BBG(X) - US Next Generation Battleship

[Moose]

Does the Mk.57 vent exhaust laterally into the sea, or vertically like Mk.41?

Given the depth of the missiles, my guess is that lateral venting isn’t feasible (don’t want holes/doors that low on a ship)…but were lateral venting possible, it might (in theory) save weight…

Vertically. Each module has 6 hatches in a line: 4 launch cells in the middle and the ends are vents.

Edited for spelling

 

[MadRat]

The biggest advance of Mk57 is its mesh signalling. Each little segment operates as an independent pod. You literally must destroy the whole ship to ensure disability to launch from all of the distributed pods. Mk41 is pretty robust, but each group of cells has a command module which is not itself independently survivable. Knocking one command module out may unfortunately lead to the disabling of multiple modules. Mk57 seems to have maximum survivability in mind by default.

 

[DJK]

I doubt it's entirely new, to be fair. DON was probably forced to choose between CPS and both VLS blocks and so it chose the maximalist option.

BBG(X) will probably scale back and lose the railgun and twin 5" in favor of going from 13,500t to ~17-18,000t for DDG(X).

It's more likely that DDG(X) was chosen as a budget conscious option in 2020 or whatever, then someone wanted to add hypersonic missiles (for some reason), and now they've had to go back and revisit one of the older preliminaries that G&C would've had hanging out. Which is probably why the BBG(X) looks so stupidly underdetailed in renders but has clear design lineage with the superstructure of DDG(X). Tack on another 2-3 years to get the ship prelimed and design completed. Or you don't do that, and get another Constellation, which is probably what the Navy is going to do to keep their aggressive timetable.

Another immense procurement victory for the Department of War in any case. Because putting land attack hypersonics on a ship is really important or something.

Makes sense. But if BBG(X) has to be cancelled, would DDG(X) have enough detail done to fall back to it?

The biggest advance of Mk57 is its mesh signalling. Each little segment operates as an independent pod. You literally must destroy the whole ship to ensure disability to launch from all of the distributed pods. Mk41 is pretty robust, but each group of cells has a command module which is not itself independently survivable. Knocking one command module out may unfortunately lead to the disabling of multiple modules. Mk57 seems to have maximum survivability in mind by default.

So multiple 8 cell Mk-41 has more redundancy than a single 32 cell module? Either way, Mk-57 would shield Mk-41 command module. Maybe Mk-57 works better on a conventional hull, allowing each module to be angled slightly offboard.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Makes sense. But if BBG(X) has to be cancelled, would DDG(X) have enough detail done to fall back to it?

Unlikely.

So multiple 8 cell Mk-41 has more redundancy than a single 32 cell module? Either way, Mk-57 would shield Mk-41 command module. Maybe Mk-57 works better on a conventional hull, allowing each module to be angled slightly offboard.

For packaging purposes, running a mix of Mk41s and Mk57s is one of the better ideas. Imaging fitting all ships in the USN with ~10x Mk57s on the sides of the helo deck. Adding another 40 cells to the missile count?

 

[CastleBravo]

Imaging fitting all ships in the USN with ~10x Mk57s on the sides of the helo deck. Adding another 40 cells to the missile count?

For something like a Burke, the hull isn't deep enough for that along the sides of the flight deck. You would need a hull with a flight deck as big and as high above the waterline as Zumwalt. Another idea would be to put some type of PVLS along the sides of the hanger. That might end up with a few less cells than mk41 in the middle of the hanger area like on a Burke, but it would result in one big hanger instead of two tiny ones, and it would free up the center of the hanger roof for other things like a 76/62 Sovraponte, RAM/CIWS, or angled deck launchers for NSM/PAC-3/ect.

 

[MadRat]

Seems like Standard SM-3 is the capability that defines BBG(X) over everything else. SM-3 is not exactly a common missile to be expended as a SAM and truly is a BMD tool. Maybe they should just scab on the SM-3 launch capability to any number of large auxiliaries that already follows the CBG around. Don't put the ship radars in the same basket as the hugely niche missiles so to speak. The radar capability doesn't require over 10,000 tons until you add deep storage of SM-3. SPY-6 is not a niche and supports the greater missions, so should not be tied to a niche. Even that big gun Trump wants doesn't require over 10,000 tons. I would rather see an expansion of mid-range jack-of-all-trades destroyer forces in the 5,000-8,000 ton range than tank a budget on a hand full of 25,000 ton ships pulling off a narrow niche. One lucky shot literally on the big fat target sinks the fleet. Dispersal is everything.

 

[EmoBirb]

One lucky shot literally on the big fat target sinks the fleet. Dispersal is everything.

These ships won't operate alone, there are multiple dozens of Arleigh-Burke destroyers which are more expendable and part of any given strike group. The BBG(X) just brings the sensors and an additional, very deep, magazine into the group to lead as the air warfare flagship. Armed with everything from the standard missile family, to guns and lasers to contribute to the larger missile defense bubble.

Any sufficiently capable "magazine" or "sensor" ship would cost a fortune as well and you'd need the yards to build these ships and the people to maintain and man them. Distributed approaches have many, if not more downsides than there are upsides. Especially when we talk about vessels of this scale, the approach is more suitable for smaller systems like UUVs and USVs, where capability, production cost, maintenance cost and personelle cost are vastly lower.

The Navy expressed the need for a Ticonderoga replacement for decades, now they're hoping to get what a modern Ticonderoga replacement looks like.

If one could discard one thing, it may be the CPS on these ships. But their vast reach and high speed give the ship the ability to actually return fire against long range threats in a meaningful way as well as obviously holding surface combatants at risk. It also means the VLS don't have to sacrifice space for Tomahawks. It has upsides and downsides, I see the upsides but I think a dedicated CPS focused anti-surface vessel would be reasonable, kinda like what the Zumwalts are. Zumwalts and Virginias with the CPS are extremely expensive, low volume, high value assets, so their actual usefulness is limited because of that in such scenarios. A purpose build "conventional strike destryoer" would be less costly than either and could be deployed more readily, even against non-peer adversaries. But I'm also aware that the US couldn't execute on the idea without making a dysfunctional program that's over budget, out of time and wouldn't deliver anything useful anyway. You really can't trust US naval procurement with more than 1-2 ships at a time.

 

[Mallard]

Seems like Standard SM-3 is the capability that defines BBG(X) over everything else. SM-3 is not exactly a common missile to be expended as a SAM and truly is a BMD tool. Maybe they should just scab on the SM-3 launch capability to any number of large auxiliaries that already follows the CBG around. Don't put the ship radars in the same basket as the hugely niche missiles so to speak. The radar capability doesn't require over 10,000 tons until you add deep storage of SM-3. SPY-6 is not a niche and supports the greater missions, so should not be tied to a niche. Even that big gun Trump wants doesn't require over 10,000 tons. I would rather see an expansion of mid-range jack-of-all-trades destroyer forces in the 5,000-8,000 ton range than tank a budget on a hand full of 25,000 ton ships pulling off a narrow niche. One lucky shot literally on the big fat target sinks the fleet. Dispersal is everything.

I dont think putting them on the undefended auxiliaries is a better solution.

 

[Mallard]

These ships won't operate alone, there are multiple dozens of Arleigh-Burke destroyers which are more expendable and part of any given strike group. The BBG(X) just brings the sensors and an additional, very deep, magazine into the group to lead as the air warfare flagship. Armed with everything from the standard missile family, to guns and lasers to contribute to the larger missile defense bubble.

Any sufficiently capable "magazine" or "sensor" ship would cost a fortune as well and you'd need the yards to build these ships and the people to maintain and man them. Distributed approaches have many, if not more downsides than there are upsides. Especially when we talk about vessels of this scale, the approach is more suitable for smaller systems like UUVs and USVs, where capability, production cost, maintenance cost and personelle cost are vastly lower.

The Navy expressed the need for a Ticonderoga replacement for decades, now they're hoping to get what a modern Ticonderoga replacement looks like.

