedo boat" stuff: 2x RAM, 4x 30mm (I assume Mk38Mod4s), 4x ODIN laser dazzlers, and "2x Counter UxS Systems" that I am reading as HPMW emitters.

 

[Cifu]

What we missing is any kind of mention of the sonar systems (bow and/or towed array) and torpedo launcher (Mk32 SVTT or the replacement ATT / Mk58 Compact Rapid Attack Weapon (CRAW)) ).

 

[Brett Davidson]

I wonder why so much empty space up front.

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.

 

[cccgong]

And they may have a very large magazine for the 5" guns taking up that space if they're planning on firing 5" HVPs at incoming missiles.

================

Anyways, the missile battery is looking like 12x3 CPS plus SLCM-Ns for some reason and 128x Mk41 cells. IMO they could stick 40x PVLS cells on the port&starboard sides of the helo pad.

The gun battery is interesting. Railgun, 2x 5", possibly 2x 600kw and 4x 300kw lasers per the article text, either 2x 300kw OR 2x 600kw per the image.

Then we get to the "anti torpedo boat" stuff: 2x RAM, 4x 30mm (I assume Mk38Mod4s), 4x ODIN laser dazzlers, and "2x Counter UxS Systems" that I am reading as HPMW emitters.

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.

It's a somewhat similar story to the megawatt fiber laser as they are no where near ready.

Gun based 30mm airburst or 5 inch gun (with airburst) would be a better antidrone system than any HPMW and is already installed.

 

[Sferrin]

Relevant:

Navy chief calls for defense spending to hit ‘new normal’ of 4% GDP​

https://breakingdefense.com/2026/01...-defense-spending-to-hit-new-normal-of-4-gdp/

Should be five since that's what we're demanding of other NATO members.

 

[cccgong]

650-850 crew what are they going to be doing on the ship. That's more than the QE class carrier. Then there's the non-existent 32 MJ railgun as the program was canceled.

 

[Scott Kenny]

650-850 crew what are they going to be doing on the ship. That's more than the QE class carrier.

Well, a Burke has a crew of ~500 325, and it's going to take most of 150 people to cover the Flag CIC, Flag staff, and the extra people to care and feed for them.

Then there's the non-existent 32 MJ railgun as the program was canceled.

IIRC it was in need of new power supplies, faster cycling ones.

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.

IIRC the one the USN was working on was technically a coilgun, not rails. But everyone called it a railgun.

 

[cccgong]

Well, a Burke has a crew of ~500, and it's going to take most of 150 people to cover the Flag CIC, Flag staff, and the extra people to care and feed for them.




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.

Everything I've seen on AB crew size seems to be a bit over 300 not ~500? Additionally AB's don't take advantage of the automation found in later ships. I'd imagine if the AB was designed today, it would have much lower crew maybe low 200s.

IIRC never solved the issue of rail erosion, which is a much large materials/physics issue than power storage which is advancing albeit slowly. It was also definitely a rail gun. I knew people working on it.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What we missing is any kind of mention of the sonar systems (bow and/or towed array) and torpedo launcher (Mk32 SVTT or the replacement ATT / Mk58 Compact Rapid Attack Weapon (CRAW)) ).

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!

Everything I've seen on AB crew size seems to be a bit over 300 not ~500? Additionally AB's don't take advantage of the automation found in later ships. I'd imagine if the AB was designed today, it would have much lower crew maybe low 200s.

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.

Zumwalts are running about 200 crew, so that may be a valid reference.

IIRC never solved the issue of rail erosion, which is a much large materials/physics issue than power storage which is advancing albeit slowly. It was also definitely a rail gun. I knew people working on it.

Oh? Interesting!

 

[Scott Kenny]

Should have used nuclear propulsion.

In isolation, yes.

Given that the contract would have to go to Newport News NSY and replace a carrier in the built schedule, NO, it's not practical to do so.

Only way we could build BBGNs would be to certify one of the west coast shipyards (or former shipyards) for nuclear work and build them there.

