BBG(X) - DISCUSSION ONLY

[Dilandu]

But if your DDG budget starts rinning low you end up with a long term hollow fleet with the leftover Flt III being overworked once you finally start building a new version of DDG(X). Carriers may be down to 7 or 8 if Fords compete with nuclear battleships.

Considering how slow is Ford-class construction, I rather doubt that there would be competition for reactors with Defiant-class units.

 

[insidersource]

I would want an FFG instead of an FF, but yeah something like a mini-Burke frigate that can do everything the Burke can except BMD and is backed up by BBGs providing theater wide BMD radar coverage would be a good mix.

The AN/SPS-77(V)4 radar is pretty impressive. What else does it need for it to be classed as a FFG?

All it would take is a cleansheet ESSM replacement with 50% more range.

 

[CastleBravo]

The AN/SPS-77(V)4 radar is pretty impressive. What else does it need for it to be classed as a FFG?

All it would take is a cleansheet ESSM replacement with 50% more range.

IMO, PAC-3 MSE is the higher performance ESSM we need. The problem is that we are still trying to use Mk41 everywhere, and PAC-3 MSE is just about the worst size for a 25" canister. Angled deck launchers would be fine for an interim solution, but we should be making a new multi-caliber missile launcher like I posted earlier.

A 51" by 75" multi-pack cell that can be configured either with all cold launch rounds, or with internal exhast eflux space when using hot launch missiles would allow 2x 37.5" missile cannisters (CPS), 3x ~30" cylindrical missile cannisters (future hypersonic strike/defense), 8-12x cold-hot launch 17" cannisters (PAC-3, SM-2, ect), and 4-6x cold-hot launch 25" mk41-sized cannisters. A frigate wouldn't have CPS length cells, only the battleship. Two of these cells should take up about the same space as an 8-cell Mk41 module. Put them along the sides of the ship angled outboard slightly so that a cold launch that fails to ignite falls in the water. This also frees up the centerline of the ship for other systems like cannons, CIWS, lasers, ect.

A frigate with eight cells (same or less space than 32x Mk41) would be able to carry 64x unmodified PAC-3 or SM-2 IIIC hot launch missiles, or 96x if they are adapted for cold launch.

A battleship with 50 cells (same deck space as 200x Mk41) could have 36x CPS and 408x cold launch PAC-3/SM-2.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

The big selling point of the 5" Mark 45 naval gun has always been its light weight, and it really is an excellent design in that respect, reliable with low manning requirements. I personally think the drone threat these days gives some new relevance to the naval gun and think it would be reasonable to accept some increased weight for a higher rate of fire. The 5"/64 caliber Oto-Melara seems like a good all-around design that fires somewhat faster (32 RPM). There is no reason you couldn't have a new design that is accurate and reliable firing at 40 RPM. Going much beyond that figure seems not worth all the added trouble. The USN and RN did look into 5" guns with rates of fire over 60 RPM but they never made much progress with them and perhaps there is good reason for that.

I don't find the BBG(X) having two 5" guns objectionable, but I do have to question their location.

 

[shin_getter]

All I've heard is a laundry list of cool stuff to stuff into a single hull. With everyone just fangirling about their favorite vaporware tech to put in it.

I once again ask, what is the mission requirements that can ONLY be met by this 40k ton surface combatant?

You can get the leader of the other side's land power to fangirl over fun toys too, and get them into a losing arms race where they lose due to reduced budget for the army.

 

[DJK]

You can get the leader of the other side's land power to fangirl over fun toys too, and get them into a losing arms race where they lose due to reduced budget for the army.

I suspect it might be America thats been lured into a losing arms race, considering the other guys are using mobile ground based launchers.

 

[insidersource]

I once again ask, what is the mission requirements that can ONLY be met by this 40k ton surface combatant?

1) Nuclear powered so it is not dependent on foreign ports or slow support ships for refueling.
2) Use the existing off the shelf A1B reactor as it is the only reactor with high electricity generation.
3) Provide at least double the offensive firepower of an Arleigh-Burke destroyer.

Pretty simple answer.

It seems everyone here wants a non-nuclear cruiser that will be constantly leaving the combat zone to refuel. A cruiser that spends $5 billion in fossil fuel over its life time and requires refueling support ships that burn another $5 billion in fuel. Just pay that extra $10 billion upfront on the nuclear ship.

 

[insidersource]

I wouldn't expect so. It doesn't even advertise it on their website or brochure.

Any radar that is advertised at detectinf fighter jets can also detect incoming missiles. The radars that advertise BMD just have longer range. The AN/SPS-77(V)4 can detect ballistic missiles perfectly fine just at a shorter range. It is more than sufficient for self defense. All it needs is improved missiles.

 

[DJK]

So the new SECNAV said it had 200 cells, probably rounded up or down, so assume thats 12APM silos (36 CPS cells) and 160 or 192 Mk-41. 160 + 36 is my guess but it does seem to be growing every week.

1) Nuclear powered so it is not dependent on foreign ports or slow support ships for refueling.
2) Use the existing off the shelf A1B reactor as it is the only reactor with high electricity generation.
3) Provide at least double the offensive firepower of an Arleigh-Burke destroyer.

None of that is a mission or even an example of an advantage over a BBG alternative. The A1B point could be a disadvantage if it competes with carriers anyway. The only offensive difference over the number of Burkes you get for a BBG budget is the CPS. But you only get one CIC and sensor suite in a BBG (along with a backup maybe), so a BBG mission kill has a bigger impact on defence of the battle group.

No one is making it the primary justification.

The primary justification it’s how versatile it is.
Then people try to claim it’s versatility doesn’t matter because one or more of its uses are not missions that are done in the modern era, or it’s not good enough for one of those missions, therefore no gun.

I dont think its versatile, its size makes itbig enough to carry extra weapons but too big to separate from its carrier battle group. Anything with a flag staff or AAW commander is less versatile because those core roles follow the ship. And a single huge hull is usually very much less versatile than multiple hulls, to a point.

I think by nature CPS lends itself to strikes of opportunity, and you have more opportunities with more hulls. The fact that USN wants to put everything onto a single hull can be better explained by institutional inertia.

 

[johnpjones1775]

So the new SECNAV said it had 200 cells, probably rounded up or down, so assume thats 12APM silos (36 CPS cells) and 160 or 192 Mk-41. 160 + 36 is my guess but it does seem to be growing every week.

None of that is a mission or even an example of an advantage over a BBG alternative. The A1B point could be a disadvantage if it competes with carriers anyway. The only offensive difference over the number of Burkes you get for a BBG budget is the CPS. But you only get one CIC and sensor suite in a BBG (along with a backup maybe), so a BBG mission kill has a bigger impact on defence of the battle group.

I dont think its versatile, its size makes itbig enough to carry extra weapons but too big to separate from its carrier battle group. Anything with a flag staff or AAW commander is less versatile because those core roles follow the ship. And a single huge hull is usually very much less versatile than multiple hulls, to a point.

I think by nature CPS lends itself to strikes of opportunity, and you have more opportunities with more hulls. The fact that USN wants to put everything onto a single hull can be better explained by institutional inertia.

It’s intended as a replacement/alternative for a carrier group.

But in terms of versatility I was referring to the 5” gun not the ship itself

 

[JS23]

Circling back to something less well covered in the earlier thread: what are people’s thoughts on the aviation capacity?

Current concept shows a big VTOL deck with some pretty substantial looking hangar space. Does that all get used for utility and ASW, or does some get used for strike? Recon? Spotting for those big guns? Is there a storage container of LUCAS drones somewhere for some additional cheap fires? Do they want to deploy Marines or SEALs off this thing?

 

[Not James Stockdale]

Circling back to something less well covered in the earlier thread: what are people’s thoughts on the aviation capacity?

Current concept shows a big VTOL deck with some pretty substantial looking hangar space. Does that all get used for utility and ASW, or does some get used for strike? Recon? Spotting for those big guns? Is there a storage container of LUCAS drones somewhere for some additional cheap fires? Do they want to deploy Marines or SEALs off this thing?

Probably for CMV-22s.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Circling back to something less well covered in the earlier thread: what are people’s thoughts on the aviation capacity?

Current concept shows a big VTOL deck with some pretty substantial looking hangar space. Does that all get used for utility and ASW, or does some get used for strike? Recon? Spotting for those big guns? Is there a storage container of LUCAS drones somewhere for some additional cheap fires? Do they want to deploy Marines or SEALs off this thing?

Helo deck sized for CH53s/CH47s. Which means that a CMV-22 won't even blink at it.

Hangar for 2x Seahawks and at least 2x VTOL UAVs. I'm hoping that it's more like 4x VTOL UAVs, with 2x ASW and 2+x AEW VTOL UAVs. Yes, AEW UAVs, to look for sea-skimming missiles.

There may be a MARDET involved, but I kinda doubt SEALs would want such a flashy ride to work.

 

[JS23]

Speaking of UAVs, do they install a Coyote interceptor bank on this thing, or just rely on the lasers, or go for the belt and suspenders?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Speaking of UAVs, do they install a Coyote interceptor bank on this thing, or just rely on the lasers, or go for the belt and suspenders?

The discussion appears to be belt-and-suspenders in terms of CUAS systems. Lasers and HPMW and other systems.

 

[Forest Green]

Subs can just use delayed float upward munitions/pods to demonstrate their presence without being too revealing of their position. If the role is surface attack with extremely long range munitions, maybe non-nuclear subs/UUV or towed underwater pods can do, since mobility is not needed.

If CPS can't be reliably intercepted, heavy surface ships are obviously bad in peer fights
If CPS can be intercepted, figuring out optimal firing geometry to ensure success is needed and subs that moves to the right spot with a large ammo load or independent surface taskforce (with different positioning requirement than carrier ops) is the right play.

A frankly, does carrier tactical mobility matter when munitions move so fast the moving outside of sensor search area is impractical?

Pods could be overlooked, and there's also the previously mentioned defence against AShBMs/AShHWs attacking carriers. Yes carrier mobility matters.

 

[Dilandu]

There seems to be a "bigger is better" culture within the navy that has been taken to the extreme, along with a tendency to ignore inconvenient vulnerabilities. The FF(X) seems to be a result of marginalising the "small" combatants.

This logic is bases on basic square-cube law; increasing the size of the ship gave massive increase in hull carrying capabiliy.

 

[greedo]

Don't underestimate the future role of unmanned air & surface vehicles providing logistical support for vessels underway.

Don't overestimate the future role of largely unproven and unfunded (at scale) UAV and USVs...

 

[insidersource]

$700,000,000,000 Boondoggle: The Trump-Class Battleship is America’s Next Great Naval Disaster

https://nationalsecurityjournal.org...leship-is-americas-next-great-naval-disaster/

Interesting points.

Regards,

With any news on the Trump class you must first check the author to make sure they dont have TDS. Check the authors twitter and you will see he is anti Trump. So his primary goal is to get the ship cancelled to the the name of the ship.

This is incredibly sad that we will never get accurate opinion pieces on this battleship because of the name.

 

[DJK]

With any news on the Trump class you must first check the author to make sure they dont have TDS. Check the authors twitter and you will see he is anti Trump. So his primary goal is to get the ship cancelled to the the name of the ship.

This is incredibly sad that we will never get accurate opinion pieces on this battleship because of the name.

Being anti trump is not a bad thing. It means the ability to look at a warship proposal and do some coherant analysis. Im reading the article before announcing judgements.

Edit: If the proposal had to be named "Trump Class" to get it over the line, could it otherwise have got approval on its merits? If serious analysis wont be tolerated because the author is "anti trump", then you are going to get whatever BS your masters foist on you because you dont listen to your detractors.

 

[Josh_TN]

The flip side of the anti Trump argument would be, are we creating this ship/plane/ballroom/FIFA award just for the sake of one man’s narcissism and ignorance, or can the ship requirements stand on their own merits?

Previous to this administration, the USN was of the opinion that smaller more expendable ships was the better path, with the exception that DDGX would have to be substantial due to the ABM mission, primarily due to radar SWAPC requirements. Beyond that, the catch phrase was distributed lethally. That was the position right up until Trump’s SecNav with zero naval experience took over. Trump himself has stated USN ships are ugly and has suggested they need to be bigger and have more guns. That someone proposed a bigger ship and put more guns on it should set off some alarm bells about the project, especially since this is an administration that has draped itself in vanity projects. The nomenclature is not the greatest cause for concern.

IMO, the real TDS is the flock of unqualified yes men that are willing to do anything to placate their boss. The ship has no merit for a raft of reasons I have already stated and will not bother repeating; this thread is on loop. But at the minimum it was a huge 180 turn compared to previous administrations, and I think any top tier USN personnel supporting the idea are merely doing so to protect their jobs.