If one could discard one thing, it may be the CPS on these ships. But their vast reach and high speed give the ship the ability to actually return fire against long range threats in a meaningful way as well as obviously holding surface combatants at risk. It also means the VLS don't have to sacrifice space for Tomahawks. It has upsides and downsides, I see the upsides but I think a dedicated CPS focused anti-surface vessel would be reasonable, kinda like what the Zumwalts are. Zumwalts and Virginias with the CPS are extremely expensive, low volume, high value assets, so their actual usefulness is limited because of that in such scenarios. A purpose build "conventional strike destryoer" would be less costly than either and could be deployed more readily, even against non-peer adversaries. But I'm also aware that the US couldn't execute on the idea without making a dysfunctional program that's over budget, out of time and wouldn't deliver anything useful anyway. You really can't trust US naval procurement with more than 1-2 ships at a time.

How about losing the railgun that no one can get to work? And will require even more power generation on top of the requirements for modern radars and lasers.

 

[Sferrin]

How about losing the railgun that no one can get to work? And will require even more power generation on top of the requirements for modern radars and lasers.

Thing is, quitting isn't likely to lead to success. I don't know why so many seem to think that.

 

[Mallard]

Thing is, quitting isn't likely to lead to success. I don't know why so many seem to think that.

Well if these ships takes 10 years to build then im sure itll be done by then, though theyll have cancelled the rest of the class by then...

 

[CastleBravo]

Thing is, quitting isn't likely to lead to success. I don't know why so many seem to think that.

You don't have to quit working on EM gun development, just don't plan the biggest most expensive surface combatant the USN will have built since WWII around it before it is proven. I still think chemical cannons can come close to matching the performance of a 32MJ EM gun. Small arms internal ballistics is finally advancing after having been stagnant (alongside cannon internal ballistics) since WWII. New hybrid case designs allow for pressures well beyond the point where traditional brass case heads would fail. The US Army already has an 80k psi round in service (6.8x51mm), and now some people are playing with ~100k psi 5.56x45mm hybrid cases and getting enormous increases in velocity (75gr at 3,500 fps vs 2,800 fps with brass case). I don't see why a new cannon made with modern materials and processes can't support similar forces. There might be a limit around 2km/s velocity, but that isn't far behind what the EM gun is supposed to achieve, and a new 8" cannon could likely do it with a larger projectile. If even greater performance is required, we could also start working on electrothermal chemical guns again. A future ETC 3" gun might come close to a 5"/62 with HVP rounds.

 

[Sferrin]

Well if these ships takes 10 years to build then im sure itll be done by then, though theyll have cancelled the rest of the class by then...

Well, don't be a retard like they were with Zumwalt. Make it so you can drop it in down the road when it's ready. If it never is, so be it.

 

[johnpjones1775]

I am all for a BBGX as a concept.
I won’t rehash all the stupid bits of the concept art we’ve seen, but with drones being such a huge threat, 2 5” guns, 4 57mm guns, and 4 mk38 mod4s as a minimum gun armament is almost mandatory.

I won’t be holding my breath for lasers to actually become viable weapons let alone rail guns.

 

[EmoBirb]

How about losing the railgun that no one can get to work? And will require even more power generation on top of the requirements for modern radars and lasers.

A large ship can provide the necessary power anyway and then have the growth margin for the future. As for the railgun, it has the potential to be very useful in countering ballistic missiles. If properly implemented it's another layer in the larger defense of the ship and battlegroup. Getting past a variety of missiles fired by several ships, lasers, conventional guns and an EMGS is a tall order. And that's what is needed to counter the sheer volume and capability of the Chinese anti-ship arsenal that will keep US assets at a significant distance. Yes, the railgun could be axed or might even be axed, but it's not as nonsensical as people make it out to be, especially as a means to engage incoming projectiles with a high velocity projectile of your own.

 

[MadRat]

I don't think putting them on the undefended auxiliaries is a better solution.

