BBG(X) - DISCUSSION ONLY

Also no one is going to use CPS to shoot at ICBM fields.

Why would you assume this?

Sure, Trident's hard target W76 is probably better, but a plumbata can do as a javelin or an arrow in a pinch.

Has such been deployed yet? Is there a program to do so?

Integrating HVP with the 5" is the least demanding part of BBGX besides the radar.
 
Integrating HVP with the 5" is the least demanding part of BBGX besides the radar.

If HVP does not exist as a weapon with the rest of the fleet, then it seems unlikely it will be adopted by BBGX, in which case those are just shore bombardment weapons. Is HVP a USN program of record?
 
If HVP does not exist as a weapon with the rest of the fleet, then it seems unlikely it will be adopted by BBGX, in which case those are just shore bombardment weapons. Is HVP a USN program of record?

Seems to be back as a research program under MADCAP (Major-Caliber Anti-Drone Air Program*) with test firings in 2024 and 2025. That might lead into a non-traditional rapid procurement vehicle of some sort.

https://insidedefense.com/daily-new...locity-projectile-ship-defense-against-drones

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...ctiles-in-support-of-counter-uas-development/

And the Army is also funding HVP development under MDACS, the Multi-Domain Artillery Cannon System, which does actually have procurement in the works. Should be the same projectile with a different sabot, but who knows for sure?

* No, this does not actually lead to MADCAP as an initialism.
 
Why would you assume this?

Sure, Trident's hard target W76 is probably better, but a plumbata can do as a javelin or an arrow in a pinch.
CPS does not have a nuke warhead nor any way of hurting ICBM silos. And there is no plan to give them nukes.
 
If HVP does not exist as a weapon with the rest of the fleet, then it seems unlikely it will be adopted by BBGX, in which case those are just shore bombardment weapons. Is HVP a USN program of record?

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...ctiles-in-support-of-counter-uas-development/

Both the Army and Navy want to use it to swat cruise missiles and UAS. Shouldn't be too hard to integrate it into a surface ship with a $1.5 trillion budget.

CPS does not have a nuke warhead

It doesn't need one. A hard target penetrating warhead can defeat a silo cap. SDB I would be a major threat to the Minuteman force.

nor any way of hurting ICBM silos.

ICBM silos aren't immune to bunker busters.

And there is no plan to give them nukes.

You don't need nukes. They're just preferred because they can be easily massed for TOT. Conventional Trident had tremendous potential as a killer of silo fields to Russia's chagrin.
 
A hard target penetrating warhead can defeat a silo cap. SDB I would be a major threat to the Minuteman force.
I think a conventional attack on launch facilities of nuclear weapons, mobile or static, would immediately lead to nuclear escalation if the attacked side has a single weapon left.
Use them or lose them.
 
Which is exactly zero, since Trident did not have accuracy required to precisely hit the silo door. 100-meters CEP is absolutely useless against small hardened structures.

Conventional Trident had a CEP of 10 meters. It was a maneuvering vehicle with a GPS guidance package.

CTM-1 carried tungsten rods like a beehive. CTM-2 was a bunker buster. The CTM-2 was explicitly proposed by the National Academy of Science, as a follow-on to CTM-1's soft target defeat, for the destruction of the Russian silo fields at Dombarovskiy and Chinese missile fields.

The entire vehicle was similar in size to the Mark 4 RV IIRC. That said they were targeting the Chinese arsenal at the time (double digit silos), so they only needed a few missiles, and it turns out derating the W76s to only their primaries is easier when the Russians and Chinese have similar sized arsenals. I guess when the W76s finally age out it might come back, since it's useful for things besides just silo killing, as the recent Iran War (and Oreshnik before that) proves high energy high altitude RVs still have good survivability against air defenses.
 
Last edited:
A hypersonic or large naval ballistic weapon will probably be more concerned with decapitation strikes or infrastructure regarding rare, high value tangibles.
 
Defense Updates put out a video earlier today about the BBG*(X):








*BBG- Bloviating Blowhard Grifter class.
"He said, “I’ve heard the critiques [that’s] too vulnerable, too expensive, too big. We’ve heard that before about carriers and about submarines, and yet, when it matters most, those are the platforms combatant commanders call for first,” ".............. wow, I sincerely hope the actual admirals and generals of the US navy dont think the same way.....................

comparing a carrier(2nd hardest thing to sink) and a sub(hardest thing to sink) to a BBG is quite.......interesting.
 
Yes it is and makes me wonder why it doesn't have more than lasers and a poignée of CIWS to back up the main missiles. Considering even pre-WW2 warships took air defense pretty serious. At least their excuse was how quickly technology in aircraft made their old guns obsolete, so the solution was more variety of guns and more bullets in the air. And there is almost no anti-submarine or basic torpedo defenses spoken about. Makes me think we could throw the missiles on an auxiliary and build 4-5 modern destroyers just as well.
There are anti torpedo torpedos and decoys as well. they dont seem to be highly talked about for some reason
 
A hypersonic or large naval ballistic weapon will probably be more concerned with decapitation strikes or infrastructure regarding rare, high value tangibles.

