BBG(X) - DISCUSSION ONLY

Wonder if the battleship will manage to enter service when Trump is still president without being delayed.
 
Maybe there has been no modern twin 5 inchers for the simple fact the twin turrets are relatively large.

We basically had this debate elsewhere. First came VGAS then it was decided to more or less move to smaller gun barrels. VGAS and its potential offshoots promised to be even more compact than the single 5 inch mount. Obviously the utility of the gun for shorter ranges on low trajectory becomes a major loss. The 5 inch however had the punch to kinetic kill some of the largest missile and bomb threats, so a VGAS could never completely replace the single mount. But if you had a 155mm or 203mm VGAS it is much easier to warm up to the smaller 3 inch guns for low trajectory targets. Somehow they circled back to AGS. Navy planners designing the next great solution are worst than brides planning for weddings over a year out. Total insanity and no real decisions, just lots of money wasted to only go with different solutions in crunch time.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Note that a CPS tube is 85" internal diameter, which holds 3x CPS missiles. Not the quad pack of Trident tubes holding 12x CPS birds that are fitted to the Zumwalts.

12 CPS tubes is a 3x4 block roughly 36x48ft. Minimum. ~40x60 is more likely. And ~35-45ft deep.
Click to expand...
So these 12 tubes hold 36 missiles? o_O
 
After what happened to the Zumwalt class destroyers I can totally agree with you on that point Jimmo952. Also it will be highly doubtful if it will enter service at all especially in sufficient numbers to make up for how much the total cost will be.
 
TomS said:
Propulsion, to an extent.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, and someone pointed out the exact radar installation was new, though I would argue it was made from existing components in service. But the problem was not any one system, and more over BBGX will also have a new propulsion and radar installation.

The idea that suddenly the USN can flawlessly design a larger, more complicated ship in a year or two seems like unbridled fantasy.
 
I think that the Lockheed design is not too bad for a start given the twin island structure, certainly if it improves survivability in a shooting war then that is the way to go.
 
FighterJock said:
I think that the Lockheed design is not too bad for a start given the twin island structure, certainly if it improves survivability in a shooting war then that is the way to go.
Click to expand...
I am highly skeptical survivability is increased to an signifcant degree. The Japanese determined that a single heavy ASM would sink a FFG, and the leaked Chinese simulation data showed that a single DF21 hit would break the back of a Nimitz class and sink it. Adding a couple dozen feet of extra seperation between some systems won't help very much.
 
cccgong said:
I am highly skeptical survivability is increased to an signifcant degree. The Japanese determined that a single heavy ASM would sink a FFG, and the leaked Chinese simulation data showed that a single DF21 hit would break the back of a Nimitz class and sink it. Adding a couple dozen feet of extra seperation between some systems won't help very much.
Click to expand...
So a Chinese paper claimed they had a super weapon? Wow not like authoritarian regimes have never bluffed up their capabilities to the dear leader before or anything.
 
I would hope they can remotely operate weapons from onboard another ship after its original CIC goes down or perhaps as its being abandoned. Continue to battle and shoot as it sinks like Admiral John Paul Jones.
 
For twin mounts looks like the USS pyro had two twin 3” guns in ‘57
And the bronstein class had a twin 3” mount
 
Scott Kenny said:
Ah, a curse of English.

I don't think there's been a multi-gun turret in the USN since the Iowas. Barring them, whoever was the last ship mounting a 5"/38, the FRAM-cans in the 1970s or whenever they were retired.
Click to expand...

The Mk 66 for the Spruances was the last one designed during/right before Vietnam. The last one in service were the 3" doubles from WW2 in the USCG in the 90s.
 
What is the status of DDGX? Is BBGX replacing DDGX or is it in addition to?
 
Jimmo952 said:
What is the status of DDGX? Is BBGX replacing DDGX or is it in addition to?
Click to expand...
It’s kinda hard to tell.
In January of this year congress was discussing it as an ongoing project, but the next round of funding doesn’t mention it.

That could mean it’s a dead program, or it could mean it has enough funding to make through until the next budget needs approved after this one.
However there are sources that state BBGX is replacing DDGX.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
It’s kinda hard to tell.
In January of this year congress was discussing it as an ongoing project, but the next round of funding doesn’t mention it.

That could mean it’s a dead program, or it could mean it has enough funding to make through until the next budget needs approved after this one.
However there are sources that state BBGX is replacing DDGX.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the response.

It seems insane to cancel DDGX in favor of BBGX.

Hopefully, that is not what is going on.
 
Jimmo952 said:
What is the status of DDGX? Is BBGX replacing DDGX or is it in addition to?
Click to expand...
BBG(X) is replacing DDG(X) but not the Arleigh Burke, which presumably is meant to stay in production until the heat death of the universe.

Some interesting things about BBG(X) in the FY27 budget request:
  • "Adopting best practices from Korean and Japanese shipbuilding, the approach emphasizes high design maturity before construction begins," and yet
  • "concurrency between design, test, and production" also mentioned, with "U.S. shipyards focusing on final assembly and integration", with modularity allowing for "early fabrication of hull modules."
  • "multi-disciplinary national collaborative team" for the design.
  • given the above, and ignoring the contradictions, they seem to be suggesting that the Koreans will build major parts of the hull and barge them over to the US for final assembly.
  • Also discussed: an "Energy Magazine (EM)" composed of lithium-ion batteries.
Funding requested in FY27:
  • $585M for concept development
  • $269M for IPS development
  • $1B advanced procurement
The BBG(X) will never be built, of course, but we'll see how these developments affect the ship design efforts that arise once BBG(X) is canceled.
 
Look, the fundamental problem of USN is that it could not even hope to leverage Chinese numerical advantage. American shipbuilding simply could not crunch out enough hulls, and even if drastic measures would be undertaken, it would still took decades to significantly improve the situation.

The same for technological advantages. Chinese tech is on pair with American. In some areas ahead, in some behind, but general level is compatible. So creating decisive technological advantage for USN is also out of question.

If you can't got the numbers, and you can't hope for technological advantage, the only solution that does not led to "inevitable defeat at the end" is to try something radically new. Something to which the opponent isn't prepared, against which his armed forces aren't optimized.

To put it simply, a new class of DDGs would provide USN with no quantum leap. It would essentially be "we finally copied Chinese Type 055". But a new class of battleships represent a jump into unknown - unknown for both the USN and PLAN. Neither side have much experience in operating or opposing fleets of large, durable capital ships with excessive self-defense capabilities. Both sides would require to re-think their tactics and strategy. And there the situation is (at least) not doomed from beginning.
 
Dilandu said:
Essentially yes. A hull big enough to fit everything Navy wanted - and have a reserves of space and weight for decades of suvsequent modernizations.
Click to expand...

It sounds good in a fantasy world but how many of those are we going to be able to afford?

The Zumwalt class was too expensive to build in numbers.

This may very well be a repeat of that mistake.

It's not that I don't think a very large surface combatant would be useful. I can't see us being able to build and man enough of them to matter.
 
It's seems rather laughable that it's going to have taken the USN at least 30 years of studies and two orphan classes of ships to find an ideal DDG and FFG design (assuming this $1.85 billion study actually results in something buildable).
And while the nature of naval warfare has changed during that period - and will change again - no other major navy seems to have spent as long navel gazing as the USN. No ship is ever going to be future proof against all eventualities, at some point you have to actually stump up the cash and build something.
 
Jimmo952 said:
It sounds good in a fantasy world but how many of those are we going to be able to afford?
Click to expand...
Well, USN build 13 San-Antonio class LPDs - of comparable size - in 26 years. So its reasonable to assume, that you could commission a BBG every two years, starting from 2034 (six years for the first one to be build, if laid in 2028).

Jimmo952 said:
It's not that I don't think a very large surface combatant would be useful. I can't see us being able to build and man enough of them to matter.
Click to expand...
A comparable force of destroyers would require more peoples to man. One Arleigh Burke required about 330 crewmen. Assuming that Trump-class would require no more than 500-600 - which seems logical, considering only 150+ for Zumwalt - you would have advantage.
 
Jimmo952 said:
It sounds good in a fantasy world but how many of those are we going to be able to afford?
Click to expand...

As many as America is willing to pay for. Literally. Debt isn't real when you can control inflationary and deflationary levers because modern money is based on "full faith and credit", rather than something actually limiting, like tons of metal in a vault. It's just not willing to pay for its national defense in any meaningful amount. Maybe that's changing? Who knows!

The ideal would be a $1.5-1.75 tn budget but a $1.1 tn budget is a good start in that direction!
 
Last edited:
johnpjones1775 said:
It’s kinda hard to tell.
In January of this year congress was discussing it as an ongoing project, but the next round of funding doesn’t mention it.

That could mean it’s a dead program, or it could mean it has enough funding to make through until the next budget needs approved after this one.
However there are sources that state BBGX is replacing DDGX.
Click to expand...

The Trump admin clearly wants to kill it in favor of BBGX. What Congress does funding wise is a guess. I would say the broader request itself already is never going to pass, but who knows what will happen to individual programs.
 
As the design stands from the presented posters. There is no case for the BBGX. It does not have superior sensors or defensive capabilities compared to the DDGX. The only difference is it may carry CPS tubes and too many guns. There is large amount of justification for removing most if not all straight capability from ships and only retaining defensive capability. The strike capability would instead be contained on USVs.

Additionally, the larger ship is not significantly more survival if it is hit. As per my previous references to Chinese DF 21 simulations.

People are just envisioning whatever they want in the design. Either way one does not need a 35+ kt ship for anything people are speaking about. What is more appropriately is a DDGX plus at approximately 20 kt
 
Last edited:
Dilandu said:
My point was, that industrial limitations are more important for modern USN than monetary ones.
Click to expand...
Given the San Antonio class you cited had serious problems with build quality, technical problems, delays and cost overruns I'd say it flags that even fairly 'simple' large warships can stretch US shipbuilding capacity and ability.
Which is why I doubt buying Japanese or Korean designs to build in the USA, or assembling modules is going to prove any cheaper or any easier or make a magic bullet to solve the US industry's problems.

A BBGX would be a massive undertaking and it would be a VERY expensive project, even if most of the systems are off-the-shelf (ignoring the railgun fantasies) I suspect it would still prove a challenge to put together. And let's be honest, no shipyard in the world currently has experience of such large non-carrier warship construction.
 
The benefit of BBG(X) is that due to size and displacement it can function as a C² asset in theater, similar to Blue Ridge or Mount Whitney. Just that BBG(X) is also able to contribute to area defense and also conduct long range counter attacks against land and sea based launch platforms.

However this is not screaming high volume, low cost or ease of sustainment. Which would ultimately mean that Arleigh-Burke still needs a proper replacement. While BBG(X) is more so shaping up to be a lower volume, higher capability Ticonderoga replacement with command roles being accessible to it (command beyond fleet air defense that is, something Ticos historically did within a CSG).

To that end weight and size make a bit more sense, although the ships still seem very heavy and big for what they provide. We shouldn't forget that all characteristics and numbers floating around have been...let's say...preliminary. So we probably should not get as hung up on matters like displacement as we do. Thus @Dilandu the USN is still in need for a Type 055 equivalent and superior. Simply to constitute the bulk of the surface combatant fleet, something BBG(X) cannot achieve by default and FF(X) lacks the capability for as well. Even the ill fated but on paper quite promising FFG(X) would not have been a sufficient substitute. A next generation DDG is still required and the USN is not looking to fill that niche with a sizeable unmanned vessel of comparable capability either.
 
Josh_TN said:
The best way to counter PLAN surface ship numerical superiority is with [munition numerical superiority]
Click to expand...
Fixed that for you.



johnpjones1775 said:
Build two classes/subclasses on the same hull.

One that has 96-140 MK41 no CPS, and one that has maybe only 60 MK41 and whatever number of CPS they can fit in that extra space.

Same hull, same size, just different VLS make up.
Click to expand...
The USN has decided that they will not do that.