If SM-3 is spread across the big boned ships already operating under the umbrella of the CBG then its not exactly undefended. If they are carried all on one BBG(X) then that is the opposite of the concept of dispersal. The BBG(X) should forego carrying the SM-3 and focus on SM-6, LRASM, and Tomahawk. No harm having a few, but disperse them across hulls.

Well, don't be a retard like they were with Zumwalt. Make it so you can drop it in down the road when it's ready. If it never is, so be it.

The 155 mm/62 (6.1") Mark 51 Advanced Gun System (AGS) was unfunded, not particularly a failure by design. If they had stuck to the Vertical Gun for Advanced Ships (VGAS) concept and bought ammunition for it then there is no reason it was not a viable bombardment system. It would have helped certainly if it had the ability to fire existing US Army or NATO 155 mm projectiles, but the US Navy is a NIH shop. OTO-Melara took the concept and developed Vulcano using literally the same size package without the benefit of LRLAP to reach 70 km. The smart 5" rounds were over $50k apiece, so there are no free lunches. Mass production keeps the shells relatively cheap. There is no reason the 155mm / 6.1" shell couldn't get closer in price to the 5" shell if mass produced.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Makes sense. But if BBG(X) has to be cancelled, would DDG(X) have enough detail done to fall back to it?

"BBG(X)" is likely a renaming and re-selection for a larger form of DDG(X), so if it fails, then the Navy doesn't get a new ship and has to buy more Flight IIIs to replace Tico.

 

[CastleBravo]

A large ship can provide the necessary power anyway and then have the growth margin for the future. As for the railgun, it has the potential to be very useful in countering ballistic missiles. If properly implemented it's another layer in the larger defense of the ship and battlegroup. Getting past a variety of missiles fired by several ships, lasers, conventional guns and an EMGS is a tall order. And that's what is needed to counter the sheer volume and capability of the Chinese anti-ship arsenal that will keep US assets at a significant distance. Yes, the railgun could be axed or might even be axed, but it's not as nonsensical as people make it out to be, especially as a means to engage incoming projectiles with a high velocity projectile of your own.

I still haven't seen anything about how a railgun round, or any other cannon round for that matter, is going to be guided accurately enough to hit a ballistic missile. Sea skimming cruise missiles should be possible with a small optical seeker head and/or command guidance from a high-res sensor on the ship, but ballistic missiles are a far more challenging target, especially when the RV can maneuver (required for an effective non-nuclear anti-ship weapon). At best, the railgun would only be good as a last-ditch defense vs an RV aimed at that ship as a head-on shot is the easiest intercept geometry. Any BMD cannon round capable of defending even a modest footprint to cover nearby ships would probably look like the front half of a PAC-3, and it would probably cost more than PAC-3 as all the expensive parts would need to be hardened to survive being fired from a cannon.

 

[Mallard]

A large ship can provide the necessary power anyway and then have the growth margin for the future. As for the railgun, it has the potential to be very useful in countering ballistic missiles. If properly implemented it's another layer in the larger defense of the ship and battlegroup. Getting past a variety of missiles fired by several ships, lasers, conventional guns and an EMGS is a tall order. And that's what is needed to counter the sheer volume and capability of the Chinese anti-ship arsenal that will keep US assets at a significant distance. Yes, the railgun could be axed or might even be axed, but it's not as nonsensical as people make it out to be, especially as a means to engage incoming projectiles with a high velocity projectile of your own.

Ships today struggle to power lasers without turning everything else off, how exactly is BBGX going to do that and a railgun with a cathedral of gas guzzling turbines, doesnt help the USNs lack of oilers either.

 

[cccgong]

I would love to see a nuke BBG(x) and it would make allot of sense, but that will never happen with our current industrial base.

 

[cccgong]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2011896496145514733

View: https://x.com/aaronmatthew_l/status/2011896496145514733?s=46


lm DDG(x) render, which shows the vast majority (128/160) of the vls cells in the middle of the middle of the ship. So removing that hull plug will make the ship more or less usless

 

[Scott Kenny]

For something like a Burke, the hull isn't deep enough for that along the sides of the flight deck. You would need a hull with a flight deck as big and as high above the waterline as Zumwalt.

Self-defense length Mk57s, not the full Strike Length units. Which shuffles your missile load locations around. SM2s and ESSM in the Mk57; SM3, SM6, and Tomahawks in the Mk41s.

Another idea would be to put some type of PVLS along the sides of the hanger. That might end up with a few less cells than mk41 in the middle of the hanger area like on a Burke, but it would result in one big hanger instead of two tiny ones, and it would free up the center of the hanger roof for other things like a 76/62 Sovraponte, RAM/CIWS, or angled deck launchers for NSM/PAC-3/ect.

Yes, that is likely better than the two small hangars.

If SM-3 is spread across the big boned ships already operating under the umbrella of the CBG then its not exactly undefended. If they are carried all on one BBG(X) then that is the opposite of the concept of dispersal. The BBG(X) should forego carrying the SM-3 and focus on SM-6, LRASM, and Tomahawk. No harm having a few, but disperse them across hulls.

I think each ship is going to end up with a few SM3s. Maybe 6 or so.

The 155 mm/62 (6.1") Mark 51 Advanced Gun System (AGS) was unfunded, not particularly a failure by design. If they had stuck to the Vertical Gun for Advanced Ships (VGAS) concept and bought ammunition for it then there is no reason it was not a viable bombardment system.

The trajectory shaping required to hit targets close to the ship didn't exist in the early 00s. It was demonstrated by the Excalibur team in 2018.

So a ship with VGAS still needed a normal gun for within 14nmi/25km.

It would have helped certainly if it had the ability to fire existing US Army or NATO 155 mm projectiles, but the US Navy is a NIH shop.

The range requirement demanded a huge rocket booster.

OTO-Melara took the concept and developed Vulcano using literally the same size package without the benefit of LRLAP to reach 70 km. The smart 5" rounds were over $50k apiece, so there are no free lunches. Mass production keeps the shells relatively cheap. There is no reason the 155mm / 6.1" shell couldn't get closer in price to the 5" shell if mass produced.

Excalibur ended up over 100k with the fancier setups.

 

[TomS]

The biggest advance of Mk57 is its mesh signalling. Each little segment operates as an independent pod.

I think the latest iteration of Mk41 (Baseline VII) adopts at least some of the Mk57 control electronics.

A Promising Future for US Navy: Vertical Launching Systems - DSIAC

INTRODUCTION For the past 30 years, shipboard vertical missile launching systems have transformed naval warfare by providing continually evolving launch capability to respond to a myriad of theater-based threats. Unmatched in performance and flexibility, these systems have changed the way all...

dsiac.dtic.mil

I still haven't seen anything about how a railgun round, or any other cannon round for that matter, is going to be guided accurately enough to hit a ballistic missile.

It's not an SM-3 replacement, more for countering short-range ballistic missiles. And for that, all you need is a really good target track and precise location of the outgoing projectile. That's why we see this type of interferometer in the land-based versions; probably a naval version would need something similar.

Technovative Applications | Technovative Applications

Technovative Applications develops radar interferometers for the United States Department of Defense and Homeland Security

www.tnov.com

 

[MadRat]

I think each ship is going to end up with a few SM3s. Maybe 6 or so.

If SM-3 was more multi-role then I would be less concerned. Unfortunately it isn't built to be a super SM-6, but rather a specialized niche. Therefore keeping room for the SM-6, Tomahawk, and LRASM would be my preference. SM-3 and SM-6 are both Strike-length Mk41's, but the mission of the BBG(X) to me is not as priority for BMD. It is priority to kick down the proverbial front doors.

The trajectory shaping required to hit targets close to the ship didn't exist in the early 00s. It was demonstrated by the Excalibur team in 2018.
So a ship with VGAS still needed a normal gun for within 14nmi/25km.
The range requirement demanded a huge rocket booster.
Excalibur ended up over 100k with the fancier setups.

I really liked the idea of 203 mm VGAS back in 2005, but somehow that was asking too much and talk of the 8" never materialized. I just do not see 155 mm being much better than the 127 mm by the time you extend the range to 100 km. If you were at 203 mm (8") or 255 mm (10") then it is a significant boost in delivery size. But if you rely too much on the LRLAP rocket booster it is almost better to incorporate a naval ATACMS at $2 million a shot for delivering 500 pounds out to nearly 200 miles (300 km). With VGAS unfunded, its not a bad idea at this point to go naval the ATACMS replacement, the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM). It has a lucrative cost point. The downside is they have not insignificant minimum ranges that outrange the 5" guns.

 

[CastleBravo]

It's not an SM-3 replacement, more for countering short-range ballistic missiles. And for that, all you need is a really good target track and precise location of the outgoing projectile. That's why we see this type of interferometer in the land-based versions; probably a naval version would need something similar.

Fire control radar interferometer test bed for Hypervelocity Terminal Defense Fire Control
Three receive antennas on vertices of a 10 meter baseline equilateral triangle provides measurement accuracy required to command guide gun launched projectile interceptors to direct hit-to- kill impact of incoming ballistic missile targets.

Neat. I didn't know we could get HtK accuracy for terminal BMD out of command guidance now. That is a big deal if true, and not just for cannon rounds. If it works as advertised, it should be possible to make cheap and effective interceptor missiles too.

 

[DJK]

These ships won't operate alone, there are multiple dozens of Arleigh-Burke destroyers which are more expendable and part of any given strike group. The BBG(X) just brings the sensors and an additional, very deep, magazine into the group to lead as the air warfare flagship. Armed with everything from the standard missile family, to guns and lasers to contribute to the larger missile defense bubble.

Still not armed with as much as I expected for a huge AAWship costing at least 5 or 6 Flt IIIs. CPS isn't part of the AAW magazine, and there doesn't seem to be any plan to fill the reserved railgun spot with Mk-41.

Navy expressed the need for a Ticonderoga replacement for decades, now they're hoping to get what a modern Ticonderoga replacement looks like.

But now want to replace Iowa instead of Tico...

but I think a dedicated CPS focused anti-surface vessel would be reasonable, kinda like what the Zumwalts are. Zumwalts and Virginias with the CPS are extremely expensive, low volume, high value assets, so their actual usefulness is limited because of that in such scenarios. A purpose build "conventional strike destryoer" would be less costly than either and could be deployed more readily, even against non-peer adversaries. But I'm also aware that the US couldn't execute on the idea without making a dysfunctional program that's over budget, out of time and wouldn't deliver anything useful anyway. You really can't trust US naval procurement with more than 1-2 ships at a time.

The DDG(X) hull insert concept did solve some of those problems, but not the main problem of wanting everyhing on one massive "everything" hull. Definitely theres not enough overlap with AAW and CPS strike to justify all on the same hull.

 

[cccgong]

Neat. I didn't know we could get HtK accuracy for terminal BMD out of command guidance now. That is a big deal if true, and not just for cannon rounds. If it works as advertised, it should be possible to make cheap and effective interceptor missiles too.

I could buy it for fully ballistic RV. Not for any type that can do maneuvering. As with fully ballistic you have a fully defined trajectory with lots of old datapoints to reduce noise/measurement error and refine your trajectory estimation. You don't have that for maneuvering RV or HGV.

Still not armed with as much as I expected for a huge AAWship costing at least 5 or 6 Flt IIIs. CPS isn't part of the AAW magazine, and there doesn't seem to be any plan to fill the reserved railgun spot with Mk-41.

But now want to replace Iowa instead of Tico...

The DDG(X) hull insert concept did solve some of those problems, but not the main problem of wanting everyhing on one massive "everything" hull. Definitely theres not enough overlap with AAW and CPS strike to justify all on the same hull.

The price estimate along with displacement, crew size, and armament are all completely at odds with reality. You don't need 750 crew for this ship. Neither do you need 35kt to field what they want. In its current form, it's just something pandering to trump that will get cut down into a realistic 20-25kt cruiser.

It's better to put CPS tubes on BBG(X) until the navy decides and finally fields a drone boat capable of carrying something that large. Even then, industrial limitations might prevent the fielding of very many of these drone boats.

Also if you remove the central hull plug on DDG(X) you only have 32 mk41 VLS, which is a non-starter.

I think each ship is going to end up with a few SM3s. Maybe 6 or so.

The trajectory shaping required to hit targets close to the ship didn't exist in the early 00s. It was demonstrated by the Excalibur team in 2018.

So a ship with VGAS still needed a normal gun for within 14nmi/25km.

With the future proliferation of HGV and anti-ship BM you'll need allot more than 6 SM3 for each ship in the pacific theatre.

I do wonder how much range you can get out of HVP out of 15mm. That would be interesting, a gun system to supplement in a mid range ~40-50 mile anti ASM role. You would likely be able to push it faster if needed, as you don't particularly care about heat distortion and vibration effects on accuracy as so much trajectory shaping with guided projectiles would be done.

Upon further reading I think 5inch HVP will be disappointing. The BAE projectile including sabot is 40lbs and a standard 5 inch round is 68 lbs. The standard round has a 760 m/s muzzle velocity. So they will not be getting hypersonic velocities out of the 5 inch HVP. So AAW range is going to be disappointing.

 

[Firefinder]

I think the latest iteration of Mk41 (Baseline VII) adopts at least some of the Mk57 control electronics.

A Promising Future for US Navy: Vertical Launching Systems - DSIAC

INTRODUCTION For the past 30 years, shipboard vertical missile launching systems have transformed naval warfare by providing continually evolving launch capability to respond to a myriad of theater-based threats. Unmatched in performance and flexibility, these systems have changed the way all...

dsiac.dtic.mil

It's not an SM-3 replacement, more for countering short-range ballistic missiles. And for that, all you need is a really good target track and precise location of the outgoing projectile. That's why we see this type of interferometer in the land-based versions; probably a naval version would need something similar.

Technovative Applications | Technovative Applications

Technovative Applications develops radar interferometers for the United States Department of Defense and Homeland Security

www.tnov.com

View attachment 800775

How big is that dea anyhow?

Cause if it basically covers the same area as the SPY6 array, standard size, then an AESA type radar be able to do that things job with the proper programing. Be a pain but is possible.

 

[Foo Fighter]

imho, it might be a useful test ship or two with the actual service version being smaller, similar to current cruiser size but 'slightly' oversized for electrical power. Good enough for all current sensors etc with good growth potential.

 

[Sferrin]

If SM-3 was more multi-role then I would be less concerned.

It is. The other model is called "SM-6". If SM-6 came with an endoatmospheric KKV similar to THAAD then you'd cover the full spectrum. But SM-3 wouldn't be as capable as it is if you saddled it with the requirement to be multirole. Maybe you could make two variants, one that swaps out the 3rd stage/KKV for a KKV similar to THAAD but then you may as well use SM-6 for that, and neither variant is "multirole".

 

[Forest Green]

It is. The other model is called "SM-6". If SM-6 came with an endoatmospheric KKV similar to THAAD then you'd cover the full spectrum. But SM-3 wouldn't be as capable as it is if you saddled it with the requirement to be multirole. Maybe you could make two variants, one that swaps out the 3rd stage/KKV for a KKV similar to THAAD but then you may as well use SM-6 for that, and neither variant is "multirole".

Isn't an SM-6 with a KKV basically an SM-3 Blk 1A/B?

 

[Sferrin]

Isn't an SM-6 with a KKV basically an SM-3 Blk 1A/B?

Depends on the KKV. If they stuck a THAAD KKV up there it would have endo/exoatmospheric capability but not as much performance as it would be lacking the 3rd stage and its KKV is heavier, while a standard SM-3 is exoatmospheric only.

 

[Scott Kenny]

If SM-3 was more multi-role then I would be less concerned. Unfortunately it isn't built to be a super SM-6, but rather a specialized niche. Therefore keeping room for the SM-6, Tomahawk, and LRASM would be my preference. SM-3 and SM-6 are both Strike-length Mk41's, but the mission of the BBG(X) to me is not as priority for BMD.

You seem to be forgetting about the existence of AShBMs, which need SM3s to engage in midcourse. Then the SM6s can engage any leakers past the SM3s. And then whatever SM2s can deal with whatever leaks past the SM6s.

It is priority to kick down the proverbial front doors.

No, it's not.

It's a giant escort.

Just like how the Fast Battleships spent most of their time as carrier escorts.

Isn't an SM-6 with a KKV basically an SM-3 Blk 1A/B?

No, SM6 doesn't have the Third Stage Rocket Motor. Also, we can't take the easy way out and bolt the THAAD upper onto SM6 because the THAAD DACS runs off UDMH. And the Navy will do unspeakable things to the person bringing hydrazine onto their ships.

 

[Firefinder]

You seem to be forgetting about the existence of AShBMs, which need SM3s to engage in midcourse. Then the SM6s can engage any leakers past the SM3s. And then whatever SM2s can deal with whatever leaks past the SM6s.

Then with the HVP from the Five inchers be able to deal with any leakers after that. One of its early tests did prove that.

With the EWAR kit being the first then last line of defense before the Hull.

 

[CastleBravo]

THAAD DACS runs off UDMH. And the Navy will do unspeakable things to the person bringing hydrazine onto their ships.

Maybe they would be willing to have THAAD on an USV? All they have to do is park a TEL on it and you have 8 rounds. I don't think those TELs swim across oceans on their own either, so they end up on a ship at some point.

 

[joshjosh]

Worth remembering that the HVP is a command guided round that receives targeting updates from the ship and is told where to go. It does not have an active seeker nor a semi-active seeker. This guidance method limits how many rounds can be in the air at any time and also requires a line of sight to the ship.

Also interesting to note that the USN is spending a ton of money to develop a high-update command guidance fire control architecture to make the HVP—and similar low-cost Interceptors, both gun and missile—more effective. I haven't seen this reported anywhere, but it's a thing.

 

[cccgong]

Worth remembering that the HVP is a command guided round that receives targeting updates from the ship and is told where to go. It does not have an active seeker nor a semi-active seeker. This guidance method limits how many rounds can be in the air at any time and also requires a line of sight to the ship.

Also interesting to note that the USN is spending a ton of money to develop a high-update command guidance fire control architecture to make the HVP—and similar low-cost Interceptors, both gun and missile—more effective. I haven't seen this reported anywhere, but it's a thing.

Do you have more info on the command guidance work being done?

 

[MadRat]

Maybe propulsion of BBG(X) should follow the 80/20 rule. 80% of the time operate under 20% power provided jointly by nuclear and diesel. 20% of the time light the fire and kick the other 80% power from reserve diesel and gas turbines into gear for sprint speed. Most of the time that 20% will keep it moving at a pretty brisk pace. But you have flexibility to run >20% power initially off diesel for sustained periods or gas turbines for up tempo and/or emergencies. Doesn't even need to be a modular nuclear reactor. Just design it to last 4-5 years at sea before a 6 month target for refits.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Maybe propulsion of BBG(X) should follow the 80/20 rule. 80% of the time operate under 20% power provided jointly by nuclear and diesel. 20% of the time light the fire and kick the other 80% power from reserve diesel and gas turbines into gear for sprint speed. Most of the time that 20% will keep it moving at a pretty brisk pace. But you have flexibility to run >20% power initially off diesel for sustained periods or gas turbines for up tempo and/or emergencies. Doesn't even need to be a modular nuclear reactor. Just design it to last 4-5 years at sea before a 6 month target for refits.

Ideally it would be nuclear powered, but practically it's not happening. Building a BBGN would preempt building a CV.

The US would need to re-certify Pascagoula as a nuclear shipyard, or rebuild one of the former shipyards in California.

 

[joshjosh]

Do you have more info on the command guidance work being done?

I posted about it here: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/precision-fire-control-program-usn.50900/