BBG(X) - US Next Generation Battleship

Scott Kenny said:
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.
Click to expand...

CNO Adm Caudle stated the BB won't be nuclear powered as wanted ship in the water ASAP, if true for nuclear it should also rule out IEP as its even slower in build time, it took BIW just under 10 years before shipping the Zumwalt Lyndon B Johnson to Ingalls, Pascagoula for the installation, activation and testing of its combat system. BIW steel was first cut April 2012 and it arrived at Pascagoula January 2012, still yet to be commissioned.

Presume that only leaves GTs and/or Diesels and maybe Electric Motors? Understand the Japanese ~17,000 ton ASEV cruiser is GT and Diesel.

www.defensenews.com

US Navy leaders embrace Trump-class battleships

U.S. Navy leaders speaking at a military conference outlined what they described as the strategic opportunities of the recently announced battleships.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
At this point I think a cruiser maybe more important than a CV. Too much concentration of assets on a CV (men and money) while not having enough strike range.

But I don’t think it needs to be a traditional CGN. Just have future or current builds have a slot for a SMR to slot in. Even something 10-20 MW will be very helpful. Basically have cruise and hotel loads all taken by the SMR so you greatly reduce fuel consumption
 
cccgong said:
At this point I think a cruiser maybe more important than a CV. Too much concentration of assets on a CV (men and money) while not having enough strike range.

But I don’t think it needs to be a traditional CGN. Just have future or current builds have a slot for a SMR to slot in. Even something 10-20 MW will be very helpful. Basically have cruise and hotel loads all taken by the SMR so you greatly reduce fuel consumption
Click to expand...
Even an S5W from the 1960s was a "full sized" reactor by Navy standards, nevermind how it's a very small modular reactor by SMR terms.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Even an S5W from the 1960s was a "full sized" reactor by Navy standards, nevermind how it's a very small modular reactor by SMR terms.
Click to expand...

SMR in the sense of what’s proposed for land installation. Fully modular no interaction needed and fully disposable unit. So no additional crew needed, nor much associated equipment.
 
cccgong said:
At this point I think a cruiser maybe more important than a CV. Too much concentration of assets on a CV (men and money) while not having enough strike range.

But I don’t think it needs to be a traditional CGN. Just have future or current builds have a slot for a SMR to slot in. Even something 10-20 MW will be very helpful. Basically have cruise and hotel loads all taken by the SMR so you greatly reduce fuel consumption
Click to expand...
That's probably why the CCCP are building carriers as fast as they can.
 
Sferrin said:
That's probably why the CCCP are building carriers as fast as they can.
Click to expand...
It’s different when you have 1-2 somewhat functional carriers. Also different when your opponent doesn’t have hundreds of anti ship ballistic missiles pointed at the region. Also different when you’re retiring all of your AAW flagships and will start retiring many of your mainline AAW ships soon vs spamming those out.
 
cccgong said:
SMR in the sense of what’s proposed for land installation. Fully modular no interaction needed and fully disposable unit. So no additional crew needed, nor much associated equipment.
Click to expand...
And the Submariner just laughs at the idea of no additional crew needed to make a nuclear reactor work.
 
Scott Kenny said:
And the Submariner just laughs at the idea of no additional crew needed to make a nuclear reactor work.
Click to expand...
Current SMR design for commercial use are supposed to be buried with 0 interaction needed after installation until end of life. They are also designed for full passive safety measures, so no interaction is needed

This isn’t a tradition nuke reactor. Even if you added crew for one. There would be nothing for them to do.
 
cccgong said:
Current SMR design for commercial use are supposed to be buried with 0 interaction needed after installation until end of life. They are also designed for full passive safety measures, so no interaction is needed

This isn’t a tradition nuke reactor. Even if you added crew for one. There would be nothing for them to do.
Click to expand...
If you think that the Navy will accept no human interaction with the reactor, you're smoking something that you need to start sharing.
 
cccgong said:
At this point I think a cruiser maybe more important than a CV.
Click to expand...
At the very least, the projected number of Ford carriers could comfortably be cut back a bit, for one because the America-Class ships are also able to carry F-35Bs which gives them more utility than previous types. But also with the two QE CVs, the PANG and CdG possibly operating simultanously at one point, Japan having two Lightning carriers and Italy having a proper carrier it's clear that the burden of carrierborne aviation in the western world isn't as concentrated on the US as it once was. And as Ford is more capable than Nimitz was, it may actually be viable and safe some money as well. But I think the USN is required to have a set amount of carriers, however that can easily be circumvented or simply altered to adapt to modern times.
 
cccgong said:
It’s different when you have 1-2 somewhat functional carriers. Also different when your opponent doesn’t have hundreds of anti ship ballistic missiles pointed at the region. Also different when you’re retiring all of your AAW flagships and will start retiring many of your mainline AAW ships soon vs spamming those out.
Click to expand...
You do know that the USN has had hundreds, if not thousands, of antiship missiles aimed at it for over half a century, right?
 