 

[DJK]

"Pentagon planners are designing the BBG(X) not based on strategic needs but on the very serious limitations of America’s ailing defense industrial base and naval shipyards."

Fair comment.

He also states that BBG(X) will be sunk in the opening salvos of any war. I disagree with that, because you would try to keep it out of ASBM range and thats its primary threat. AA missiles are reasonably effective against ASCMs, although the chances of one getting through are never zero and the logistics could be attacked instead. ASBMs avoid most lof those layered AA defences, although VL Patriots will help until depleted. They tend to be expended at two per target and still not 100%.

You would not knowingly sail capital ships into range of such antiship threats, so the tactics may involve baiting and hunting the enemy if they try to fight outside their A2AD zone. Or focussing on development of longer range air launched strike & AA missiles. Still I don't see any BBG(X) sized ship changing the outcome, and will need its own ASW escorts, being such an irresistible target itself.

 

[Josh_TN]

Incredibly expensive bait.

The question I have is, what is the target set for BBGX and are there less expensive ways of doing it (eg aircraft or submarines). And outside looking big and intimidating to anyone who is not China, i see no mission here that cannot be fulfilled using other platforms that require far less time and money.

 

[EmoBirb]

Distribution means multiple systems that have to bring a certain level of survivability, sensor capability, propulsion, endurance etc. to the table. Which is more expensive than having one very capable asset that can fulfill most of these functions by itself which in some cases complement each other.

 

[Josh_TN]

Distribution means multiple systems that have to bring a certain level of survivability, sensor capability, propulsion, endurance etc. to the table. Which is more expensive than having one very capable asset that can fulfill most of these functions by itself which in some cases complement each other.

The USN specifically was looking for smaller solutions that could be built in larger numbers and suffer significant casualties without a total loss of capacity. There is nothing “distributable” about a modern day nuclear powered capital ship. No one would describe the Nimitz class as “distributable”.

ETA: Current estimates are that this a $15+ billion project - how many are you going to have and how much capability are you going to get? How many FFGX can I buy for that money?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Previous to this administration, the USN was of the opinion that smaller more expendable ships was the better path, with the exception that DDGX would have to be substantial due to the ABM mission, primarily due to radar SWAPC requirements.

And once the USN tried to stuff CPS into the DDGX they couldn't fit both CPS and guns into 15-17ktons. They also categorically rejected having some DDGX with CPS and no gun with others with no CPS but including gun.

 

[Josh_TN]

And once the USN tried to stuff CPS into the DDGX they couldn't fit both CPS and guns into 15-17ktons. They also categorically rejected having some DDGX with CPS and no gun with others with no CPS but including gun.

Can you provide a source for that?

 

[cccgong]

"Pentagon planners are designing the BBG(X) not based on strategic needs but on the very serious limitations of America’s ailing defense industrial base and naval shipyards."

Fair comment.

He also states that BBG(X) will be sunk in the opening salvos of any war. I disagree with that, because you would try to keep it out of ASBM range and thats its primary threat. AA missiles are reasonably effective against ASCMs, although the chances of one getting through are never zero and the logistics could be attacked instead. ASBMs avoid most lof those layered AA defences, although VL Patriots will help until depleted. They tend to be expended at two per target and still not 100%.

You would not knowingly sail capital ships into range of such antiship threats, so the tactics may involve baiting and hunting the enemy if they try to fight outside their A2AD zone. Or focussing on development of longer range air launched strike & AA missiles. Still I don't see any BBG(X) sized ship changing the outcome, and will need its own ASW escorts, being such an irresistible target itself.

The BBGX is more survivable than a CV due not having to sail 2000+ miles through ABSM ranges to actually engage targets (DF-26 with 3000), being able to defend itself vs ASBM, and better CIWS (lasers).

The whole point is, we cannot engage the Chinese at all until we sail within ASBM threats due to 3000 mile range on DF26 and 700+ mile range on taactical aircraft which carry 1000 mile range hypersonics/ASBM to say nothing about bombers, VLS launched 1000+ mile range hypersonics, in addition to every submarine now with the ability to carry torpedo tube launched hypersonics.

If anything carriers are obslete vs peers now, as more and more antiship duties will be passed to hypersonic and ASBM which aircraft can't engage and much more limited range vs missiles.

Carriers are also of dubious value vs countries like Iran. Look at all the TLAM and JASSM fired at Iran, even weeks into the war. If you're unwilling to risk aircraft dropping glide bombs to obtain a better cost ratio for targets over using CM, what's the point of aircraft. You can just make the CM slightly bigger and eliminate the ultra expensive aircraft and carrier. Then plop the CM on an arsenal ship.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Carriers are also of dubious value vs countries like Iran. Look at all the TLAM and JASSM fired at Iran, even weeks into the war. If you're unwilling to risk aircraft dropping glide bombs to obtain a better cost to ratio for targets over using CM, what's the point of aircraft. You can just make the CM slightly bigger and eliminate the ultra expensive aircraft and carrier. Then plop the CM on an arsenal ship.

Seems to me like aircraft have been significantly more effective at hitting actual targets in this war than cruise missiles have been.

Different classes of warships complement each other. Give up on CVNs because of the missile threat and you might as well be giving up on the rest of the surface fleet too outside of a few ships to show the flag. If you are unable to protect the CVNs what makes you think you'll be able to protect anything else afloat?

 

[cccgong]

Seems to me like aircraft have been significantly more effective at hitting actual targets in this war than cruise missiles have been.

Different classes of warships complement each other. Give up on CVNs because of the missile threat and you might as well be giving up on the rest of the surface fleet too outside of a few ships to show the flag. If you are unable to protect the CVNs what makes you think you'll be able to protect anything else afloat?

Do you have any data showing that? Also their target data was terrible at the start of the war, leading to things such as hitting that school.

You give up CVN as they have no range and are ~3x out ranged by land launched ASBM and 1.5-2x by air launched ones. You instead switch to using your own BM (CPS type) or long range CM to strike at the edge of enemy ASMB range. So you don't have to sail for 2+ days each way through BM country to be able to shoot back.

 

[Josh_TN]

CPS is a niche weapon that will only exist in the dozens or low hundreds, with almost no possibility of reload west of Hawaii. Building a strike doctrine around it is idiotic, and if that doctrine is to sail outside DF-26 range altogether, stick LRWH on the deck of an auxiliary and be done with it.

Any offensive action that is intended to last more than a few days will need to rely on aircraft, and if USN cannot close to within AShBM range, then the USN surface fleet is just out of a job in the westpac. Increasing the number of launch tubes does not solve the issue; it only prolongs it by gays or hours, and descreasing the number of ABM platforms just reduces the points of failure. To put it another way: if BBGX just has twice as many VLS as a Burke, that just means it *might* take twice as many missiles to kill, if your lucky, and if that many interceptors are available in the first place. And that is a losing proposition if your BBGX costs more than twice a Burke.

IMO, the USN is going to have to rely heavily on soft kill measures and/or ISR disruption if it wants to have any longevity in a fight with China, and that is going to require the force to take casualties at all levels. The CSGs might not be sufficiently survivable enough for this environment, but if not neither is BBGX.

 

[cccgong]

CPS is a niche weapon that will only exist in the dozens or low hundreds, with almost no possibility of reload west of Hawaii. Building a strike doctrine around it is idiotic, and if that doctrine is to sail outside DF-26 range altogether, stick LRWH on the deck of an auxiliary and be done with it.

Any offensive action that is intended to last more than a few days will need to rely on aircraft, and if USN cannot close to within AShBM range, then the USN surface fleet is just out of a job in the westpac. Increasing the number of launch tubes does not solve the issue; it only prolongs it by gays or hours, and descreasing the number of ABM platforms just reduces the points of failure. To put it another way: if BBGX just has twice as many VLS as a Burke, that just means it *might* take twice as many missiles to kill, if your lucky, and if that many interceptors are available in the first place. And that is a losing proposition if your BBGX costs more than twice a Burke.

IMO, the USN is going to have to rely heavily on soft kill measures and/or ISR disruption if it wants to have any longevity in a fight with China, and that is going to require the force to take casualties at all levels. The CSGs might not be sufficiently survivable enough for this environment, but if not neither is BBGX.

I should have been more specific, I just meant long range missiles with 1500+ mile range what form factor they are is up for debate. My point is BBGX makes more sense than a carrier not that BBGX is the right answer.

