BBG(X) - US Next Generation Battleship

[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.

 

[Arjen]

How do you turn a webp into an actually useful format on Linux?

Use GIMP. Open webp, export image as jpg/png.

 

[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.

 

[SUPER=BUG]

What about after those seven years?

 

[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)

 

[Scott Kenny]

Use GIMP. Open webp, export image as jpg/png.

Thank you!

 

[Archibald]

Battleship and battlecruiser are too old school names. How about Batrumpship ? lol Batrumpcruiser

 

[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.

 

[Forest Green]

U.S Navy’s Top Brass Unveils Additional BBG(X) Battleship Information​

U.S Navy's Top Brass Unveils Additional BBG(X) Battleship Information - Naval News

During the Future Fleet Panel at SNA 2026 U.S. Navy top officers went in depth regarding the newly unveiled BBG(X) Trump-Class Battleships.

www.navalnews.com

 

[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.

 

[Dilandu]

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.

The Navy would likey already have a backup plan to "reluctantly agree for something smaller" - basically for CG(X), of 15-20 kilotons. Which would be exactly what they actually wanted; hull big enough to fit everything they desired for DDG(X), but with a large margin for future refits.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

@ 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.

General Atomics Pitches Railgun for Air and Missile Defense - Naval News

General Atomics is looking to pitch its railgun technologies in a terminal defense capacity for Golden Dome and the Defense of Guam.

www.navalnews.com

General Atomics was at AUSA 25 pitching their railguns for Golden Dome and BMD of Guam (and with container-sized power banks).

1. As long as the HVP can survive travel through the lower atmosphere at hypersonic velocities, then the interception question is the same as with a BMD missile because both can be guided. Total flight time to 30 nm is unlikely to be more than 10 seconds.
2. If General Atomics thinks a 20' container can generate and/or store a reasonable amount of power for the 32 MJ railgun, then there shouldn't be any issues fitting a sufficient amount of that equipment into the bow of a battleship. I don't know what the potential firing cycle is like.
3. Do we have a better understanding of what is possible in terms of barrel life compared to when the program was canceled in 2021? It looks like the Japanese and the Chinese think that there is a route to a sufficiently reliable weapon, and I've heard plenty of people say that the barrel life problem is less severe now than it was in 2021.

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

The 32 MJ prototype had a nominal caliber of 150 mm, which would probably allow it to share HVPs with 155 mm guns. The GA 10 MJ railgun is probably closer in size to the 5" Mark 45, and from the videos I've seen look like it fires the smaller 127 mm HVPs.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

I’m not talking about the lead ship though. All estimates indicate the per-ship follow-on cost to be at least $10 billion, which is absurd for anything that’s not a nuclear-powered supercarrier. Unit cost needs to come down at least 50% before this ship even starts making sense.

Why not brush off the BMD San Antonio concept? It has plenty of SWaP & growth room, and replacing the diesels with turbines should boost speed to ~30 knots. It may not be “sexy”, but it’s way more practical than this vanity project.

 

[Sferrin]

I’m not talking about the lead ship though. All estimates indicate the per-ship follow-on cost to be at least $10 billion, which is absurd for anything that’s not a nuclear-powered supercarrier. Unit cost needs to come down at least 50% before this ship even starts making sense.

Did the estimators describe HOW they arrived at $10 billion when virtually nothing is known about it?

 

[Not James Stockdale]

This is what the 01 Jan CRS report said: (https://news.usni.org/2026/01/01/report-to-congress-on-bbgx-battleship-program)

The BBG(X)’s potential procurement cost is uncertain. For ships of a given type (such as surface combatants),procurement cost can be roughly proportional to ship displacement. On that basis, a BBG(X) might have a procurement cost more than 3.6 times that of a DDG-51. DDG-51s currently cost about $2.7 billion each when they are procured at a rate of two per year, and something more than that when they are procured at a rate of one per year. This suggests a recurring unit procurement cost for the BBG(X) design of roughly $10 billion. The first BBG(X) might cost closer to $15 billion, because its procurement cost (following Navy budgeting practices) would incorporate detailed design costs for the class that could amount to a few billion additional dollars.

Obviously cost per ton is going to produce an inflated figure when a DDG-51 costs more per ton than an aircraft carrier.