CCP is Chinese Communist Party whereas the CCCP (Союз Советских Социалистических Республик) is the letters in Cyrillic for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Every kid from the 70s and 80s should know that.

I honestly believe the navies of the Chinese and any allies they'd have would vaporize in the opening hours of a major conflict. But the West will show restraint as long as they stay in their ports.
 
Thinking the largest Navy in the world, backed by arguably the largest missile force in the world, additionally backed by the second largest air force in the world, operating in their backyard would just vanish into thin air is certainly...an opinion.

Especially when one compares it to an aging Navy plagued by various issues, which has to operate at the other side of the pacific ocean far from home, couldn't commit their entire force to a conflict and could only meaningfully rely on the long range aviation branch of the USAF and not much else beyond that.

Can someone move this to the Taiwan thread?
 
MadRat said:
CCP is Chinese Communist Party whereas the CCCP (Союз Советских Социалистических Республик) is the letters in Cyrillic for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Every kid from the 70s and 80s should know that.

I honestly believe the navies of the Chinese and any allies they'd have would vaporize in the opening hours of a major conflict. But the West will show restraint as long as they stay in their ports.
Click to expand...
Genuinely I ask how you think this, there is no force in the region that could "vaporize" the Chinese and their allies in the region, the USN is struggling with age and political issues that would likely restrict it heavily especially because the US has to focus on the entire world at once and could not commit its entire force to the conflict, meanwhile Chinese AA and carrier killer missiles continue to become more potent and in larger numbers which would be a large strain on the USN carrier aviation.

I genuinely ask you what gives the impression that the Chinese and their allies would just crumble immediately?
 
EmoBirb said:
At the very least, the projected number of Ford carriers could comfortably be cut back a bit, for one because the America-Class ships are also able to carry F-35Bs which gives them more utility than previous types. But also with the two QE CVs, the PANG and CdG possibly operating simultanously at one point, Japan having two Lightning carriers and Italy having a proper carrier it's clear that the burden of carrierborne aviation in the western world isn't as concentrated on the US as it once was. And as Ford is more capable than Nimitz was, it may actually be viable and safe some money as well. But I think the USN is required to have a set amount of carriers, however that can easily be circumvented or simply altered to adapt to modern times.
Click to expand...
I do not think that congress will drop the requirement of the USN having 11operational carriers at anytime simply because of the struggle on US maintenance yards, the current number of 11 allows for 2-6 to be always combat ready and would take a major overhaul of US priorities in certain regions to allow a smaller number.
 
illRoyalPanda said:
Genuinely I ask how you think this, there is no force in the region that could "vaporize" the Chinese and their allies in the region, the USN is struggling with age and political issues that would likely restrict it heavily especially because the US has to focus on the entire world at once and could not commit its entire force to the conflict, meanwhile Chinese AA and carrier killer missiles continue to become more potent and in larger numbers which would be a large strain on the USN carrier aviation.

I genuinely ask you what gives the impression that the Chinese and their allies would just crumble immediately?
Click to expand...
BBG(X) will carry enough firepower to literally do exactly that from one ship across an entire theater of operations. This isn't about whatever politics you imagine, this is about the U.S. and its allies releatedly steamrolling through opposition. For all the shipbuilding being done by OPFOR, they have never demonstrated success in the same way. The best indication of the future is the past.
 
MadRat said:
BBG(X) will carry enough firepower to literally do exactly that from one ship across an entire theater of operations.
Click to expand...
Erm, with the exception of hypersonics, it's offensive firepower is basically the same as of Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. It's defensive capabilities are significantly greater, yes.
 
Dilandu said:
Erm, with the exception of hypersonics, it's offensive firepower is basically the same as of Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. It's defensive capabilities are significantly greater, yes.
Click to expand...
You basically just said that aside from the one huge boost to it's offensive capabilities (specifically meant to deliver exactly that) it has no boost in offensive capabilities.

CPS by itself is an astronomical improvement in attack capability. And it also means you can pack more SAMs in the VLS as you can ditch some of the inferior Tomahawks.
 
MadRat said:
BBG(X) will carry enough firepower to literally do exactly that from one ship across an entire theater of operations. This isn't about whatever politics you imagine, this is about the U.S. and its allies releatedly steamrolling through opposition. For all the shipbuilding being done by OPFOR, they have never demonstrated success in the same way. The best indication of the future is the past.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to suggest a single BBGX would cause the chinese to cower in fear or something? Apart from the fact they have far more hypersonic weapons deployed themselves they are almost certainly working on defenses against them and prepared for the consequences of such an attack
 
EmoBirb said:
At the very least, the projected number of Ford carriers could comfortably be cut back a bit, for one because the America-Class ships are also able to carry F-35Bs which gives them more utility than previous types. But also with the two QE CVs, the PANG and CdG possibly operating simultanously at one point, Japan having two Lightning carriers and Italy having a proper carrier it's clear that the burden of carrierborne aviation in the western world isn't as concentrated on the US as it once was. And as Ford is more capable than Nimitz was, it may actually be viable and safe some money as well. But I think the USN is required to have a set amount of carriers, however that can easily be circumvented or simply altered to adapt to modern times.
Click to expand...
The America class are not effective strike carriers, nor is any ship operating the F35B tbh, they can play an effective offensive role but without far longer ranged weaponry, most of which has yet to be deployed from the aircraft they cannot make the same contributions as Catobar based aircraft. Also assuming alot that allies will come to the aid of the US in the pacific.
 
I've said many times before related to the overall Chinese military build-up and we are all arm chair analysts in general, you won't how good or bad China is until the conflict begins. Our modern USA war fighting abilities, equipment and systems have been honed through the many decades of conflicts. China may have all of this new hardware but they also have to now how to us it. Also for us in the USA, we also have to get our s**t back together as well regarding how we develop and procure our military hardware and a lot of that depends on what administration has the reigns, been proven time and time again. We'll have to see if China has the balls in starting something up. I was was on CVN-65 (1980-1986) and in the NORPAC and IO playing games with the Soviets, anything could have happened and there is no where to run when you are on a ship.
 
MadRat said:
BBG(X) will carry enough firepower to literally do exactly that from one ship across an entire theater of operations. This isn't about whatever politics you imagine, this is about the U.S. and its allies releatedly steamrolling through opposition. For all the shipbuilding being done by OPFOR, they have never demonstrated success in the same way. The best indication of the future is the past.
Click to expand...
The Chinese have more DF-21s than the BBG(X) has defensive missiles... The Chinese have more types of hypersonics than the BBG(X) entire hypersonic loadout.
 
MadRat said:
The BBG(X) proposals all show massive 4-sided radars.
Click to expand...
I would not describe those radars as massive, given what information has been provided, they're the same 14-foot diameter 37-RMA SPY-6 (V)1s of the Burke Flight IIIs, whilst they're the largest SPY-6 variant ins device they're considerably smaller than what was investigated for CG(X).
 
EmoBirb said:
You basically just said that aside from the one huge boost to it's offensive capabilities (specifically meant to deliver exactly that) it has no boost in offensive capabilities.

CPS by itself is an astronomical improvement in attack capability. And it also means you can pack more SAMs in the VLS as you can ditch some of the inferior Tomahawks.
Click to expand...
But it's a land-attack missile, not the anti-ship one. AFAIK no anti-ship version is even planned. While China & Russia already have anti-ship hypersonics, USN is still lacked even dedicated supersonic anti-ship missile (SM-6 is merely a remedy, it's not exactly good anti-ship weapon).
 
Dilandu said:
But it's a land-attack missile, not the anti-ship one. AFAIK no anti-ship version is even planned. While China & Russia already have anti-ship hypersonics, USN is still lacked even dedicated supersonic anti-ship missile (SM-6 is merely a remedy, it's not exactly good anti-ship weapon).
Click to expand...
It's my understanding that CPS is capable of engaging moving targets.

As to SM6s as an AShM, how well do you think any ship, even an Aegis ship, would deal with multiple incoming Mach 4+ high divers?
 
Desertfox said:
The Chinese have more DF-21s than the BBG(X) has defensive missiles... The Chinese have more types of hypersonics than the BBG(X) entire hypersonic loadout.
Click to expand...
Technically, Chinese don't have so many df-21 anymore. Most have been retired as they have largely been replaced by newer df-26.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Have you met any Navy Nukes?

Because I worked with the last batch of those tested by Rickover Himself, and they're not trusting of any mechanical systems.
Click to expand...
I have not. However many SMR are designed to be fully passive with no moving parts and or only moving fluids (convection based) but no moving parts.
 
Back
Top Bottom