BBG(X) - DISCUSSION ONLY

DJK said:
And the trend seems to be for carrier USV to launch tiny UAVs. I wouldnt be suprised to see long range USVs launching small UUVs and torpedoes close to their targets.
Click to expand...
Air-dropped light-weight torpedoes aren't exactly damaging to most surface ships, so you'd be talking 21" submarine heavyweight types to go after manned ships.

LWTs may be viable versus USVs since they have minimal damage control capabilities and are generally small enough that ~100-200lbs of TNT equivalent would be a serious threat. But you'd have to make dedicated ASuW lightweights, as all existing LWTs are optimized for going after submarines.
 
shin_getter said:
I do find it funny that that BBGX is considered asymmetric when the Chinese would likely steal the plans and finish the Chinese BBG fleet before the Americans are done. I mean Americans got the Soviets to build the space shuttle, for example.
Click to expand...
NOPE. China won't copy it. Because it was born for Trump, and China doesn't have a Trump.

The BBG(X) name has blinded too many minds. It is not CG(X), not DDG(X), and certainly not BBG(X). If Congress passes its budget, it will be the Trump class battleship. If Congress does not pass its budget, then it will be BBG(C) (Canceled) or BBG(D) (Disappeared). This is a political program. Its very existence depends on Trump's likes and dislikes.
 
shin_getter said:
Actual asymmetrics is building something that the other side can't build, like space, or irrelevant to their task
Click to expand...
A BBG(X) equivalent would be irrelevant and nonsensical to the PLAN. They don't need a powerful, nuclear powered (thus unlimited range) surface combatant. Because they already dominate the entire first Island Chain and hold advantage in the second island chain thanks to their already existing surface and subsurface assets, as well as mobile missile systems and the PLAAF with their fleet of long range aircraft which can also safely refuel in Chinese controlled territory. That's why BBG(X) caters to US needs (survivable ABM, AAW and long range precision strike and ASh capability with unlimited range) but not to PLAN needs. UUVs and USVs cater to PLAN needs because they don't have to deploy and develop systems of extremely long ranges, as that's their backyard already and they have the economy, the yards and the knowledge on how to develop such systems on scale. The Chinese would wish for the US to foolishly try and copy that approach, because ultimately the US would bleed money and resources on an unprecedented scale when all of their UUVs and USVs melt away due to a larger numbers of Chinese systems hunting them in waters wholly controlled, mapped and monitored by them and their vessels and aircraft.

Josh_TN said:
You are going to ha To prove to me that China “plays that game better”
Click to expand...
Have you seen the sheer variety of unmanned platforms the Chinese have adopted or are actively developing, some of which basically strategic bomber sized? Or how their idea of loyal wingmen are genuinely fighter sized aircraft with optimization towards low observability, something that leaps ahead of CCA Increment 1, to which they also have equivalents (possibly the cheapest and most expendable systems they want to deploy). And something like AJX002 also makes something like Orca look rather lackluster. The Ukraine War is in large part fought with Chinese made hobby-grade drones, lol, as are the Lebanese strikes on IDF occupation forces. Trying to claim that China isn't leading the unmanned systems race is not a hill I'd like to die on. When virtually half of PLA watching at this point is keeping up with all the drone systems they're developing and deploying on land, air and sea.
 
Last edited:
Desertfox said:
Sure but it did not work out well for either the Japanese nor the Germans in WWII.

Asymmetry would be to go with a US strength against a Chinese weakness, ie sub, lots of subs.
Click to expand...
Just that China is outpacing US submarine production at a comical scale right now, with everything from smaller subs like the Type 041 to the top of the line Type 095 and whatever sailless sub(s) they recently put into the water, on top of their existing fleet of already established systems and the already mentioned UUVs (China is said to hold the largest fleet in the world of such systems).

In the naval domain the advantages the US holds over the Chinese are slowly disappearing one by one. Once it was radar, until the Chinese introduced the Type 055, then it was carriers, until China introduced an EMALS supercarrier with stealth fighters, then it was subs, until now. What's left? Logistics? Amphibious warfare?
 
Dilandu said:
Yes, and building a smaller force of much bigger ships is an assymetrical approach. The concept itself is not directly linked with "smaller, cheaper units". It merely indicate that you are not trying to seek parity with enemy in number and classes of units, instead searching for the way to parry his forces cheaper.
Click to expand...
Exactly, the Soviet Navy for example was taking an asymmetrical approach against the USN, which resulted in the AShM monsters like the Project 1144, Projekt 1164 or Project 949.
 
EmoBirb said:
Exactly, the Soviet Navy for example was taking an asymmetrical approach against the USN, which resulted in the AShM monsters like the Project 1144, Projekt 1164 or Project 949.
Click to expand...
The Soviet Navy assymetrical approach was more about the use of heavy standoff missiles in general - from ships, submarines and jet bombers - to knock out USN heavy units from safe distance. The approach was more focused on specific roles, like anti-ship attacks, and lacked the flexibility of conventional ones. But - it allowed USSR to parry the USN with much more limited resources.

So essentially USSR sacrificed flexibility and multi-purposeness of conventional naval force, to create a more specialized, cheaper instrument for a set of narrowly defined functions. It worked, but by 1970s Soviet Navy wanted more functions, so more "symmetric" elements (like aircraft carrying cruisers) were added.
 
Desertfox said:
Sure but it did not work out well for either the Japanese nor the Germans in WWII.
Click to expand...
Japanese approach was forced by industrial limitations - basically like American today.

And German approach wasn't exactly "quality with quantity" either. Something like that was planned for Z-program - but I remind you that essentially nothing out of "Plan Z" came into reality, and Kriegsmarine was forced to fight the war with ships never intended for that purpose (essentially the whole pre-war German shipbuilding was oriented against the France, not Britain).

While Bismark-class ships were, indeed, much bigger than cotemporary analogues, they weren't exactly better; their excessive size was mainly caused by very confused and chaotic design & devdlopment process, rather than an attempt to design "superior" unit. Basically, "Bismark" was the smallest size in which Germans managed to fit a functionality of 35.000-ton fast battleship.
 
Edited to move frigate discussion posts - please stay on topic. This is BBGX thread, not a fantasy FFGX thread.
 
Josh_TN said:
China can out produce the US in USVs and UUVs if it wants to
Click to expand...
The future is about energy control. BBGN(X) is an efficient use of resources from an energy point of view. They will operate 30-35 years on the reactors. But to throw a fleet of USV/UUV it requires a wide area network of logistics. China can figure one out, sure, but the BBGN can coordinate a response in the deep water to break that logistics chain and walk it right back to the South China Sea. And BBGN will not operate in a void, they will coordinate air assets over a huge chunk of real estate. The BBGN is going to be a large space for mounting command responses.
 
EmoBirb said:
A BBG(X) equivalent would be irrelevant and nonsensical to the PLAN.
Click to expand...
Space shuttle are irrelevant and nonsensical to EVERYONE, the Soviets still copied them. (and proceed to trash it in a collapsing hanger....)

And aircraft carriers are irrelevant and nonsensical to PLAN's mission of invading a island well within tactical aircraft range, but they did it anyways.

And dreadnaughts are irrelevant and nonsensical to a war plan that involves knocking out the French in decisive attack, but Germany still made a enemy out of Britain just to build them. After the clearest failure of naval strategy in one war, they had to repeat the exercise with plan z.

Oh and Russians/Soviet navy where their geography makes navies less relevant, but all proper states need toys to get blown up embarrassingly in the next war.
------

Frankly the Chinese would have more use for a BBG since they need all the ABM and AAW that money can by to get their amphib fleet cross the channel while multinational coalition drops every bit of combined arms munition spam in their direction. CPS is just a whatever, but that is true for just about all the offensive munitions on surface ships. Oh and Chinese are building USV/UUV, clearly they need BATTLESHIPS, nothing wimpy and woke like USS Blue Ridge or commanding things from land.

Conversely, the anti-Chinese coalition can just put a quadrillion missile launcher on land and basically enforce status quo. The USN can cease to exist and still win that war as long as the opposite end underwater. The issue is that missile launcher on the target is somehow "escalation" while a ship for the same conflict somehow isn't.

TwoTribes said:
NOPE. China won't copy it. Because it was born for Trump, and China doesn't have a Trump.
Click to expand...
Xi is better than Trump. Xi is the greatest leader that will bring the decadent west down with superior display of technology in all domains!

Certainly no battleship gap can be allowed to exist (see above)

------
* I guess hanging out with the Chinese and learning about some of the inner workings just tell me that dysfunctionality and incompetence is universal. It is anger inducing to see "one's side" fail the basics, until you realize that the other side can fail even harder. It is failure all the way down, the one "competent" force would take over the world (and you'd actually support them!), but the world is too complicated for that generally.
 
Last edited:
Given the recent news about potential restrictions on BBG(X) funding until all systems are “mature”, the frequently echoed complaints about lack of VLS cells, the political pressure to get steel laid on it before Trump’s term is up, and the fact that the design only seems to exist in the broadest strokes, are we going to see the concept radically retooled to de-risk it and enable production?

Presumably by ripping out the speculative-fiction railgun and laser arrays and slotting in more VLS cells and CIWS (which might also let it drop back to a conventional power plant, and thus not ruin submarine or aircraft carrier delivery schedules). Might also take the opportunity to shrink the thing to bring costs down… but if they start down that path, at what point are they just re-submitting the DDG(X) plans with masking tape over the label?
 
BBGN(X) is being beaten up on cost grounds. The projected costs to $11.5 billion per unit by the third hull. It continues to drop as the hull reachs beyond three.
 