 

[Hood]

Maybe the spare ~450 crew are supernumeraries who have to pull the elastic band for the catapult [sic] railgun?

I get why the DDG(X) outgrew its original displacement but this still seems like massive overkill in size for what it carries - even if 35,000 tons was a typo for 25,000 that would still be a lot. Can't help thinking there must be some kind of armour and spacing scheme for survivability at play here.

It's not a terrible concept (railgun excepted) but it seems to be a very ambitious buy in terms of cost and manpower. There is a danger that these ships will become what the QEs have for the RN, a drain that sucks resource out of the escort fleet. Already hints of the that with the FF(X) glorified OPVs. I can see most navies switching to a model of building a few high-end ships and spamming USVs in the hope they are cheaper with no manpower need.
My only worry with that is that China - who seem fairly canny - aren't thinking along those lines and are happily adding the equivalent of a European navy in displacement every year in conventional warships. USVs sound funky but EW/space warfare could make them useless or at least impair their usability. At least a manned warship can act independently on its own.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Holy crap!

CBO: Initial battleship could cost $15B-$21B​

https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/cbo-initial-battleship-could-cost-15b-21b

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.

 

[EmoBirb]

This would exceed the cost of a Ford class CVN, right? For a non nuclear vessel?

Either way, I'm still certain that displacement, crew and some aspects of the armaments will be scaled back over the course of the program (which will still result in something more capable than the preceeding DDG(X) program), so subsequently cost should go down too. But they will probably remain expensive, especially the first couple ships. However it should not be surprising for a "first rate" large surface combatant with flag role. I wonder if these could actually have some overlap with the Blue Ridge ships, with regards to command and control facilities. Could explain some of the initial size, cost and crew requirements.

 

[Scott Kenny]

This would exceed the cost of a Ford class CVN, right? For a non nuclear vessel?

If you include the development costs, sure.

Either way, I'm still certain that displacement, crew and some aspects of the armaments will be scaled back over the course of the program (which will still result in something more capable than the preceeding DDG(X) program), so subsequently cost should go down too. But they will probably remain expensive, especially the first couple ships. However it should not be surprising for a "first rate" large surface combatant with flag role.

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.

I wonder if these could actually have some overlap with the Blue Ridge ships, with regards to command and control facilities. Could explain some of the initial size, cost and crew requirements.

That's what I've been assuming, the Blue Ridge LCCs are ancient.

 

[Hydroman]

It looks like they took the DDG(X) design concept, made it battleship-sized and added more weaponry and capacity. I assume a DDG(X) would have everything except an EM rail gun. If DDG(X) and BBG(X) share design commonalities, that may be the way to go. And again, freeze a good design baseline and don't go ape shit on changes, scope creep, etc.

 

[SlothmanAllen]

This ship is not getting funded. The second the Democrats take back Congress they are going to axe this thing. No way are they going to allow a "Trump class" battleship to built. The Navy can draw up ideas for the Trump class or the FF(X), but unless Congress funds these ideas they are dead in the water.

 

[Scott Kenny]

This ship is not getting funded. The second the Democrats take back Congress they are going to axe this thing. No way are they going to allow a "Trump class" battleship to built. The Navy can draw up ideas for the Trump class or the FF(X), but unless Congress funds these ideas they are dead in the water.

This assumes that the Dems actually retake congress in 2026.

Though I still think that Congress will whine about the costs, the Navy will come back with a smaller design around 20-25ktons that will be approved as a Cruiser/flagship.

 

[Ainen]

This assumes that the Dems actually retake congress in 2026.

Though I still think that Congress will whine about the costs, the Navy will come back with a smaller design around 20-25ktons that will be approved as a Cruiser/flagship.

I assume at 25k it isn't possible to combine everything in a desired package. DDGX lost even gun.
BBGX to me seems coming from 3 ends:
-powerplant to feed energy-intensive weapon suit (which, conveniently, can at this point propel a huge ship to CSG speeds at a cost of steel; same hull will fit more fuel, which is nice)；
-maxed survivability/spacing/arc of fire requirements；
-deck area at a full hull coefficient to keep desired modularity（IRBM cells are deep).
---
propelling it to full speed efficiently took a long, BC-like hull.


I.e. smaller design solves Burke problems, but does not offer that much of an advancement over ship already in production. Rail and lasers do.

 

[Scott Kenny]

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.

BBGX to me seems coming from 3 ends:
-powerplant to feed energy-intensive weapon suit (which, conveniently, can at this point propel a huge ship to CSG speeds at a cost of steel; same hull will fit more fuel, which is nice)；
-maxed survivability/spacing/arc of fire requirements；
-deck area at a full hull coefficient to keep desired modularity（IRBM cells are deep).
---
propelling it to full speed efficiently took a long, BC-like hull.

Agreed.

I.e. smaller design solves Burke problems, but does not offer that much of an advancement over ship already in production. Rail and lasers do.

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.

Ideally we'll get enough BBGs to have 2x BBGs and 4x DDGs per carrier group, 4x SAGs with 2x BBGs and 3x DDGs, plus at least 7 more to be Numbered Fleet flagships, and 2x to replace the LCCs.

And the real ideal would be to build back up to 15 carrier groups, but that's going to take a long time.

 

[Ainen]

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.

Ideally we'll get enough BBGs to have 2x BBGs and 4x DDGs per carrier group, 4x SAGs with 2x BBGs and 3x DDGs, plus at least 7 more to be Numbered Fleet flagships, and 2x to replace the LCCs.

And the real ideal would be to build back up to 15 carrier groups, but that's going to take a long time.

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.
Only BBG and USVs; same for new FFX, which are their own thing(lo in fleet structure, rather than Lo in HiLo to Burkes).

As such, survivable SAGs is one arm, CSGs (with all the freed up Burkes from all other functions) and air defenses is second(Burke), FFX - 3rd(rest of the world in relatively softer underbelly). Finally, LCS in stand in/supporting effort - 4th.

 

[Firefinder]

Way I see it the big part of the size growth for the BBGX is from Range Endurance Needs.

Like to reach 4500 miles of range the Burke need over 1000 tons of fuel, the Zumwalt needs over 2k for 6000 miles. With standard 2 weeks of Endurance.

If the BBGX is actually a strike though CCGX?

Well the old cruisers standard Endurance was four 4 weeks and the Navy prefer over 10k miles of range for cruisers.

So, looking anywhere from double to triple the amount of fuel need.

Heck there was a few studies that look at the needs to keep a CVN escorted the entire time, and those often call for a nearly 30k ship.

And a big use I can see for this thing is doing BMD circles where we have 3 Burkes during it like off of Rota.

Add in additional crew? Cause Imagine that we will not see a sub 200 crew again, on big ships at least, since that been one of the biggest complaints their crews have had with them. So theres even more weight.


Then there is the age old question.

How sure is the Navy about the engineers math on the power storage weight needs that the DDGX was to have? Or any of the new shinnies they want? Is there ANY Chance that the weights may end up heavier then expected? Can anyone say with 200 percent certainty without a hint of a doubt shadow that the new thing math be right on? So, some of that weight likely be just from rounding up the engineer math a few digits.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Add in additional crew? Cause Imagine that we will not see a sub 200 crew again, on big ships at least, since that been one of the biggest complaints their crews have had with them. So theres even more weight.

Depends on how overworked the Zumwalt crews are.

I found some things on the Burkes suggesting 5 section watch rotations, so take however many bodies you need on watch and multiply by 5, then add the supernumeraries and that's your crew. The BBG with 2x CICs is talking ~50 people per watch section. So that's 250 crew not counting cooks, etc. Or the Admiral's staff.

 

[cccgong]

Way I see it the big part of the size growth for the BBGX is from Range Endurance Needs.

Like to reach 4500 miles of range the Burke need over 1000 tons of fuel, the Zumwalt needs over 2k for 6000 miles. With standard 2 weeks of Endurance.

If the BBGX is actually a strike though CCGX?

Well the old cruisers standard Endurance was four 4 weeks and the Navy prefer over 10k miles of range for cruisers.

So, looking anywhere from double to triple the amount of fuel need.

Heck there was a few studies that look at the needs to keep a CVN escorted the entire time, and those often call for a nearly 30k ship.

And a big use I can see for this thing is doing BMD circles where we have 3 Burkes during it like off of Rota.

Add in additional crew? Cause Imagine that we will not see a sub 200 crew again, on big ships at least, since that been one of the biggest complaints their crews have had with them. So theres even more weight.


Then there is the age old question.

How sure is the Navy about the engineers math on the power storage weight needs that the DDGX was to have? Or any of the new shinnies they want? Is there ANY Chance that the weights may end up heavier then expected? Can anyone say with 200 percent certainty without a hint of a doubt shadow that the new thing math be right on? So, some of that weight likely be just from rounding up the engineer math a few digits.

When the DDG(X) was announced, I had the same feeling that it was too light. I believe the ~15kt weight is really just increased range, better crew quarters, and enough electrical generation to account for a single 100kw laser. Basically the mininium viable product for current needs and threats. Politicians and my extension the military have a fetish for designing for the minimum viable product now and kicking future needs down the road, even if it will be cheaper overall to do things right the first time around and not have to either dry-dock the ships for an upgrade (see recent British ships) or design a new ship in the future.

People quote the Japanese BMD ships as what should be building at 12kt. But that's a completely different ship with limited range, minimal crew, no ASW, and likely limited laser power provisions.

If properly specced (not the current 35kt ship with non-sensical guns), I think a CG(X) version of BBG(X) would likely be a better long term solution than the DDG(X).

 

[Dilandu]

Well, as I speculated - the DDG(X) just doesn't fit:


- and Navy finally realized, that trying to fit all they need into as small hull as possible meant problematic ships with no space for future modifications.

The planned 30kt BBG(X) - or more realistic 20 kt CG(X) - would have one vital advantage; they would have all space required for refits for decades to come. Arguably, the 30kt BBG(X) could serve as long as supercarriers; being eventually decommissioned because it would become worn-out, but still not obsolete.

 

[Sferrin]

I assume at 25k it isn't possible to combine everything in a desired package. DDGX lost even gun.

Of course it's possible. Take a Zumwalt, put the two Mk110s back on the hangar, replace the FWD AGS with a Mk45 or railgun, replace the aft AGS with CPS and you're almost there. Yes, yes, we want drone countermeasures, and a few other things, but that's not going to cost you 10k more tons.

 

[fightingirish]

Hello folks, I found this video on Youtube quite interesting.
Ward and Trent conclude that the Trump Class battleships will not be built, but initiate the necessary discussion on the urgent need to lay down new ships for the US Navy.

Ward Carroll - Here's Why the U.S. Navy Won't Build the Trump Class Battleship
Navalist, author, and historian Trent Hone joins the channel to discuss why the U.S. Navy got rid of battleships and why they won't build the Trump Class in the future.

Video:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geFwrm2OT5o

 

[EmoBirb]

Ward and Trent conclude that the Trump Class battleships will not be built, but initiate the necessary discussion on the urgent need to lay down new ships for the US Navy.

I had the displeasure of watching the video upon release, minutes of my life I won't get back (so I would not recommend watching the whole thing, or do at 2x the Speed). His...guest went on a whole tangent about the history of battleships and carriers and acted like the intent was to put a naval gun fire support into the water, as was the case with the ill fated Zumwalt.

When reality is that the BBG(X)/Trump-Class whatever it's being called only shares it's terminology with battleships of old. It's a very large surface combatant with heavy emphasis on long range land attack and anti-ship missile armaments. IIRC he argued that you'd get 3 Burkes or something along the line for a single one of these. Well, for one, they don't compete but supplement each other. But that aside, these ships will be build from the ground up with modern AAW flag facilities designed into them, as far as I understood statements published so far it will take over the role of the lead surface combatant of a given strike group from the obsolete Ticonderoga Class ships. That's something the AB does not truly offer, even the Flight IIIs are more so interim solutions and fully maxed out. Anything short of a full redesign won't give you the ability to get this hull further along. The BBG(X) on the other hand will offer the opportunity for a clean sheet design and with this displacement and size, even after being scaled back a bit in the future (which I find likely), it will offer so much real estate that the growth margin will be significant.

In essence it's yet another attempt by the Navy after stuff like Cruiser Baseline or CG(X) to finally get a true Tico replacement into the water. A capable large surface combatant with the sensors and armaments necessary to effectively persist in naval warfare in the 21st century. That they had to slap a battleship designation on it and call it the Trump-Class was a very small price to pay.

That all of this has been fairly obvious so far, and that BBG means it's a guided missile battleship (CPS taking the role of the "big guns" in this day and age) went completely past this gentleman. Meaning he went on this entire tirade because it's only a battleships in name, in an age where the type of a warship is as arbitrary as it gets (Frigates, Destroyers, Cruisers, Battleships, all just ways to describe a large warship with guided missiles)

 

[Hood]

Growth margin is always good but its a bit of a chimera in some ways. We know the latest squirrel-cheek Burkes are making the old hull puff a bit hauling all that additional load but the full load displacement increase since the Flight I is only 1,400 tons - not bad over 38 years

 

[Ainen]

When reality is that the BBG(X)/Trump-Class whatever it's being called only shares it's terminology with battleships of old.

I don't think it's the case. It's a clear stand in/SAG ship, with design focus on railgun and survivability. It's role is in fact quite BBish. Late WW2 BB onwards, of course.

P.s.CPS, or any theater ASCM, is way more of long lances really, rather than guns. But there was never any prohibition to install large self-contained weapons on battleships even at their height - if anything, only Japan ever moved oversized torpedoes lower.

In essence it's yet another attempt by the Navy after stuff like Cruiser Baseline or CG(X) to finally get a true Tico replacement into the water. A capable large surface combatant with the sensors and armaments necessary to effectively persist in naval warfare in the 21st century. That they had to slap a battleship designation on it and call it the Trump-Class was a very small price to pay.

Tico would've really been late stage DDG(x), a better eggshell missile battery. Here it's something more - more than CG(x) of 1980s, and far more than even Kirov.
Stand in, fight in range focus is a big paradigm shifter.

 

[Dragonlady]

I had the displeasure of watching the video upon release, minutes of my life I won't get back (so I would not recommend watching the whole thing, or do at 2x the Speed). His...guest went on a whole tangent about the history of battleships and carriers and acted like the intent was to put a naval gun fire support into the water, as was the case with the ill fated Zumwalt.

When reality is that the BBG(X)/Trump-Class whatever it's being called only shares it's terminology with battleships of old. It's a very large surface combatant with heavy emphasis on long range land attack and anti-ship missile armaments. IIRC he argued that you'd get 3 Burkes or something along the line for a single one of these. Well, for one, they don't compete but supplement each other. But that aside, these ships will be build from the ground up with modern AAW flag facilities designed into them, as far as I understood statements published so far it will take over the role of the lead surface combatant of a given strike group from the obsolete Ticonderoga Class ships. That's something the AB does not truly offer, even the Flight IIIs are more so interim solutions and fully maxed out. Anything short of a full redesign won't give you the ability to get this hull further along. The BBG(X) on the other hand will offer the opportunity for a clean sheet design and with this displacement and size, even after being scaled back a bit in the future (which I find likely), it will offer so much real estate that the growth margin will be significant.

In essence it's yet another attempt by the Navy after stuff like Cruiser Baseline or CG(X) to finally get a true Tico replacement into the water. A capable large surface combatant with the sensors and armaments necessary to effectively persist in naval warfare in the 21st century. That they had to slap a battleship designation on it and call it the Trump-Class was a very small price to pay.

That all of this has been fairly obvious so far, and that BBG means it's a guided missile battleship (CPS taking the role of the "big guns" in this day and age) went completely past this gentleman. Meaning he went on this entire tirade because it's only a battleships in name, in an age where the type of a warship is as arbitrary as it gets (Frigates, Destroyers, Cruisers, Battleships, all just ways to describe a large warship with guided missiles)

What does this “thing” bring to the table that makes it worth paying as much as a Ford class (or even more according to some estimates)?

 

[Cifu]

Honestly I think the time table was something like this:

1. Trump made a speech in Quantico september of 2025, suggesting to reactivate the Battleships of the Navy, while the whole Navy top brass sitting in the first row.
2. The Navy made a short statement about all the ex-US Navy battleships are actually now museums.
3. They enlarged the DDG(X) project, put everything into it what they cut the first iterations (EM cannon, high energy laser cannons, CPS, SLCM-N), give them the Trump-class name and called battleship. Then ask John Phelan (Sec. of the Navy) to put this on to desk of Trump.
4. On 2025 december 22. the president next to Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth és John Phelan show the CGI pictures and made a very Trump-like speech how this ship will be superior to anything else.

Edit.: The 3. point is my suggestion (imagination?), the 1., 2. and 4. point are facts.

What I think there is harder and harder to stop this madness, because they explicit sad that the DDG(X) is history, this BBG(X) replace it. If the Congress or anything else sink this plan, then the US Navy remain without a modern LSC again. Which leave the Burke-class continuation the only short time option, again.

 

[EmoBirb]

What does this “thing” bring to the table that makes it worth paying as much as a Ford class

The cost question is secondary, especially as the first ships of a Class are always very expensive due to having the program cost accounted for, but still, I doubt the ship as presented is the final form. I think a lot of things will be scaled back, it will ultimately still be an exceptionally large surface combatant but not as huge and expensive as the concept is now.

As to what it brings to the table that justifies it's existence, it will replace the aging AAW cruisers with a state of the art Platform that will still have a lot to give in terms of growth and energy surplus. And this is the only viable way forward, because the venerable ABs can't take anything anymore, they're maxed out, a hypothetical Flight IV would have to see some major changes, like stretching the hull for more space. And as DDG(X) evolved into BBG(X) the cutting edge sensor, modern power systems, missile heavy, flag facilities equipped, premier battlegroup surface combatant is preserved.

 

[Firefinder]

What does this “thing” bring to the table that makes it worth paying as much as a Ford class (or even more according to some estimates)?

It all likelihood?

A trick to make Congress pay for Shipyard infrastructure updates.

Cause there are multiple yards that can build this but they are in desperate need of overhaul and upgrades to do for modern cargo ships let alone this thing or even the DDGX Small.

The best way to get multiple ships is from using multiple yards.

Get the Yards update for this they can then build what ever.

That be a win even if this is cancelled.

 

[Maskoki]

I hope we aren’t trying to cram too many disparate systems & roles into a single design, risking program failure through low production, and creating deployment-use conflicts. I feel like the CVN Bodyguard and Strike roles require separate large warships, which could reduce the displacement and increase the number of hulls.

Role: CVN Bodyguard - A CVN escort’s primary roles are AAW & ASW, since the CV’s air group can handle surface threats & strike at much longer range than Mk.41-sized systems. A CVN bodyguard needs Aegis CMS, a large SPY-6, a high-mounted surface search radar, an AAW command center, a lot of VLS, a VDS, a MFTA, a hangar, a flight deck, an ability to replenish underway, and systems for self protection (RAM, JQL, laser, SLQ-32 & decoys, a remote weapon like Mk.38 mod 4, probably a 5” gun, & maybe NSM). Probably a big ship, but something closer to a Zumwalt’s displacement could mount this gear a remain comparatively affordable for the number of escort warships 10x CVSGs and 10x ARGs are going to need.

Role: Surface strike - Do strike-oriented surface warships need to mount all strike weapons in one design, or can systems be mounted on different ships to account for differing logistics requirements and mission characteristics?

Can CPS & SLCM-N be replenished underway? Unlikely due to missile weight and volume of propellant at-risk, right? So why aren’t we thinking about mounting these on a separate “Long-range Strike” warship that can fire missiles & return to port for reload, and avoid taking bodyguard capabilities away from the CVSG for most of a wartime deployment? Such a warship could economize by shedding a big radar or ASW gear (rely on multi-mission FFG [Constellation-successor] escorts?), and only mount self-protection gear (SPS-80/TRS-4D, modest number of VLS [or none at all if CPS cells can accommodate Mk.41 canisters], RAM, JQL, SLQ-32 & decoys, & Mk.38 mod 4), as it would be unlikely to enter the first island chain to launch CPS or SLCM-N missiles. It wouldn’t need a hangar & might only need a flat space for VertRep, versus a full Seahawk-capable flight deck. Depending on propulsion needs, this ship could be comparatively small, reducing cost, & increasing the number of ships eventually built. It would not regularly steam with a CVSG, given its port-based missile replenishment needs.

I have trouble with a rail gun use case as part of a CVSG. With respect to shooting enemy ships, how does investment in a rail gun (& associated SWPC required) really increment US Navy capability when Tomahawk block Va & aircraft can quintuple (or more) a rail gun’s range?

If a rail gun is meant to attack land targets (I’m not really seeing the cost/benefit in this use-case either, unless the Navy can expand munition types from a small dart to something fragmentary), shouldn’t the US Navy consider a smaller Medium-range Strike warship mounting a rail gun (maybe), a 5” gun, MLRS, self-protection gear (SPS-80/TRS-4D or smaller SPY/6 arrays, a modest number of VLS, RAM, JQL, SLQ-32 & decoys, & Mk.38 mod 4), and a hangar & flight deck for AH-1Ws or MH-60S to provide CAS to the Marines? Such a warship could range from something Burke-sized (just the 5” gun & MLRS) to a Zumwalt-sized warship (IEP propulsion if the rail gun materialized) meaning that it could also mount towed sonars to handle ASW and thus self- escort. It might travel with an ARG, or it might support Marine LCTs in chokepoints.

Yes, this would create a need for three separate designs (currently the US Navy’s weak link), but taking this approach puts more hulls in the fleet for similar cost (distributing risk in combat) and more appropriately maps systems to disparate missions.

 

[Hydroman]

If BBG(X) cost would exceed a Ford-class carrier, don't build it, but the USN has to get it's act together. It's amazing other classes of ships are moving along their production runs but new development seems to be a real hassle, I assume poor leadership. If SOW Hegseth wants to earns his stripes, fix the problems. At least the DDG-51-class destroyers as implemented with "Flight" upgrades and the SSN-774-class subs with "Block" upgrades similar to aircraft block upgrades seems to be working out. For an initial BBG(X), build the following initial Flight-0 configuration (my logic):

For the first Flight-0:
1. Fore, mid and aft vertical launch cells with multi-weapon type capability. You have a larger ship, add more cells.
2. CIWS batteries.
3. TBD guns in a larger TBD caliber than the standard 5" guns (since this is a "Battleship).

Potential install(s):
1. XX kW laser cannons (do homework regarding lethality vs. available ship electrical power (power generation and power storage capability).

Do not install:
1. EM Rail Gun.

I may be wrong but I think the rail gun is not as lethal as potentially advertised.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

I have trouble with a rail gun use case as part of a CVSG. With respect to shooting enemy ships, how does investment in a rail gun (& associated SWPC required) really increment US Navy capability when Tomahawk block Va & aircraft can quintuple (or more) a rail gun’s range?

If a rail gun is meant to attack land targets (I’m not really seeing the cost/benefit in this use-case either, unless the Navy can expand munition types from a small dart to something fragmentary), shouldn’t the US Navy consider a smaller Medium-range Strike warship mounting a rail gun (maybe), a 5” gun, MLRS, self-protection gear (SPS-80/TRS-4D or smaller SPY/6 arrays, a modest number of VLS, RAM, JQL, SLQ-32 & decoys, & Mk.38 mod 4), and a hangar & flight deck for AH-1Ws or MH-60S to provide CAS to the Marines? Such a warship could range from something Burke-sized (just the 5” gun & MLRS) to a Zumwalt-sized warship (IEP propulsion if the rail gun materialized) meaning that it could also mount towed sonars to handle ASW and thus self- escort. It might travel with an ARG, or it might support Marine LCTs in chokepoints.

Given the fact that the railgun is specifically stated to use HVPs, the primary role is probably terminal ballistic missile defense. The 32 MJ railgun was a muzzle velocity of roughly 2.5 kps with a 40 lbs projectile, and the HVP weighs 44 lbs. The performance of the HVPs out of the railgun would probably give a protected area similar to PAC-3 or maybe PAC-3 MSE (20 - 30 mile footprint), if the HVPs can eventually work in that role. Even if a BMD HVP costs $1 million compared to a $100k anti-missile HVP, that's 1/4 the cost of a PAC-3 MSE and a ship this big could easily carry 1,000 HVPs without touching the VLS. This is the same thing that the AGS tried to do with the Zumwalts (store 500+ PGMs outside the VLS) and there was little technically wrong with the AGS once development was complete.

The 5" guns are probably also there primarily for defense against anti-ship missiles. The HVP has already demonstrated effectiveness against subsonic sea skimmers and supersonic sea skimming targets are probably within the realm of possibility for additional development. Given the ballistic range of HVPs out of the 5" gun, I would expect a useful range comparable to ESSMs, and the guns with HVPs would again be cheaper than missiles and would not take up VLS cells. In both cases, even if the HVPs are less accurate than missiles, salvo and magazine sizes could easily make up the difference unless there was an enormous performance gap.

 

[EmoBirb]

Do not install:
1. EM Rail Gun.

I may be wrong but I think the rail gun is not as lethal as potentially advertised.

To me the railgun seems like a self defekt thing. You have various missiles to get past, then the conventional gun systems, then the railgun (which can reach pretty high velocities and the kinetic energy it carries would obliterate any inbound projectile) and lastly the high powered laser systems.

All of these engage threats across vastly different range and speed envelopes. So to me this is not really an offensive armament but a defensive one, if it gets adopted. Rate of fire and rail life obviously remain concerns, but how often will the system be fired outside of training conditions? I think there is some reason to this line of thinking. I can imagine that the japanese efforts will evolve into a similar direction, especially with the proliferation of ballistic missiles and HGVs in a naval context.

I also think that an EMGS and a DEW complement each other quite well in that context, and both cut down on ammo cost and storage, which translates into more space that can be used for something else.

All of this makes me guess that the caliber will be scaled down in the future though.

 

[Maskoki]

@ Not James Stockdale: Interesting if they’re considering rail-gun for BMD - I thought rail gun was meant for anti-ship & other slower-moving/stationary point targets.

I’ve read elsewhere (too lazy research a source right now) that rail-gun physics is proving intractable…1) Hitting a fast target with a fast HVP has tremendously small margins for error and a kinetic miss at that range with the speed of ballistic re-entry gives little time/distance for reaction, 2) In order to defend against a BMD salvo, the ship would need dozens-to-hundreds of large-capacity individual quick-discharge capacitors/batteries and a way to rapidly recharge them - perhaps more than current IEP technology can provide, 3) Current “barrel”-wear reduces the number of shots fire-able per deployment to something less than a VLS magazine.

I suppose one question is whether the investment in advancing to the Nth level of precision & innovation to resolve the problems posed by physics is truly worth the future cost…and the wait.