My understanding is that the HM&E make up somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the cost of a DDG-51 with combat systems making up the rest. I don't know if Flight III DDGs cost significantly more, and the BBG(X) is basically Flight III combat systems like the DDG(X) + the railgun + CPS tubes. My initial SWAG when I first heard about the BBG(X) announcement was $2 billion for combat systems and $4 billion for the hull. The hull might cost about 4x as much as a DDG-51, which is 1/4 the size, or about as much as the inflation-adjusted cost of an America-class LHA, which is the same size.

 

[CJGibson]

Rail guns? Rail guns? The Donald won't want no steenking rail guns. It's 19 inch naval rifles or nothing. Ten of them.

Chris

 

[cccgong]

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.

Do you have any additional info on the HVP performances missiles? Very curious to see what the performance is like. I’d also expect a 25-40mi range vs subsonic targets.

General Atomics Pitches Railgun for Air and Missile Defense - Naval News

General Atomics is looking to pitch its railgun technologies in a terminal defense capacity for Golden Dome and the Defense of Guam.

www.navalnews.com

General Atomics was at AUSA 25 pitching their railguns for Golden Dome and BMD of Guam (and with container-sized power banks).

1. As long as the HVP can survive travel through the lower atmosphere at hypersonic velocities, then the interception question is the same as with a BMD missile because both can be guided. Total flight time to 30 nm is unlikely to be more than 10 seconds.
2. If General Atomics thinks a 20' container can generate and/or store a reasonable amount of power for the 32 MJ railgun, then there shouldn't be any issues fitting a sufficient amount of that equipment into the bow of a battleship. I don't know what the potential firing cycle is like.
3. Do we have a better understanding of what is possible in terms of barrel life compared to when the program was canceled in 2021? It looks like the Japanese and the Chinese think that there is a route to a sufficiently reliable weapon, and I've heard plenty of people say that the barrel life problem is less severe now than it was in 2021.


The 32 MJ prototype had a nominal caliber of 150 mm, which would probably allow it to share HVPs with 155 mm guns. The GA 10 MJ railgun is probably closer in size to the 5" Mark 45, and from the videos I've seen look like it fires the smaller 127 mm HVPs.

2) I don’t think you’ll get any reasonable rate of fire with that, for missile defense applications. For striker that’s more acceptable. Also for ICBM defense as the RVs are much more expensive, as they have nukes on board

3) I wouldn’t expect any improvements to rail life without either lower energies, a larger system, or an architecture change. The Japanese system is much much smaller, to the point that it likely has a different barrel life. As it is, I don’t think the Japanese system as much if any military use. As it fires unguided APFSDS.

You won’t be able to reuse, the HVP between standard and railguns due to shielding and different sabot requirements on the latter.

 

[Firefinder]

You won’t be able to reuse, the HVP between standard and railguns due to shielding and different sabot requirements on the latter.

The HVP is literally design to be used between railguns and Powder Guns, that is it whole purpose.

It has all the need shielding built in, which isn't that much, to its systems stock. The Army kept that cause they kept working on the railgun til recently and it was cheaper to do so. And as futureproofing since it was seen that the railgun will returned in the future after it was cancelled.

Bigger issue is Sabot requirements and that just means it needs to fit and seal. Which is something you can do manually, see the various addon for shells. It be very easy to have an automatic system that pulls the railguns sabot for the 5 inch one and put it back as need. Sabots are largely friction held with a small clip to ensure a clean seperation when it leaves the barrel.

And even if they don't go for a switching station.

You still be seeing massive savings cause the Sabot is the CHEAP part of the shell. The HVP itself is the expensive bit and thats design to be universal between the guns.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

Do you have any additional info on the HVP performances missiles? Very curious to see what the performance is like. I’d also expect a 25-40mi range vs subsonic targets.

BAE has a one-pager on their website (https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/hyper-velocity-projectile-hvp). Their ranges for (presumably) surface-to-surface fire are in there.

Range
> 50 nmi (93 km) from Mk 45 Mod 4
> 40 nmi (74 km) from Mk 45 Mod 2
> 70 nmi (130 km) from AGS
> 43 nmi (80 km) from 155mm Tube Artillery
> 100 nmi (185 km) from EM Railgun

2) I don’t think you’ll get any reasonable rate of fire with that, for missile defense applications. For striker that’s more acceptable.