Must have both full Mk41, a dozen CPS big-tubes (36x CPS, and could be re-swapped for 7x Tomahawks), and guns. Else you cannot get the ship with the needed capabilities in the right place at the right time.



cccgong said:
As the design stands from the presented posters. There is no case for the BBGX. It does not have superior sensors or defensive capabilities compared to the DDGX. The only difference is it may carry CPS tubes and too many guns. There is large amount of justification for removing most if not all straight capability from ships and only retaining defensive capability. The strike capability would instead be contained on USVs.
Click to expand...
I don't know why the Administration proposal has not specified the big BMD arrays, since the ship has the physical volume for those 28ft, 69RMA arrays.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Fixed that for you.




The USN has decided that they will not do that.

Must have both full Mk41, a dozen CPS big-tubes (36x CPS, and could be re-swapped for 7x Tomahawks), and guns. Else you cannot get the ship with the needed capabilities in the right place at the right time.




I don't know why the Administration proposal has not specified the big BMD arrays, since the ship has the physical volume for those 28ft, 69RMA arrays.
Click to expand...
If they are going to start building in 2028, I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s not enough time to validate the 69rma radars before hand. As the design will need to be locked mid 2027 at the latest for long lead time item and tooling procurement.


Theres no need for in region c2 assets in theatre anymore with sat coms.
EmoBirb said:
The benefit of BBG(X) is that due to size and displacement it can function as a C² asset in theater, similar to Blue Ridge or Mount Whitney. Just that BBG(X) is also able to contribute to area defense and also conduct long range counter attacks against land and sea based launch platforms.
Click to expand...
 
cccgong said:
If they are going to start building in 2028, I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s not enough time to validate the 69rma radars before hand. As the design will need to be locked mid 2027 at the latest for long lead time item and tooling procurement.
Click to expand...
Okay, that's possible.

I don't think it's likely, but I will accept it as possible.

I don't think it'd take all that much work to get the 69RMA antennas validated, you're just adding more RMAs to an already functional antenna.



cccgong said:
Theres no need for in region c2 assets in theatre anymore with sat coms.
Click to expand...
You cannot effectively command from thousands of miles away. Even with satellite comms, you don't have as much data as people closer to the action.

Not to mention that sat coms can be jammed or outright destroyed, so now you have no comms.

Plus, LCCs have a very large command crew they need to haul around. IIRC over 600 bodies (~200 officers and ~400 enlisted).
 
cccgong said:
If they are going to start building in 2028, I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s not enough time to validate the 69rma radars before hand. As the design will need to be locked mid 2027 at the latest for long lead time item and tooling procurement.
Click to expand...
Reasonable. Also, with 35-kiloton hull, they could probably relatively easily (RELATIVELY) retro-fit the big BMD radars, when they would be ready.
 
Double posting because I want this to be entirely separate.

As I see it, the Navy's requirement for BBG numbers is on the order of 1-2 per carrier group for a total of ~12 or ~24, plus 2 for hosting the Amphibious Command for the 4 MAFs, plus one for each of the 7 Numbered Fleets to act as fleet flagships. That makes 21 on the low end and 33 on the high end.

Also, assuming that we are fitting them with the big 69RMA BMD arrays, there is an argument for a few more to sit up around Greenland on patrol like how the Japanese will use their ASEVs.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Double posting because I want this to be entirely separate.

As I see it, the Navy's requirement for BBG numbers is on the order of 1-2 per carrier group for a total of ~12 or ~24, plus 2 for hosting the Amphibious Command for the 4 MAFs, plus one for each of the 7 Numbered Fleets to act as fleet flagships. That makes 21 on the low end and 33 on the high end.

Also, assuming that we are fitting them with the big 69RMA BMD arrays, there is an argument for a few more to sit up around Greenland on patrol like how the Japanese will use their ASEVs.
Click to expand...

I think the idea is that the BBG will cover theaters that the CVNs can't. Basically a single ship you can park 2000nmi from targets you need to keep threatened while all of the carrier groups are occupied in a conflict elsewhere. It's a big exquisitely expensive missile, and we would rather use air power for those targets when available, but if you piss us off while we are busy elsewhere, we will shoot it at you, and you can't stop it. It's an offensive platform with enough defensive capabilities to survive alone.

You could use it as an escort, but I don't think that's what it is meant for. It's area defense capabilities look to be roughly equivalent to a DDG(X). Most of the additional defensive armament is really only good for self protection, which is consistent with it being used alone or as the center of a SAG.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom