BBG(X) - US Next Generation Battleship

Scott Kenny said:
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?
Click to expand...

I can’t find anything about it hitting moving targets.
The closest I can find is fleeting targets
 
Scott Kenny said:
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?
Click to expand...
It cannot, it has no seeker. It is very accurate and can hit targets that move, provided they have not moved since targeting information was given to the missile.
 
Desertfox said:
It cannot, it has no seeker. It is very accurate and can hit targets that move, provided they have not moved since targeting information was given to the missile.
Click to expand...
If you can update targeting while the missile is in flight it can hit a moving target.
 
Desertfox said:
It cannot, it has no seeker. It is very accurate and can hit targets that move, provided they have not moved since targeting information was given to the missile.
Click to expand...
Active homing, in radar or thermal bandwidths is ideal for terminal homing towards a ship. Semi-active radar homing was really good at it, too. I don't know where the notion is that an SM-6 wouldn't be able to home in on a moving target. It may not be ideal if a ship is throwing up clouds of chaff and pyrotechnics to obscure itself, but ships do not have unlimited supplies of that stuff.
 
MadRat said:
Active homing, in radar or thermal bandwidths is ideal for terminal homing towards a ship. Semi-active radar homing was really good at it, too. I don't know where the notion is that an SM-6 wouldn't be able to home in on a moving target. It may not be ideal if a ship is throwing up clouds of chaff and pyrotechnics to obscure itself, but ships do not have unlimited supplies of that stuff.
Click to expand...
This was about the CPS or whatever they're calling the US ship-launched hypersonic missile. Not SM6
 
Scott Kenny said:
This was about the CPS or whatever they're calling the US ship-launched hypersonic missile. Not SM6
Click to expand...
That makes a little more sense, but I guess it makes little sense to even use such as asset against a moving target.
 
Scott Kenny said:
If you can update targeting while the missile is in flight it can hit a moving target.
Click to expand...
If you can update the middle the enemy can as well. I don't believe CPS has that capability.

CPS is actually quite small, it would be hard to fit any large radar in it. It is no Pershing II, which was massive.

CPS is designed to hit TELs and other soft, semi-fixed land targets, it can hot ships at port. It is not designed at all to hit ships at sea.
 
Desertfox said:
If you can update the middle the enemy can as well. I don't believe CPS has that capability.

CPS is actually quite small, it would be hard to fit any large radar in it. It is no Pershing II, which was massive.

CPS is designed to hit TELs and other soft, semi-fixed land targets, it can hot ships at port. It is not designed at all to hit ships at sea.
Click to expand...
Pershing II massive? Not sure where you got that idea. They have one on display at several museums across the country. They aren't massive.
 
CPS and Pershing II are both 7.5 tons. With the hypersonic glider and modern boosters, CPS can probably double Pershing II's range with around the same post-boost weight of 1,500 lbs. If they could put a radar in the Pershing II MaRV in the 1970s, I imagine they could put something in a modern glider and still have enough weight for a reasonable anti-ship warhead.
 
cccgong said:
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.
Click to expand...
You may need 35kn but that would be easier to achieve without CPS and railguns. Crew estimates might be inflated to ensure they can go back to the preferred DDGX or CGX.
cccgong said:
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.
Click to expand...
If not a USV then some other alternative that won't compromise the AAW escorts.
cccgong said:
Also if you remove the central hull plug on DDG(X) you only have 32 mk41 VLS, which is a non-starter.
Click to expand...
Yeah with only 32 forward you would also need some in the midships hull plug. Navy may decide 96 is enough or go for the full 128 given current geopolitics. The basic hull plug could still remove anything specific to the AAW Commander version and probably switch to a smaller radar. Thats not happening for many years until all CGs been replaced, and probably after a technology refresh anyway.
 
Last edited:
... survivability of the PLAN, accuracy of a number of missiles, a lot about carriers .... :rolleyes:
But moment, please, wasn't the theme of this thread the BBG(X) (whatever that will be ...) ?
So, please back to the original topic ! ;)
 
MadRat said:
Pershing II massive? Not sure where you got that idea. They have one on display at several museums across the country. They aren't massive.
Click to expand...
I have seen the front ends of Pershing II and CPS, and they are no where close to being the same, there is a significant size difference, and part of that is the Pershing II radar.
 
Desertfox said:
I have seen the front ends of Pershing II and CPS, and they are no where close to being the same, there is a significant size difference, and part of that is the Pershing II radar.
Click to expand...

An HGV would probably have a seeker on the top pointed forward somewhat. For terminal attack it would roll inverted and pull a high G dive into the target. I think an optical seeker would be more likely than active radar. Another option would be command guidance from satellites or aircraft tracking the target.
 
In the FY 2028 budget submission the Defense Department will unveil next year when it buys the first ship, the Navy projects asking for $17 billion in procurement funding. The service currently projects buying the second ship in FY 2030, when it will seek $13 billion, and the third ship in FY 2031, when it will ask Congress for $11.5 billion, according to Reynolds. The Navy is not planning to use incremental funding authority.
Click to expand...
 
cccgong said:
Corruption and lots of it.
Click to expand...
this doesnt make sense at all, like not even remotely enough sense. Why not just make a better ticon class ship with mordern armaments and stealth. 17B per ship is more than the fking GRR ford FFS and thats ship vastly outweighs anything thing this ship could ever achieve ever. hell even if the GRR ford costs 30B it would be worth more 5 of these BBgx class ships.
 
Arjen said:
Ooh! Ooh! I know!
Gold. Plating.
You read it here first!
Click to expand...
Mate I actually cant believe my eyes right now, i thought this would be a 4B-5B dollar battleship at most which on its own is outlandish but at least somewhat reasonable if it had like 230 VLS or some absurd number like the that it would at least be a consolation but only 128 VLS cells and 12 CPS missiles and a railgun is so........... I'm speechless right now
 
lmaoxd said:
this doesnt make sense at all, like not even remotely enough sense. Why not just make a better ticon class ship with mordern armaments and stealth. 17B per ship is more than the fking GRR ford FFS and thats ship vastly outweighs anything thing this ship could ever achieve ever. hell even if the GRR ford costs 30B it would be worth more 5 of these BBgx class ships.
Click to expand...
So yes, when rationale justification for the costs fail the only explanation is corruption like I said.
 
Yeah, if I were voting on that I'd want to see a breakdown of how exactly one of these is costing $17 billion to build for starters. I find the number of VLS cells to be rather lacking for 35,000 tons worth of ship too. Maybe if the individual cells had the larger dimensions of the Mk.57 VLS it would be understandable but not for Mk.41 size.
 
lmaoxd said:
wait what? 17 BILLION? what???????????? 17billion for 128 VLS?? 35k tonnes for 17B??????? what is the USN smoking?
Click to expand...
Multiple very high power DEWs, a railgun, CPS modules, nuclear cruise missiles, and 4 SEWIP block III modules. They want to throw the kitchen sink at this thing and it almost certainly won’t be made
 
Hull down said:
Multiple very high power DEWs, a railgun, CPS modules, nuclear cruise missiles, and 4 SEWIP block III modules. They want to throw the kitchen sink at this thing and it almost certainly won’t be made
Click to expand...
lmao ofc its not going to be built, it such a stupendous decision that it sounds incredibly dumb even to a person like me who has negligible expertise with military activities.
 
Also depends on WHICH FUCKIGN YARD gets its.

Cause Apperantly these days Yards need to be basically REBUILT every time they do a new design.

STARES AT THE BURKE TO ZUMWALT TO BURKE COST.

Which is why we can not you know, do the smart thing of just making the Zumwalts slightly bigger. The Yard had to remake the Zumwalt tooling for the Burke 3s. Which is partly how they save some of the cost of that SNAFU.

So any new class is going to need new tooling, and if they want a different yard over Bath/Ingells then they need to bring that yard up to spec.

Meaning shit going to be expensive.
 
The shipyards you seem to be saying have grown accustomed to the government footing the bill on everything they build. Sounds like they don't mind the idea that they could become obsolete in the wrong election year. The government may pick favorites during peacetime, but they will bypass the warts on a log when other options are available. Maybe the U.S. economy should work towards exports rather than imports to give them an incentive to build commercial hulls.

I understand what you are saying but please refrain from the f-bombs and excessive curse words. I like to read the forum when there may be kids looking over my shoulder. Not so much worried about acronyms that express curse words without necessarily saying them.
 
Hull down said:
Multiple very high power DEWs, a railgun, CPS modules, nuclear cruise missiles, and 4 SEWIP block III modules. They want to throw the kitchen sink at this thing and it almost certainly won’t be made
Click to expand...
Possibly the Navy is setting it up to fail. Money is poured into the long-lead stuff and once Trump and Hegseth are gone, the programme is cancelled and all the goodies go into a resurrected DDG(X).
 
lmaoxd said:
wait what? 17 BILLION? what???????????? 17billion for 128 VLS?? 35k tonnes for 17B??????? what is the USN smoking?
Click to expand...
All the non-recurring design and development costs. It's an unfortunate tradition that first in class always gets stuck with all the design and development costs.

Same reason GRFord is between double and triple the cost of JFK.
 
Hull down said:
Multiple very high power DEWs, a railgun, CPS modules, nuclear cruise missiles, and 4 SEWIP block III modules. They want to throw the kitchen sink at this thing and it almost certainly won’t be made
Click to expand...
As ridiculous as this thing has been presented, it's not "5 DDGs in a trench coat" in terms of stats.
 
MadRat said:
The shipyards you seem to be saying have grown accustomed to the government footing the bill on everything they build. Sounds like they don't mind the idea that they could become obsolete in the wrong election year. The government may pick favorites during peacetime, but they will bypass the warts on a log when other options are available.
Click to expand...
Usually Congress steps in to make sure that no massive unemployment starts. Back in the 1990s, Clinton even openly agreed to change his mind on the 3rd Seawolf just to prevent the loss of the skilled workforce between end of Seawolf and start of Virginia production.



MadRat said:
Maybe the U.S. economy should work towards exports rather than imports to give them an incentive to build commercial hulls.
Click to expand...
US shipyards have not been competitive since roughly the 1990s. Too much overhead/compliance costs, high wages.



Moose said:
As ridiculous as this thing has been presented, it's not "5 DDGs in a trench coat" in terms of stats.
Click to expand...
No, it's maybe 2 DDGs in terms of stats.
 
Brett Davidson said:
Possibly the Navy is setting it up to fail. Money is poured into the long-lead stuff and once Trump and Hegseth are gone, the programme is cancelled and all the goodies go into a resurrected DDG(X).
Click to expand...
This is by far the most likely scenario, I think. The Navy is using this opportunity to quickly fund development of various tech, to kickstart everything faster than they'd get it if they put it under DDGX umbrella. And in a few years time, the battleship will just quietly fall by the side, as you say, and what will remain are select technologies, now more mature, to go into the DDGX and make that programme go faster and more smoothly.
 
totoro said:
This is by far the most likely scenario, I think. The Navy is using this opportunity to quickly fund development of various tech, to kickstart everything faster than they'd get it if they put it under DDGX umbrella. And in a few years time, the battleship will just quietly fall by the side, as you say, and what will remain are select technologies, now more mature, to go into the DDGX and make that programme go faster and more smoothly.
Click to expand...
It is entirely possible that the Navy is pushing the "battleship" size just to make sure the eventual result is big enough to carry everything the Navy wants (both CPS and gun, for one example, which would not fit into something the size of a Zumwalt(!)).

This gives the Navy an appearance of concessions even though they're getting exactly what they want. I'm guessing it'll finally be declared as a CG and weigh in around 22,000tons.
 
Some CPS and a deck gun can definitely both fit on a 15 000 t hull. In Zumwalt's example, they fit 4 CPS modules (for 12 missiles) besides existing 20 mk57 modules (80 cells) which are each bigger than a notional 4cell mk41 module. Zumwalt also has other peculiarities on which it "wastes" space. So a clean sheet design of 15 000 t should comfortably fit the same number of CPS modules, *and* a 5 inch deck gun. Maybe it'd have to have fewer mk41 cells, but even that I am not so sure about. (mk57 doesn't seem to be a thing anymore) I do wonder what the relationship between CPS and G-VLS is. Both are made by LM and both are said to have cells around 34 inches in width. I do think it's possible the cell itself is designed to be the same in both, but the system around it is different. With GVLS being developed to be more modular and interchangable with mk41 modules. If true, CPS might end up being a transitional design which might then be replaced by a newer VLS system in time.

Now, whether USN wants a 15 000 t ship or a 18 000 t one, or a 22 000 t one - that's a different matter. Bigger is better, sure, but even if crew size doesn't scale up - fuel consumption does. There is probably a sweet spot for a design that will eventually replace 80 Burkes. And IF we are talking about a single ship class, it probably isn't over 20 000 t. Granted, a two class solution might be better. 12-15 000 t one and a 20 000+ t one. Not sure about the 35 000 t "battleship" though. I'd say there's simply no cost-efficient use case for that one.
 
Back
Top Bottom