JS23 said:
Presumably by ripping out the speculative-fiction railgun and laser arrays and slotting in more VLS cells and CIWS (which might also let it drop back to a conventional power plant, and thus not ruin submarine or aircraft carrier delivery schedules). Might also take the opportunity to shrink the thing to bring costs down… but if they start down that path, at what point are they just re-submitting the DDG(X) plans with masking tape over the label?
Click to expand...
Given the complaints about not being able to fit both 5" gun and the volume-eating APM tubes into 17,000tons, I'm suspecting that if/when the Navy submits a smaller ship they're going to call it a CGX. IEP propulsion with enough extra generation capacity to run big radars, high powered jammers, directed-energy weapons.
 
So stick CPS on something cheaper. You could probably fit a pair on a 40’ TEU erector/launcher, and if so a Marauder class USV could carry eight. Saronic can build ~20 a year starting next year. Strike option achieved in 1/10th the time and cost.
 
JS23 said:
Presumably by ripping out the speculative-fiction railgun and laser arrays
Click to expand...
Yes except that lasers are happening now. HELIOS is deployed but proper pulse ones have a better chance of happening than railguns.
JS23 said:
and slotting in more VLS cells and CIWS
Click to expand...
If you were thinking Phalanx, I would recommend doing something 30mm to 40mm, preferably super reliable with a below deck ready magazine. And yes keep RAM for now, maybe upgrade if needed against hypersonic ASMs.
JS23 said:
Might also take the opportunity to shrink the thing to bring costs down… but if they start down that path, at what point are they just re-submitting the DDG(X) plans with masking tape over the label?
Click to expand...
Or just admit DDG(X) was pretty close, and can be combined with a stretched version as an updated CG(X). Maximum commonality. No APS, optional GVLS or Mk-57.
 
Nothing anyone with an inkling of US politics did not already know: it does not matter that BBGX is a stupid idea. Mere politics would kill it even if it had any merit. Which it does not, as I like to point out in this thread as often as possible.

You might as well have a thread about Dale Browns super fortress; it has a more realistic chance of happening than BBGX.
 
The RAM and laser coverage is ridiculous. All that real estate, and this is still the best the USN can come up with?
 
Last edited:
MihoshiK said:
The RAM and laser coverage is ridiculous. All that real estate, and this is still the best the USN can come up with?
Click to expand...

RAM can at least steer into the blind spot. The lasers seem like they should be fore and aft instead.

The Mk 38s on the bridge roof are a terrible idea. Going to make it impossible to think up there when they start firing.
 
TomS said:
The lasers seem like they should be fore and aft instead.
Click to expand...
Or add 2 more lasers for fore and aft.


TomS said:
The Mk 38s on the bridge roof are a terrible idea. Going to make it impossible to think up there when they start firing.
Click to expand...
Not really a better place to put them, though. Either they go immediately in front of the bridge or they go up to the front of the VLS.
 
I thought the Navy had moved on from the 25mm Mk.38 to the 30mm Mk.46 on new builds. Then again some of these diagrams list them as "30mm Mk.38" so I'm not sure what's going on there.

For the sheer size of this ship they ought to be the 57mm Mk.110 instead although you couldn't put those over the bridge like that.
 
Dilandu said:
On the other hand, Hormuz crisis clearly demondstrated the need of something durable, capable of "punching through"...
Click to expand...

Taking my response away from the news thread.

Hormuz demonstrates no such thing. The Trump class would have magazines as deep as two Burke’s, and…add nothing more to the tactical situation. The problem is not that Burkes cannot “break through”, the problem is that civilian ships will not.
 
Josh_TN said:
Taking my response away from the news thread.

Hormuz demonstrates no such thing. The Trump class would have magazines as deep as two Burke’s, and…add nothing more to the tactical situation. The problem is not that Burkes cannot “break through”, the problem is that civilian ships will not.
Click to expand...
Battle-tankers it is then!
 
Josh_TN said:
The problem is not that Burkes cannot “break through”, the problem is that civilian ships will not.
Click to expand...
And both Burkes and BBG behemoths will still take damage from mines. The strategy would be to use UUVs and USVs to demine the strait while manned ships and other USVs protect them from air attacks. After all that, there's still no 100% protection for civilian ships.
 
BBGN? A good excuse for the next presidential administration to cancel this project.
 
Given the still highly experimental nature of the Railgun, and the odds of it getting cancelled, they should just drop the Railgun for now, and redesignate it as CGN-74, BCGN if they REALLY want that Battle bit in the name.
 
Given that it brings nothing to the table and just satisfies the current POTUS penis envy, a better argument could be made for ending the whole program. Which I remind everyone will happen when/if the democrats control the House, which Polymarket thinks is an 87% probability last I checked.
 
Josh_TN said:
Given that it brings nothing to the table and just satisfies the current POTUS penis envy, a better argument could be made for ending the whole program.
Click to expand...

I'd say that the whole process will be dragged out long enough till the Orange Oaf is out of the Oval Office with no metal being cut and then it will be cancelled, but if the Democrats to regain control of the House and hopefully the Senate next November it will be cancelled outright.​
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom