BBG(X) - DISCUSSION ONLY

https://news.usni.org/2026/04/21/navy-wants-to-buy-trump-class-battleship-in-fy-2028
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
 
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.
 
Moose said:
Size grew by as much as a third and cost has gone intergalactic. Just a guess but I think a nuclear power announcement is in the future.
Click to expand...
Wow, this pressure is directly on Congress, and the key issue is America's shipbuilding capabilities...
 
totoro said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm expecting ~20-30 BBG/CGX, a ship with the 69RMA BMD radars, 12 CPS tubes holding 36 missiles, ~128 or more Mk41 (and/or Mk57, there's arguable reasons to use Mk57s around the perimeter of the helo deck), a 5" gun or two, and most importantly flag CIC and berthing for all the crew for that. 22-35ktons

Plus another class that isn't as big to replace the Burkes. Maybe 17ktons.



Moose said:
Size grew by as much as a third and cost has gone intergalactic. Just a guess but I think a nuclear power announcement is in the future.
Click to expand...
IIRC, the long-lead items of a nuclear plant are one of the major bottlenecks in general ship production. So any nuclear plant would be 2 fewer submarines or 1 less carrier.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm expecting ~20-30 BBG/CGX, a ship with the 69RMA BMD radars, 12 CPS tubes holding 36 missiles, ~128 or more Mk41 (and/or Mk57, there's arguable reasons to use Mk57s around the perimeter of the helo deck), a 5" gun or two, and most importantly flag CIC and berthing for all the crew for that. 22-35ktons

Plus another class that isn't as big to replace the Burkes. Maybe 17ktons.




IIRC, the long-lead items of a nuclear plant are one of the major bottlenecks in general ship production. So any nuclear plant would be 2 fewer submarines or 1 less carrier.
Click to expand...
They are now “revisiting” the ford class. So I wouldn’t be surprised at cuts there to free up reactors, yard space, or money for this.
 
cccgong said:
They are now “revisiting” the ford class. So I wouldn’t be surprised at cuts there to free up reactors, yard space, or money for this.
Click to expand...
They've been whipping Ford raw for a year, but Sky Marshall Kegseth is still trying to kill CVNs?
 
What is striking is that the two Japanese ASEV cruisers approx. 17,000 tons each with 128 VlS cells each coming in at total of $5.23B which is way over their original 2020 budget of $3.2B due to weak yen and inflation, a substantial proportion of the costs reflects Lockheed's SPY-7 radars $2.34B and Aegis $923M CMS.

Though as said the 2 ASEVs are way over budget but still only less than one third cost of the first BBG(X) at $17B budget and delivery of ASEVs planned for FY '27 & '28, expect delivery of the BBG(X) will be 10 to 12 years off based on Zumwalt record, first steel cut Feb. 2009 – combat sys. install. activation achieved Apr. 2020


https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...tract price,and the JMSDF's Aegis destroyers.
 
Sounds like it must either be a hybrid amphibious ship with helicopters design or just what Dilandu said is true. I have a feeling the development cost is included and its more of a scaled up Zumwalt.
Dilandu said:
Well, its likely include development cost.
Click to expand...
 
cccgong said:
They are now “revisiting” the ford class. So I wouldn’t be surprised at cuts there to free up reactors, yard space, or money for this.
Click to expand...

Not on any timeframe that will threaten Ford or give BBGX any air.
 
Moose said:
This budget seems more and more like poorly -written fantasy every time I learn more about it.
Click to expand...
The problem is, that any hopes of somehow being able to prepare US military for a major war WITHOUT massive increase in military funding - are also poorly-written fantasy. The choice is between two fantasies.
 
Buddy and the senator he’s liasing with had a meeting with SECNAV right before he got fired and they grilled him on the BBGX

Here’s what the response was. Pure copy/paste, so typos aren’t mine lol

“Yeah I’m going to paraphrase heavily. In roughly his words. “I recognize that BBGX has a branding problem. And all those bullshit weapons like rail guns and lasers…it won’t have that. It’ll have the space to have them in the future, but not now, but that’s why it’s as big as it is. We’ve got surface action groups (3-4 DDGs) that can poke some holes in the enemy but don’t have good sustainment. We’ve got CVNs that can poke a lot of holes in the enemy and have good sustainment. But we’ve only got 11 of them with maybe 6 active at any given time. I envision BBGX as the platform inbetween a SAG and a CSG. It’s got the sustainment and also the ability to poke a lot of holes, but doesn’t depend on the logistical train that a CSG does. CVNs cost $18 billion and BBGX is projected to cost $17 billion. I recognize that’s a tough pill to swallow on the surface. But a CVN doesn’t just deploy and strike the enemy. Its aircraft strike the enemy. While on paper a CVM costs $18 billion, that’s not taking into account the aircraft, and all the logistics of aircraft. And I can’t just deploy a CVN instantly. It had a basic phase. And an advanced phase. And ALL of its aircraft have basic and advanced phases. Getting one out the door takes a lot of coordinating between training cycles. BBGX won’t have to do that, I just worries about itself, can go out there when we need it to poke a lot of holes one its own. It’s what we will send when we need to strike a lot of land targets quick, and don’t want to go through the logistical hurtles of a CVN.” “
 
totoro said:
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
Click to expand...
The USN is on record that they could not pack both the desired CPS module count and a gun into a 15-17kton ship design. It kept being one or the other, not both.

I happen to suspect that they're talking a dozen CPS tubes for 36 total missiles, and that takes up a lot of space.
 
TwoTribes said:
It's still a DDG-level array size, yet this is a 30,000+ ton ship. This ship needs a radar of SPY-6 69 RMAs level. Have a big dream!
Click to expand...
Well, its basically a DDG with a hull big enough to accomodate required weapon systems and ammo. The whole BBG(X) project basically was born, after Navy realized that DDG(X) just could not accomodate everything they deemed nessesary. The main problem were the CPS cells - their installation on DDG(X) required drastic reduction of Mk-41 VLS modules. The Navy briefly considered designing two sub-types of DDG(X) - one with CPS and reduced Mk-41 numbers, the other without CPS but with full Mk-41 numbers - but at that point they realized that two different destroyer types would be far more costly to operate, than a single big warship.
 
Dilandu said:
Well, its basically a DDG with a hull big enough to accomodate required weapon systems and ammo. The whole BBG(X) project basically was born, after Navy realized that DDG(X) just could not accomodate everything they deemed nessesary. The main problem were the CPS cells - their installation on DDG(X) required drastic reduction of Mk-41 VLS modules. The Navy briefly considered designing two sub-types of DDG(X) - one with CPS and reduced Mk-41 numbers, the other without CPS but with full Mk-41 numbers - but at that point they realized that two different destroyer types would be far more costly to operate, than a single big warship.
Click to expand...
How is a BBG(x) + a DDG(X) cheaper then two classes of DDG(X) ? You likely could even make them in more or less the same hull with most of the same sub systems. Pls tell how the first option can be cheaper?
 
Aegrotare said:
How is a BBG(x) + a DDG(X) cheaper then two classes of DDG(X) ? You likely could even make them in more or less the same hull with most of the same sub systems. Pls tell how the first option can be cheaper?
Click to expand...
There would be no new class of DDG(X), there would be BBG(X) in their place. A single big hull with a single set of engines, radars, computers and a single crew is cheaper than two smaller hulls, each of which requre its own set of machinery and its own crew.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom