BBG(X) - DISCUSSION ONLY

[cccgong]

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.

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.

 

[Sferrin]

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

That's probably why the CCCP are building carriers as fast as they can.

 

[cccgong]

That's probably why the CCCP are building carriers as fast as they can.

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.

 

[Scott Kenny]

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.

And the Submariner just laughs at the idea of no additional crew needed to make a nuclear reactor work.

 

[cccgong]

And the Submariner just laughs at the idea of no additional crew needed to make a nuclear reactor work.

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.

 

[Scott Kenny]

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.

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]

If you think that the Navy will accept no human interaction with the reactor, you're smoking something that you need to start sharing.

There’s what they want and what actually makes sense.

 

[illRoyalPanda]

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.

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?

 

[illRoyalPanda]

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.

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.

 

[MadRat]

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?

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.

 

[Dilandu]

BBG(X) will carry enough firepower to literally do exactly that from one ship across an entire theater of operations.

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.

 

[EmoBirb]

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.

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.

 

[Cjc]

There’s what they want and what actually makes sense.

Sadly this is the us navy we are talking about here.

 

[Mallard]

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.

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

 

[Mallard]

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.

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.

 

[Hydroman]

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.

 

[Desertfox]

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.

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.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

The BBG(X) proposals all show massive 4-sided radars.

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).

 

[MadRat]

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.

It's a good thing the DF-21s won't sink.

 

[Dilandu]

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.

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).

 

[Scott Kenny]

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).

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?

 

[Dilandu]

It's my understanding that CPS is capable of engaging moving targets.

Never saw anything about such capability, frankly.

 

[totoro]

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.

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]

There’s what they want and what actually makes sense.

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.

 

[cccgong]

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.

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.

 

[johnpjones1775]

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?

I can’t find anything about it hitting moving targets.
The closest I can find is fleeting targets

 

[Desertfox]

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?

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.

 

[Scott Kenny]

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.

If you can update targeting while the missile is in flight it can hit a moving target.

 

[MadRat]

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.

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.

 

[Dilandu]

If you can update targeting while the missile is in flight it can hit a moving target.

Assuming you can, and assuming that missile is maneuverable enough on terminal stage to do it.

 

[Scott Kenny]

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.

This was about the CPS or whatever they're calling the US ship-launched hypersonic missile. Not SM6

 

[MadRat]

This was about the CPS or whatever they're calling the US ship-launched hypersonic missile. Not SM6

That makes a little more sense, but I guess it makes little sense to even use such as asset against a moving target.

 

[Forest Green]

That makes a little more sense, but I guess it makes little sense to even use such as asset against a moving target.

Future modifications could allow for it though. The CPS RV is definitely big enough to fit a radar.

 

[Desertfox]

If you can update targeting while the missile is in flight it can hit a moving target.

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.

 

[MadRat]

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.

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.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

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.

 

[Sferrin]

At the very least, the projected number of Ford carriers could comfortably be cut back a bit,

Yes, but no. We're already down to 11 carriers. If we want to field Fords at the rate the Nimitz class is retiring, then we need to increase the build rate if anything.

 

[Desertfox]

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.

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.

 

[SUPER=BUG]

That's really strange... Are they really going to install a railgun?

 

[CastleBravo]

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.

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.