Nuclear weapons are the rarest and highest value targets besides leadership.
 
Think you mean 300kW, not megawatt. Because 300megawatts is going to take nearly a gigawatt of electrical power input.
Lol yes, metric is a bitch if you get your prefixes mixed! But then, with enough popcorn that would be quite impressive.
8" firing a subcaliber round allows for a much better length:diameter ratio which means better range. And if you're not afraid of ERCA/tank gun pressures you should be able to punt a roughly 100lb projectile downrange at 1/3 greater speed or more.
Its marginal improvements over the 5" but still within the range of mauch more of enemy's "rocket force" than you want to be.
The USN needs something big enough to hold BMD sized arrays and the carrier group's AAW flag command staff.
That something was already planned before this whole show went haywire.
It is possible that the Navy will trade some size down to something in the 20-25kt range as a CGX instead of the much larger battleship sized hull that is currently proposed.
Well Phelan's gone so now its about whether the new guy has the guts to reassess everything, and get the bosses on board if he has a new plan.
 
No CG(X), no DDG(X), and FF(X) is replacing LCS, also carriers going down to 10.
 
8" firing a subcaliber round allows for a much better length:diameter ratio which means better range. And if you're not afraid of ERCA/tank gun pressures you should be able to punt a roughly 100lb projectile downrange at 1/3 greater speed or more.
You'd need an entirely new round/sabot design for this. At which point you could add ramjet propulsion to it too. With that you'd be able to get SM2 range out of it.

Hey folks, just as news only, that the new Trump-class battleship will be powered by a nuclear reactor and is not a successor to the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers.
Source:
https://news.usni.org/2026/05/11/ne...uclear-powered-carrier-design-is-under-review
I said this way back, they were reviewing CV usefulness to pull yard/reactors from Ford class production to this ship.
 
No way it'll be nuclear.

Every BBGN built is one carrier not built because there's only one shipyard in the entire US that can build nuclear powered surface ships! And it needs all the drydocks it has for carrier production.

And the US is already looking at 10 carriers for the foreseeable future, with both extending Nimitz-classes a couple of years before decommissioning and speeding up Ford-class production to one ship every 4 years.



Sorta. 8" shells are only 36-44" long (0.9-1.1m), so you're basically just loading a standard 155mm shell in a sabot.


Yes, you could go with one of the ramjet 155 shells instead of a normal 155.
It'll be nuclear, if wanted by the government. Hence why they were reviewing usefulness of Ford class a few weeks back.

You would not want a normal 155 or a ramjet 155. First of all it doesn't have any terminal guidance, minimal aero surfaces for turning, and carries way too much explosive fill and steel. You'd want a HTK projectile to maximize fuel fraction. You can also have your ramjet inlets protrude past 155mm surface into the area between the shell and the barrel for additional mass fraction.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It'll be nuclear if wanted by the government..

I have no doubt the USN top-brass will come up with a way to distract and divert his attention elsewhere.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey folks, just as news only, that the new Trump-class battleship will be powered by a nuclear reactor

I just saw this in the news.

My money is on this battleship using a hybrid nuclear integrated electric propulsion system.

A single reactor from the Virginia class submarine powering a 60MW electrical generator.

Four Zumwalt-class props and electric motors from GE for 150MW of propulsion power. Then have three 35MW MT30 gas turbine generators. So total electrical power generation of 165MW.

It can cruise at 20 knots on the nuclear reactor. The 3 gas turbines then give 25, 28 and 30 knot speeds.
 
Trump will not live long enough for a clean sheet design work to be completed, let alone be president long enough to see steel cut. Just look at how long FFX is supposed to take, and that is basically an in production ship. No one is rerouting Ford resources to a new ship class without that class at least having a finalized design. If there was a third term, that would perhaps be enough, but I can think of several reasons that will never happen.

BBGX is a dead end.
 
A ship that has the crew size of two Arleigh-Burkes, costs as much as three Arleigh-Burkes but carries ten times as many land attack missiles/rockets is not a dead end.

If we look at targets hit per ton of displacement or targets hit per crew member this ship will many times more efficient.

Fast forward 20 years and the battleship will have small unmanned battery powered escorts They can all recharge from the battleships nuclear reactor.

It is a dead end because it will not have ten times the capacity or only 1/3 of the cost, nor are surface ships efficient anti surface/strike platforms. But on top of that it will be cancelled for purely political reasons, even it was not a fundamentally bad idea to begin with.
 
The railgun is not a credible weapon until it is. But precision glide bombs are a credible weapon. So if they dropped the railgun for a lower technology vertical gun or mortar-based GL-SDB thrower then it is a better use of the money IMHO. Even the 155 mm Long-Range Manoeuvring Projectile (LRMP) with a promised 75 mile (120 km) range can be fielded faster than a railgun.

Boeing has developed powered JDAMs, but I could have sworn they were developing a sustainer motor on a follow up for the Stormbreaker.
 
No, the USN needs a ship big enough to hold the full BMD arrays. 69RMAs each. This ship will be fecking huge because those arrays are roughly twice the diameter of the Flight 2A arrays and need to be even higher above the water to have a better radar horizon distance.

This ship should also have all the facilities needed for a flagship. Flag CIC, flag housing, the extra personnel needed to run a second CIC. Because Burkes don't have enough space for the AAW flag.

And the Navy wants CPS on as many ships as possible. Most of them will have to be submarines, but a ship big enough to carry the BMD arrays will have space for a good number of CPS tubes. But a 15,000ton ship does not have enough space for both CPS tubes and the 5" gun. Which puts the minimum size ship up around 22ktons.

I'll admit that I expect the BBG to get cut down to a CG, but the ship is going to happen and it's not going to be smaller than about 22ktons.

There is no need for CPS or a gun on your ABM/command ship. The USN never articulated a need for a larger ship until Phelan took over, and I think you will see the “need” dissolve post Trump.
 
The railgun is not a credible weapon until it is. But precision glide bombs are a credible weapon. So if they dropped the railgun for a lower technology vertical gun or mortar-based GL-SDB thrower then it is a better use of the money IMHO. Even the 155 mm Long-Range Manoeuvring Projectile (LRMP) with a promised 75 mile (120 km) range can be fielded faster than a railgun.

Boeing has developed powered JDAMs, but I could have sworn they were developing a sustainer motor on a follow up for the Stormbreaker.

Why wouldn’t you use aircraft for that role?
 
This is only comparing the VLS cells. Everyone forgets that this battleship will have 12 huge ballistic missiles with 3,500 mile range. Also a rail gun which will effectively have unlimited ammo. This is easily 5 times the firepower not 1.5 times.

The Navy obviously has a lot riding on the rail gun to give massive firepower up to 90 miles. This easily allows it to have 10 times the firepower of an Arleigh-burke in terms of targets hit.

I think the comventional prompt strike missiles with 3,500 mile range is overkill. US Army Precision Strike missile with 300 mile range and 200lb warhead I think are perfect and about 10% of the price.

The rail gun could be replaced by 1000+ M31 rockets which also carry a 200lb warhead. Similar range. Lower risk. That's what Australia uses.
If we count the CPS cells as MK41 cells by area, we are at 2.8x the fire power. But in reality the CPS will be less useful.

A railgun that doesn't exist and might no exist for another 10 years. Surface to surface mode of 90nm is useless for a BBG, that's literally the AGS. It shouldn't ever be that close to its targets.
Now, if you're talking about using that as an AA shell, that's a separate discussion.
Yes I'm purely talking about a AA shell. We have already determined Zumwalt style shore fire support isn't too useful.

Why wouldn’t you use aircraft for that role?
IMO the era of aircraft as actual strike platforms is more or less over for actions against peer opponets. The attrition/cost is too high. Look at Iran, they fired thousands of cruise missiles vs Iran which had all of it's air defense dismantled half a year before. Aircraft will more or less serve as range extenders for cruise missiles. If you can do that without using aircraft very cheap disposable turbojet engines that's even better as it's cheaper.

That being said, guns don't have nearly enough range to be useful in the role, which is why i said my hypotheical 8 inch gun would shoot SM2 replacements and SM6 supplements.
 
Build more Columbia-class SSGNs as your CPS shooters. Build some San Antonio-based ABM/C2 ships (add some ASW SA for good measure), and if you need a gun, stuff it into a upgraded LCS with some PRSMs. Use the money saved for some proper FFGs and DDGs.

Otherwise we are getting into egg meets basket territory.
 
Why wouldn’t you use aircraft for that role?
Same reason CPS was developed for ships. You want to prosecute targets of opportunity in tighter windows of time than an aircraft is likely to meet. And quantity is a quality all on its own.
 
Build more Columbia-class SSGNs as your CPS shooters. Build some San Antonio-based ABM/C2 ships (add some ASW SA for good measure), and if you need a gun, stuff it into a upgraded LCS with some PRSMs. Use the money saved for some proper FFGs and DDGs.

Otherwise we are getting into egg meets basket territory.
If people see BM coming out of nowhere in the middle of an ocean, they get nervous thinking it's an ICBM. So likley not the direction you want to go.
 
If people see BM coming out of nowhere in the middle of an ocean, they get nervous thinking it's an ICBM. So likley not the direction you want to go.
CPS is already going on subs. CPS has a very different profile from ICBMs. And if done properly a BBG firing CPS will also look like a BM coming out of nowhere.
 
Just heard from my buddy, 30 year build plan is out.
BBGX is alternately referred to as BBGX and BBGNX. Expected to be built in 9 years once construction begins.
 
I said this way back, they were reviewing CV usefulness to pull yard/reactors from Ford class production to this ship.
That is a big reactor.

Just a single A1B has 700MW thermal. Enough power for a 30,000 ton ship to sustain 30 knots.

Previous surface ships used two reactors for redundancy requirement. I'm not sure how the redundancy will be satisfied. Fitting two A1B would be ridiculously overkill.

Possibly one reactor with a gas turbine backup?

I expected the Virginia replacement subs to use a reactor turning a generator and with an electric motor on the prop. This reactor would be easier to retrofit onto a surface ship with IEP and would be a more appropriate in size.

It would be interesting if this battleship is the first to use the upcoming microreactors. Obviously it would need quite multiple micro reactors.
 
Last edited:
IMO, use cheap cruise missiles from aircraft for range and volume. Use ALBMs for speed, or whatever comes out of HALO. Aircraft are going to greatly increase stand off range and it is a lot easier to transfer air launched weapons to a carrier than to reload a missile cell. Any ship based strike solution is either going to have issues reloading or have low hitting power, regardless of how deep the magazines are, and shorter stand off range on top.
 
Same reason CPS was developed for ships. You want to prosecute targets of opportunity in tighter windows of time than an aircraft is likely to meet. And quantity is a quality all on its own.

You are not getting quantity from ship magazines unless you can reliably reload at sea.

CPS was developed for subs and is being installed on ships that have the room and no other purpose. How do propose reloading those?
 
If people see BM coming out of nowhere in the middle of an ocean, they get nervous thinking it's an ICBM. So likley not the direction you want to go.

Then they will have to get nervous. It is not like a Sino-American war would not already involve thousands of nuclear capable ballistic missiles.
 
A Virginia can carry the same amount of CPS far cheaper, and building a 17 billion dollar ship to throw shells 90 miles is stupid.
As an avid submarine supremacist that's true, but a Virginia is limited in what it can do, being offensive actions against surface ships, submarine warfare, general area denial and collecting intelligence passively.

But something like BBG(X)/BBGN(X) can fulfill various missions, some of which not doable for a submarine. That includes anti-air warfare, ballistic missile defence, land attack (which can be done via sub too, to be fair here), ASW (also doable with a sub), serving as either an escort, independent asset or a capital ship for it's own battlegroup. Ideally it can serve as a command and control asset for either surface strike groups or air warfare groups. It's worth keeping in mind that the missile cruisers with large VLS count and dedicated flag facilities are going extinct and the AB Flight III is not a one-to-one replacement for the Ticonderoga. Furthermore the Blue-Ridge Class ships are bordering on ancient, albeit equipped with less dated subsystems, but for those there isn't a replacement in sight either. So you'd like to get a ship that can take up the legacy of the Ticonderoga-Class, take up some of the burden of perhaps even the Blue-Ridge Class and provide the firepower the ill fated Zumwalt-Class could never deliver (not even after the late and costly CPS refit).

There is plenty of merit to the general concept of what's proposed, but information of the actual proposal itself isn't concrete yet or even at that stage at all. But generally speaking one cannot go wrong with a capable surface combatant that offers plenty of growth potential for the future, defensive and offensive capabilities exceeding those of current USN ships and the autonomy to operate globally even on it's own or as a centerpiece of a small action group.

If these advantages are worth trading in yard space that could be taken up by a CVN otherwise, that's for others to decide. Probably depends on how much emphasis one puts on the SCS scenario where a CVN is essentially dead once in range of one of the various missiles posessed by a certain East Asian superpower.
 
IMO, use cheap cruise missiles from aircraft for range and volume. Use ALBMs for speed, or whatever comes out of HALO. Aircraft are going to greatly increase stand off range and it is a lot easier to transfer air launched weapons to a carrier than to reload a missile cell.
The issue with that is that this greatly limits the capabilities of your missiles. They have to be easily transported to, handled and stored on a ships magazine. More importantly though they have to be small and light enough to be able to be launched by the carriers tactical aircraft. A Super Hornet being launched via catapult has only so much payload capacity and space underneath for ordnance. Sure F/A-XX, if it actually enters service some day, will have improved capabilities, but you most likely won't see large ALBMs or hypersonic Air breathers in it's internal bays. The Navy's tactical fighters are in that sense more limited than land based aircraft like the F-15E or MiG-31K which can carry such weapons.

Reload at sea certainly is an issue though.
 
Back
Top Bottom