BBG(X) - DISCUSSION ONLY

[Desertfox]

The problem still remains that BBG(X) has very limited ASW, needs ASW escorts that the US does not have, and is vulnerable to heavy torpedoes

 

[Josh_TN]

The problem still remains that BBG(X) has very limited ASW, needs ASW escorts that the US does not have, and is vulnerable to heavy torpedoes

The bigger problem is that it is far more costly than Burke 3 but not dramatically more survivable. The current display model has 3x 64 VLS arrays…ok, that’s two Burkes. But the cost is north of ten billion, which would buy you three Burkes.

 

[Dilandu]

Full NSM warhead is ~120 kg. Add on a precursor(which will eat into the volume), and to keep any semblance of explosive charge, your main warhead is a ~6" shell in weight, give or take. Consequences on larger ASCMs won't be this bad, but this was your example - and in any case, most reasonable sizes can be stopped, and most unreasonable sizes have implications on the survivability of the attacking munition itself: 6-7t missiles are geometrically easier, comparatively sluggish targets.
For someone so rude, you're quite ignorant. Not that it is a surprise.

Combined action warheads are pretty common even on mid-size ASM's. For example, Otomat is stated to be equipped with tandem HE/shaped charge & cluster/incendiary warhead. The frontal part is a shaped charge, aimed downward, which send the metal slug down to ship's insides, and cause blast wave damage to superstructure. The rear part is a cluster of incendiary bomblets, which spread and cause multiple fire sources (hampering damage control efforts).

While Otomat is bigger than, say, Exocet or Harpoon, it's not THAT big to be declared heavy ASM.

 

[DJK]

Well, the fact is, that large warships seems to be very hard to hit in first place. During Red Sea crisis and then Iranian War, there were multiple cases of massed attacks on warships. Not one of them was hit. So it actually seems that size matters; large warship with more advanced radars, fire control systems, and big ammo capacity is much less vulnerable than small one.

Up to a point, but the defences were more optimised for limited engagements of the red sea than what you might get with a China fight.

For the Red Sea I think I can recall any reports of attacks of more than 6 munitions of various types drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic.

Unfortunately militaries tend to prepare for the last war instead of next. It encourages you adversaries to beleive they have a chance of winning, and increases the extent they can bully your allies when they realise nobody is prepared.

Thin metal jets don't kill ships, ships are being killed by water, fire, being physically broken, or by catastrophic explosions.

Much bigger metal jets open holes for the rest of the dual charge to destroy multiple compartments. A Chinese AShM is likely smart enough to target priority things like radars and magazines.

 

[Dilandu]

The bigger problem is that it is far more costly than Burke 3 but not dramatically more survivable. The current display model has 3x 64 VLS arrays…ok, that’s two Burkes. But the cost is north of ten billion, which would buy you three Burkes.

As I said befire, the cost isn't exactly as big problem as industrial bottlenecks. You are literally printing money, after all, and a bit more billions would change nothing.

The narrow part is component production. Three Arleigh Burke-class would require three full sets of AN/SPY-6 radars, and their production is strictly limited. It just can't be seriously increased in short timeframe. So "just building more Arleigh Burke's" is not an option, you would not get any kind of force increase out of that. The AN/SPY-6 production schedule simply would not allow you to get additional ships.

Defiant-class, while much more costly, would require just one AN/SPY-6 radar set. And for all its worth, Defiant-class ship would be much more efficient that a single Arleigh Burke-class ship. So by replacing one Arleigh Burke in AN/SPY-6 production schedule with one Defiant, you would actually get force increase.

 

[DJK]

As I said befire, the cost isn't exactly as big problem as industrial bottlenecks. You are literally printing money, after all, and a bit more billions would change nothing.

You realise the costs of "printing money"? You have a Federal Reserve over there to prevent that becoming a chronic problem but it still sucks money away from more productive parts of the economy and sinks it into government spending that creates a liability funded by even more tax/borrowing. BBG would be very expensive for even the US economy.

 

[Ainen]

Combined action warheads are pretty common even on mid-size ASM's. For example, Otomat is stated to be equipped with tandem HE/shaped charge & cluster/incendiary warhead. The frontal part is a shaped charge, aimed downward, which send the metal slug down to ship's insides, and cause blast wave damage to superstructure. The rear part is a cluster of incendiary bomblets, which spread and cause multiple fire sources (hampering damage control efforts).

While Otomat is bigger than, say, Exocet or Harpoon, it's not THAT big to be declared heavy ASM.

It is. But you can take this as an example of what it takes to add a precursor:

Note, that it's ~half the length of a vanilla 360kg warhead.
As explosives have nowhere near the same mass as steel, any decrease in size of a warhead will disproportionately hit the explosive mass. I.e, it'll be a smaller slug with a very moderate payload. And you still need all the steel you can get - steel/composite/era aren't concrete, getting a clean cavity through them is much more complicated.
I'd probably guess that to get a clean overwater penetration of a "BB", you'd really need both precursor and high speed.
Adding high speed to the missile cuts even more size(3M54/YJ18 carry half the warhead their subsonic sisters do, and that's only a final dash at a high speed).
Otherwise(to keep useful warhead), you need a really big weapon. So either soviet theater ASCMs (fighter jet-sized ones), which you have to build your entire navy with superpower budget around, or return to droppable underwater warheads...which are good, but they're a predictable quantity.

 

[Scott Kenny]

As I said befire, the cost isn't exactly as big problem as industrial bottlenecks. You are literally printing money, after all, and a bit more billions would change nothing.

The inflation locally is already bad. I'm talking grocery prices having more than doubled since 2020.

Printing more money is NOT the solution.

The narrow part is component production. Three Arleigh Burke-class would require three full sets of AN/SPY-6 radars, and their production is strictly limited. It just can't be seriously increased in short timeframe. So "just building more Arleigh Burke's" is not an option, you would not get any kind of force increase out of that. The AN/SPY-6 production schedule simply would not allow you to get additional ships.

Defiant-class, while much more costly, would require just one AN/SPY-6 radar set. And for all its worth, Defiant-class ship would be much more efficient that a single Arleigh Burke-class ship. So by replacing one Arleigh Burke in AN/SPY-6 production schedule with one Defiant, you would actually get force increase.

Can we get alternatives? I mean, Japan went with SPY7 instead of SPY6 on their big ASEVs. If the bottleneck is SPY6 production we could use SPY7.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The bigger problem is that it is far more costly than Burke 3 but not dramatically more survivable. The current display model has 3x 64 VLS arrays…ok, that’s two Burkes. But the cost is north of ten billion, which would buy you three Burkes.

Three Burkes still won't do what this does.

 

[Dilandu]

Adding high speed to the missile cuts even more size(3M54/YJ18 carry half the warhead their subsonic sisters do, and that's only a final dash at a high speed).

You are missing one moment: the supersonic missile does not need tandem warhead. It have enough velocity to break through any armor by mere kinetic energy. A 360-kg warhead, slamming into enemy ship at Mach 2+ have about the same kinetic energy as 343-mm gun shell fired point-blank.

 

[Desertfox]

Three Burkes still won't do what this does.

They can do something one BBG can't, be far more available.

 

[Dilandu]

You realise the costs of "printing money"? You have a Federal Reserve over there to prevent that becoming a chronic problem but it still sucks money away from more productive parts of the economy and sinks it into government spending that creates a liability funded by even more tax/borrowing. BBG would be very expensive for even the US economy.

For the size of US economy, BBG would be a speck of dust, comparable to much more monumental spending. To make a noticeable difference you would likely need to cut defense spending at least in half.

The inflation locally is already bad. I'm talking grocery prices having more than doubled since 2020.

Printing more money is NOT the solution.

Generally I agree, but this is a matter of "either losing the war tomorrow, or going broke the day after".

Can we get alternatives? I mean, Japan went with SPY7 instead of SPY6 on their big ASEVs. If the bottleneck is SPY6 production we could use SPY7.

Assuming that they aren't requiring the same components as SPY-6 - otherwise you would just shift the bottleneck on the next level.

 

[Dilandu]

They can do something one BBG can't, be far more available.

As abortive attempts to escort tankers through Hormuz demonstrated in May, Burke's aren't exactly available. Only three of them could be munstered to perform escort durty, and it just wasn't enough.

Frankly, a combo of high-end BBGN and low-end FF might be a better idea. The low-end frigates would provide the availability, and when they need something more, the high-end battleships would be deployed.

 

[MadRat]

With a BBGN using a 57RMA or 69RMA (not the 37RMA) then it can safely sit far back like the CVN and feed information to smaller vessels. Combine that with Hawkeye up high, you see a high granular picture from wavetop to the low earth orbits. BBGN will have the magazine depth to prosecute targets that are high value and to hit them with larger effects. The SSBN could touch these same targets with conventional weapons, sure, but it plays a more important role that needs to be kept hidden. I didn't see the SSGN having these missiles, which imho is the better platform to launch from. But we cannot exactly put big radars on submarines. And lets not forget, BBGN is an asset for battlespace command over the region for which it sits. You aren't doing that from a sub.

I would like to see another approach where we convert a few bulk tankers, or larger oil supertankers, into missile trucks for the open ocean, too. Take a page from the sealift command ship strategy. The missiles can sit on deck in shelters. You can also put some helicopter pads on them for housing reserves. Not too many eggs in one basket, but use its size for auxiliary tasks. They could be spread out in the deep water to supplement the BBGN and DDGs.

 

[DJK]

Frankly, a combo of high-end BBGN and low-end FF might be a better idea. The low-end frigates would provide the availability, and when they need something more, the high-end battleships would be deployed.

Or not. BBs will be so few in number that even one would be a challenge, and impossible for low priority work that could compromise postiure in other theatres. Also if you are using FFs for additional numbers then your AAW component doesnt make sense as a single BB.

With a BBGN using a 57RMA or 69RMA (not the 37RMA) then it can safely sit far back like the CVN and feed information to smaller vessels.

I think you just pushed up the cost even further. This thing is a money sink and could grow to 50 billion each as it keeps growing.

And lets not forget, BBGN is an asset for battlespace command over the region for which it sits.

You dont need such a huge ship to do that, it would normally be done with a CG in the USN, but honestly command doesn't have to be a massive ship if you have a DDG escort. A AAW oriented FFG with additional command facility could do it. Hows that for a BB replacement?

 

[Josh_TN]

Three Burkes still won't do what this does.

“This” does not exist and from a magazine point of view, yes two burkes will. For the primary mission - area air defense - two Burkes would have as many missiles and more redundancy in radars.

I am not proposing the U.S. only build Burkes; I just think the more modest DDGX proposals were far more cost effective.

And a reminder: even the Republican Congress doesn’t want to fund these man child fantasy platforms. After the next elections, it seems exceedingly unlikely this project exists.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Assuming that they aren't requiring the same components as SPY-6 - otherwise you would just shift the bottleneck on the next level.

Fair point!

“This” does not exist and from a magazine point of view, yes two burkes will. For the primary mission - area air defense - two Burkes would have as many missiles and more redundancy in radars.

And still no CPS or flag facilities.

 

[Josh_TN]

Fair point!


And still no CPS or flag facilities.

For a saved $9 billion dollars you can build something else to put them on.

 

[Mk38]

Fair point!


And still no CPS or flag facilities.

Did you completely ignore his middle section there?

 

[Desertfox]

As abortive attempts to escort tankers through Hormuz demonstrated in May, Burke's aren't exactly available. Only three of them could be munstered to perform escort durty, and it just wasn't enough.

Frankly, a combo of high-end BBGN and low-end FF might be a better idea. The low-end frigates would provide the availability, and when they need something more, the high-end battleships would be deployed.

And thats with 75 Burkes, how much availability will there be with only 9 BBGs?

 

[Mk38]

We don’t need a $15b battleship

We need a $5bish cruiser/destroyer

If we need more CPS cells, then restart the zumwalts with CPS.
Either go all in on the CPS, replacing both gun mounts for CPS, or replace the second gun mount with a 57mm and replace the aft 30s with 57s.

You get 80 VLS, CPS, and possibly 3 57mm guns that way.

Then the new cruiser could have 100+ VLS, 5”, 4 mk38 mod4s, 2 RAM, facilities for 2 mh69s and a few LUCASes

 

[Dilandu]

We need a $5bish cruiser/destroyer

If we need more CPS cells, then restart the zumwalts with CPS.
Either go all in on the CPS, replacing both gun mounts for CPS, or replace the second gun mount with a 57mm and replace the aft 30s with 57s.

You get 80 VLS, CPS, and possibly 3 57mm guns that way.

Then the new cruiser could have 100+ VLS, 5”, 4 mk38 mod4s, 2 RAM, facilities for 2 mh69s and a few LUCASes

I rather doubt it would fit into 5 billions.

 

[spikedpsycho]

Trump battleship whackoff fantasies aside. What's ideal armament. I would ascertain
x2: shore Bombardment guns meaning far superior caliber to 155mm say 203mm.
x2: 76mm naval guns
x4: 57mm guns
x4: 35mm Rhinemetal CIWS guns or Phalanx 20mm

VLS: elevated too accommodate taller missiles. 96-128 cells
- x32 Sea Sparrows (quad packed)
- x32 SM2/SM6
- x8 SM3
Rest filled assortment on demand of Tomahawks, VLAsroc. Whatever possible hypersonic designs conceive.

x2 Triple torpedo tubes

x4 anti submarine grenade launchers
x4 clusters antiship missiles (Harpoon/NSM)

Cluster anti-small drone defensive machine guns

 

[DWG]

They can do something one BBG can't, be far more available.

And be in three places at once .....

 

[spikedpsycho]

We don't need a 10 billion dollar battleship. We need long range frigates/destroyers.
More drones.
More importantly sea planes and Drydocks.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Did you completely ignore his middle section there?

No.

The USN needs a ship with enough space for the AAW flag. That means a second, full CIC. Which takes around 15 bodies to operate everything, per watch. Times at least 3 watches if not 5. So there's ~15 additional bodies for the Commodore and his staff, plus the extra cooks to feed all the extra bodies. An easy 75-100 dudes for the flag command space and everything else related.

Means you need berthing for a flag officer, about 15 regular officers, likely 15 chiefs, and 45-70 enlisted. That's a significant crew volume that is required for the command role.

No, we cannot put that on the carrier, the carrier already has IIRC four CIC-equivalent spaces for what it needs to do: ship CIC, Group Flag CIC to plot where the group will be going, Air Wing ops, and flight deck ops. And a carrier doesn't have space to add another CIC, even if they might have the berthing to hold all the people.

 

[Mk38]

I rather doubt it would fit into 5 billions.

A Burke is $2-3b-ish, there’s no reason a cruiser couldn’t fit into the $5-6b range.

 

[Mk38]

No.

The USN needs a ship with enough space for the AAW flag. That means a second, full CIC. Which takes around 15 bodies to operate everything, per watch. Times at least 3 watches if not 5. So there's ~15 additional bodies for the Commodore and his staff, plus the extra cooks to feed all the extra bodies. An easy 75-100 dudes for the flag command space and everything else related.

Means you need berthing for a flag officer, about 15 regular officers, likely 15 chiefs, and 45-70 enlisted. That's a significant crew volume that is required for the command role.

No, we cannot put that on the carrier, the carrier already has IIRC four CIC-equivalent spaces for what it needs to do: ship CIC, Group Flag CIC to plot where the group will be going, Air Wing ops, and flight deck ops. And a carrier doesn't have space to add another CIC, even if they might have the berthing to hold all the people.

I have never heard of a 5 section watch. Most I’ve ever heard of was 4, but that’s a rare aspirational watch rotation.

So 45-60, don’t think it would take an extra 20+ CSes to feed the flag staff…just need bigger pots and pans and maybe 3-6 more 1-2 extra per rotation.

Not sure where you’re getting your numbers from…but ok? What of needing that extra crew and space? A few more staterooms, another chief’s berthing, another lower enlisted berthing, and another CIC.

Steel and air are cheap. You could likely fit all of that into a 600-625ft long ship. The consoles for the second CIC still probably aren’t all that expensive.

 

[Dilandu]

A Burke is $2-3b-ish, there’s no reason a cruiser couldn’t fit into the $5-6b range.

Following that logic a battleship should fit into 6-9 billions range.

 

[Dilandu]

Steel and air are cheap. You could likely fit all of that into a 600-625ft long ship. The consoles for the second CIC still probably aren’t all that expensive.

At this moment, we hit a problem; either steel and air are cheap, and this there aren't much difference between 20.000 cruiser and 35.000 battleship, or there is difference and cruiser won't be cheap too.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I have never heard of a 5 section watch. Most I’ve ever heard of was 4, but that’s a rare aspirational watch rotation.

4 competent sections, plus all the nubs. (Or rather, 3 sections plus drill team, plus all the nubs between the 3 sections)

So 45-60, don’t think it would take an extra 20+ CSes to feed the flag staff…just need bigger pots and pans and maybe 3-6 more 1-2 extra per rotation.

15 dudes manning CIC, plus 5 non-quals underfoot as Under Instructions per watch, just 3 sections makes 60 bodies. 15 senior bodies in the drill team makes 75. Commodore, Flag LT, Flag Writer, and a couple other nuisances for the afloat staff (5-10 total staff afloat). 5 extra cooks (days and nights), 5 extra SHs (laundry techs), and now we're at ~95.

Yeah, I stand by 100 extra dudes being necessary for any ship packing Flag quarters.

(Edit: my last job in the Navy, I was working for a submarine squadron. The Squadron Commodore was a full bird Captain, he had IIRC 3-4 post command deputies available for events that required such an experienced person, Squadron Engineer, Squadron Navigator, Squadron Weapons officer, and Squadron Communications Officer. Supply was handled through a different organization, so we didn't have a Squadron Chop. And then we had about 20 Chiefs or very senior 1st Class Petty Officers. Plus two E5 yeomen in the Squadron admin office. The AAW flag in a cruiser won't have as many nuisances, but he's absolutely got a couple replacement Weapons Officers available to slot into any ship in the group not up to standards.)

Not sure where you’re getting your numbers from…but ok? What of needing that extra crew and space? A few more staterooms, another chief’s berthing, another lower enlisted berthing, and another CIC.

Steel and air are cheap. You could likely fit all of that into a 600-625ft long ship. The consoles for the second CIC still probably aren’t all that expensive.

You absolutely could pack that into a 600ish foot ship, though I'd prefer to put it in a 650-675ft ship.

What you're not doing is packing that extra hundred bodies and the comms links and the physical AAW Flag CIC into a Burke.

 

[Mk38]

Following that logic a battleship should fit into 6-9 billions range.

Not really, considering it’s supposed to be like 3x the size, double the VLS, and however much the imaginary technology of a railgun would cost.

 

[Seragina]

Flag staff is usually larger depeding on mission and the extra experts added. Afaik up to 200+ was the design requirement for cruisers in the past. With today's networking between HQ's this number is probably no longer needed to be as high. Especially with how versatile NGAD software is meant to replace part of HQ's work and this capability will also be applied to the Navy's (coming along with F/A-XX).

 

[Mk38]

At this moment, we hit a problem; either steel and air are cheap, and this there aren't much difference between 20.000 cruiser and 35.000 battleship, or there is difference and cruiser won't be cheap too.

No, we don’t hit a problem. A cruiser with no imaginary gun, or CPS as just a starting example.

But when you’re talking about 15k tons of extra steel vs enough extra steel to fit an extra CIC, and few berthings in.

They’re not remotely comparable positions.

We’re talking about a cruiser that would likely be 13-15k tons. There’s no reason for said cruisers to be 20k tons

 

[Mk38]

4 competent sections, plus all the nubs. (Or rather, 3 sections plus drill team, plus all the nubs between the 3 sections)



15 dudes manning CIC, plus 5 non-quals underfoot as Under Instructions per watch, just 3 sections makes 60 bodies. 15 senior bodies in the drill team makes 75. Commodore, Flag LT, Flag Writer, and a couple other nuisances for the afloat staff (5-10 total staff afloat). 5 extra cooks (days and nights), 5 extra SHs (laundry techs), and now we're at ~95.

Yeah, I stand by 100 extra dudes being necessary for any ship packing Flag quarters.




You absolutely could pack that into a 600ish foot ship, though I'd prefer to put it in a 650-675ft ship.

What you're not doing is packing that extra hundred bodies and the comms links and the physical AAW Flag CIC into a Burke.

Ok? I never said anything about fitting all of that into a Burke. I said a new destroyer/cruiser. Not fitting it all into a maxed out platform.

 

[Mk38]

Flag staff is usually larger depeding on mission and the extra experts added. Afaik up to 200+ was the design requirement for cruisers in the past. With today's networking between HQ's this number is probably no longer needed to be as high. Especially with how versatile NGAD software is meant to replace part of HQ's work and this capability will also be applied to the Navy's (coming along with F/A-XX).

What? You have a source for that 200+ flag staff claim?

A Ticonderoga’s compliment is 330 officers and enlisted.
Are you claiming that most of that is flag staff, or that there’s some way of fitting 60% more personnel onboard?

Virginia class cruisers had a compliment of 579 officers and enlisted. So is it your claim that all these cruisers had tiny base crews or that there’s navy is cramming an extra 40-60% officers the ship’s compliment into them?

 

[Seragina]

What? You have a source for that 200+ flag staff claim?

I have it from one of the books on a WWII cruiser class design but I can't remember which one atm. Eventhough I have it finding this minute detail isn't trivial.

 

[DWG]

The USN needs a ship with enough space for the AAW flag. That means a second, full CIC.

I think that comes under nice to have, rather than essential. Didn't they run Harry S Truman's AAW flag from a LCS after Gettysburg's little faux pas?

What you're not doing is packing that extra hundred bodies and the comms links and the physical AAW Flag CIC into a Burke.

Putting the AAW flag on a Burke was part of the original Flight III proposal back in 1990. A stretched Burke (46') admittedly, but still a Burke. So it's certainly possible.

 

[DJK]

And still no CPS or flag facilities.

Flag goes on a cruiser. Find a barge or something to stick CPS on.

Then the new cruiser could have 100+ VLS, 5”, 4 mk38 mod4s,

I think we should get over the idea of navy ships having Phalanx or Mk38 guns for close/point defence. Modern threats need something with more useful effective range against ASMs and both air/surface drone swarms that could turn up in a Pacific fight (potentially as a synchronised attack). I like Rheinmetal's offering but not dual feed and theres probably better choices these days.

96-128 cells

But you proposed a loadout that would literally fit on an Australian destroyer. If land atack options are so essential then get used to filling the first 96 cells with air defence, afterall its an air warfare cruiser.

Following that logic a battleship should fit into 6-9 billions range.

If it was realistic yes. God knows where the other 20B is supposed to go, maybe industrial donation pork and corruption?

 

[DWG]

Trump battleship whackoff fantasies aside. What's ideal armament. I would ascertain
x2: shore Bombardment guns

I thought you said putting fantasies aside? This is getting right back to the Zumwalts and hiding your next gen stealthy missile platform in eyesight of the enemy coast.

x4 anti submarine grenade launchers

Seriously?