I have not seen any information about that. The BAE page says the EM railgun has a firing cycle of 6 seconds, but I have no idea if that is applicable to the current version of the GA 32 MJ railgun. Also, there are a ways to design the capacitor set-up to allow for burst firing with longer recharge periods, which may be preferable when engaging a time-on-target ballistic missile attack.

3) I wouldn’t expect any improvements to rail life without either lower energies, a larger system, or an architecture change.

Do you have any good reason to say this? There will be fifteen years of materials science between the end of the Dahlgren railgun program in 2021 and the earliest that these guns could get into service in the 2030s.

The Japanese system is much much smaller, to the point that it likely has a different barrel life. As it is, I don’t think the Japanese system as much if any military use. As it fires unguided APFSDS.

This article (https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...s-image-of-railgun-installed-on-naval-vessel/) says the Japanese got to 120 shots at 2 kps, which is close to the same velocity as Dahlgren's 32 MJ railgun, but firing smaller projectiles. It also says that the Japanese are looking into using the railgun against hypersonic missiles and are developing anti-air projectiles.

You won’t be able to reuse, the HVP between standard and railguns due to shielding and different sabot requirements on the latter.

The BAE brochure has illustrations of three different HVPs for 5" guns, 155 mm guns, and railguns, but only gives one weight and payload figure.

 

[Scott Kenny]

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)?

Only when you count the development costs. And guess what? Only the hull costs need to be developed out. Almost all the combat systems are off the shelf. SPY6? OTS. Mk41? OTS. APM/CPS? OTS, developed for Zumwalts.

It also has enough growth margin, which most of the ships are just flat out of.

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?

Railgun is not particularly for surface strike.

HVP is primarily for ABM.

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.

There's a reason the USN is putting SPY6 on everything. Several, actually.
Economic: only need one school for all the radar techs. Only need one set of spare parts.
Operational: no distinct class sensor fits to reveal what ship the enemy is detecting. Only SPY6.

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.

There was supposed to be a "shotgun" version of the railgun round. Something that broke into a bajillion tungsten cubes and sandblasted the impact area.

Not sure it was ever more than a concept, though.

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.

And that's the big problem. Navy cannot design multiple new ships at once.

I’m not talking about the lead ship though. All estimates indicate the per-ship follow-on cost to be at least $10 billion, which is absurd for anything that’s not a nuclear-powered supercarrier. Unit cost needs to come down at least 50% before this ship even starts making sense.

I'm not sure that's correct.

As @Not James Stockdale posted, the methodology does not seem to scale, because DDGs cost more per ton than carriers do.

My cost sanity check would be cost per ton of LHA/LPDs, plus the GFE of the Burke IIIs.

Why not brush off the BMD San Antonio concept? It has plenty of SWaP & growth room, and replacing the diesels with turbines should boost speed to ~30 knots. It may not be “sexy”, but it’s way more practical than this vanity project.

The San Antonio hull basically cannot do 30 knots. Not without orders of magnitude more horsepower.

 

[DJK]

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

Growth margin doesn't have to mean adding all sorts of weapons to create a "does everything" ship. Sure the navy cant prioritise anything because this looks like unlimited budget, but some things are also just nice to have. CPS, BMD, and AAW commander in the same hull? Makes more sense to put those capabilities into a modular insert like was planned for DDG(X). Figure out how much power generation and space needed for the essentials first. If not every role requires it, then it might be a case for only some ships getting that configuration. Honestly, CPS seems like the sort of thing that belongs on a dedicated strike platform.

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.

Mk-45 I can see as place holder for a future rail gun, but slow rate of fire not ideal for any AA use, and an AAW commander or BMD cruiser doesnt need any other kind of naval gunfire.

 

[DWG]

Do you have any good reason to say this? There will be fifteen years of materials science between the end of the Dahlgren railgun program in 2021 and the earliest that these guns could get into service in the 2030s.

Of which likely at most a decade is applicable because of the need to test, freeze the design, and productionize it. And you might be lucky to get the full decade. And that's presuming any applicable breakthroughs, which isn't guaranteed.

 

[EmoBirb]

Makes more sense to put those capabilities into a modular insert like was planned for DDG(X).

It doesn't make sense in reality though because these modularity concepts have always failed, led to issues, cost increase and ultimately couldn't deliver on the promise of flexibility

 

[Sferrin]

It doesn't make sense in reality though because these modularity concepts have always failed, led to issues, cost increase and ultimately couldn't deliver on the promise of flexibility

*cough* LCS.

 

[cccgong]

Hi,

I believe that USN escorts have traditionally been estimated at 20kts because the USN had spent alot of effort developing their amphibious vessels to travel at 20kts, and wanted their escorts to be able to effectively escort them. As such, if the higher end transit ranges for an escort is lower than 20kts, then the entire group may have to transit at a lowerr speed.

In addition as previously noted I believe that the US Coast Guard's Deepwater Program System Performance Specification had requirements based partly on the desire to escort 20kt merchant ships (though I can't find a specific reference to it at this time, but I will keep looking for it).

As for range being irrelevant for a ship like the LCS I disagree. I worked for one of the design teams during the design phase of those ships and meeting the range requirements was an issue for the design, and we ended up developing a revised endurance calculation method to account for the reduced resistance associated with the decrease in displacement that would occur as fuel was burned, as opposed to the method used for more conventional displacement ships previously.

[And for the car analogy, that may not be such a good example, as I understand it, range anxiety can be of great concern for people with electric cars, where the ability to charge may not necessarily be just around the corner.]

I'd be very curious to hear more about your experiences on the LCS ship design, if you're willing to share.

BAE has a one-pager on their website (https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/hyper-velocity-projectile-hvp). Their ranges for (presumably) surface-to-surface fire are in there.


I have not seen any information about that. The BAE page says the EM railgun has a firing cycle of 6 seconds, but I have no idea if that is applicable to the current version of the GA 32 MJ railgun. Also, there are a ways to design the capacitor set-up to allow for burst firing with longer recharge periods, which may be preferable when engaging a time-on-target ballistic missile attack.

Do you have any good reason to say this? There will be fifteen years of materials science between the end of the Dahlgren railgun program in 2021 and the earliest that these guns could get into service in the 2030s.

This article (https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...s-image-of-railgun-installed-on-naval-vessel/) says the Japanese got to 120 shots at 2 kps, which is close to the same velocity as Dahlgren's 32 MJ railgun, but firing smaller projectiles. It also says that the Japanese are looking into using the railgun against hypersonic missiles and are developing anti-air projectiles.

The BAE brochure has illustrations of three different HVPs for 5" guns, 155 mm guns, and railguns, but only gives one weight and payload figure.

I imagine the firing cycle doesn’t mean a sustained fire rate. We'd expect something around 33% efficiency which would be ~100 MJ per shot. I'm very skeptical they are generating 17MW in a cargo container plus caps for storage. Even if we assume they are just doing storage, 17MW is a huge amount of power to be pulling from your ship's IEP.

There's mostly papers and extrapolation from them with known data points. The Japanese one is a pretty good, point of comparison. They are getting 120 shots with a ~5MJ rail gun. However rail erosion scales exponentially with energy so a 32MJ system will be much worse. Also they were making tweaks to the rails until pretty close to the end of the program. Something like the 10MJ gun would have much better rail life.

Regarding material advancements, this is a pretty niche field. Once the funding dries up likely a year or two before program cancelation not much work will still be done. Also as DWG says there is a need to productionize, and many material advancements end up being very difficult to scale.

The current Japanese gun doesn’t have the projectile volume for a guided projectile. They need to develop something new for an anti air projectile.

This is the volume they have to work with.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It doesn't make sense in reality though because these modularity concepts have always failed, led to issues, cost increase and ultimately couldn't deliver on the promise of flexibility

STANFlex says "LCS was designed by a bunch of idiots"

 

[Hydroman]

Rail guns? Rail guns? The Donald won't want no steenking rail guns. It's 19 inch naval rifles or nothing. Ten of them.

Chris

No rail guns, plenty of vertical launch tubes for Tomahawks, Standard Missiles, the new hypersonic missile and others. Add directed energy (ensure maturity and lethality), CIWS and execute the program PROPERLY, that's all we ask.