ISR disruption isn't really possible, we have live updates on USN deployments around Iran with commerical sats. The Chinese system will be an order of magntiude better, and there's hundreds to thousands of potential space based sensors if you include Chinese commerical sats, all of which are dual use. You aren't going knock down enough to matter as they all operate in different orbits too short of using a nuke to EMP them. Also even with degraded coverage, you aren't going to get 4 days without coverage for a CV to close to strike distance launch then get back out.

What's playing out now is basically what played out in WW1, new military technologies have obsolete the old way of war fighting. Except for pre-positioned equipment that launches at the start of war before they are destroyed, or using very long range munitions, I don't see how you will close to strike range with the surface fleet without taking horrific losses.

 

[Josh_TN]

I should have been more specific, I just meant long range missiles with 1500+ mile range what form factor they are is up for debate. My point is BBGX makes more sense than a carrier not that BBGX is the right answer.

ISR disruption isn't really possible, we have live updates on USN deployments around Iran with commerical sats. The Chinese system will be an order of magntiude better, and there's hundreds to thousands of potential space based sensors if you include Chinese commerical sats, all of which are dual use. You aren't going knock down enough to matter as they all operate in different orbits too short of using a nuke to EMP them. Also even with degraded coverage, you aren't going to get 4 days without coverage for a CV to close to strike distance launch then get back out.

What's playing out now is basically what played out in WW1, new military technologies have obsolete the old way of war fighting. Except for pre-positioned equipment that launches at the start of war before they are destroyed, or using very long range munitions, I don't see how you will close to strike range with the surface fleet without taking horrific losses.

ISR disruptions need not be purely kinetic; they include false targets, communications jamming, and interference in the ISR assets navigation data. And soft kill measures could potentially take up a huge number of possible forms, from obscurent in IR and or X band to chaff to false signals to entire formations of drones flying in a ship like formation.

It may well be that there is no amount of subterfuge that will work in a modern environment, but if that is the case BBGX is not the answer. If anything carriers would provide much more flexibility and range, were weapons specifically developed for that environment. Simply deploying more tankers and using air launched ballistic missiles would be one possible response to increasing range. Being a massive one way drone launcher might be another. Combining both of those and extreme range low cost cruise missiles like RAACM-ER would certainly give a lot of options with a lot of reach. attacking the mainland might not be practical, but hitting anything at sea with volume of fire likely would be.

 

[cccgong]

ISR disruptions need not be purely kinetic; they include false targets, communications jamming, and interference in the ISR assets navigation data. And soft kill measures could potentially take up a huge number of possible forms, from obscurent in IR and or X band to chaff to false signals to entire formations of drones flying in a ship like formation.

It may well be that there is no amount of subterfuge that will work in a modern environment, but if that is the case BBGX is not the answer. If anything carriers would provide much more flexibility and range, were weapons specifically developed for that environment. Simply deploying more tankers and using air launched ballistic missiles would be one possible response to increasing range. Being a massive one way drone launcher might be another. Combining both of those and extreme range low cost cruise missiles like RAACM-ER would certainly give a lot of options with a lot of reach. attacking the mainland might not be practical, but hitting anything at sea with volume of fire likely would be.

False targets aren't feasible vs visible system which will be cued onto radar intel for target confirmation, afterwards you can track tracks. If there's confusion reconfirm with visible.

Coms jamming doesn't work when there's optical downlinks and downlink stations on other parts of the global (downlink away from jamming locations). There are no persistant VIS/IR/radar obscurents to protect you from sat. You also need all three at once without gaps otherwise positive ID will be made as there is 24/7 coverage over the regions of intreset. I also can't imagine ingesting a constant cloud of carbon/metallic particles won't destroy aircraft and helo turbines in short order.

I see you've come to pretty much the same conclusion. Use very long ranged missiles wheter they are ALCM, ALBM, normal ships launching far away. You need range to be able to engage. After that you want your projectiles to have a chance of making it to the target, through some combination of LO, speed, volume, jamming, or altitude.

My whole point is that carriers are obsolete and that BBGX is better, but insufficient.

 

[Dilandu]

But let's run the math on just how many missiles that takes, assuming a 0.5 Pk for each layer:
2 missiles for CIWS.4 missiles for RAM.8 missiles for ESSM.32 missiles for two volleys of SM2s.64 missiles for SM6.128 missiles for the fighters.
So you'd need to send 24 planes each carrying 6 missiles, just to get one ship kill. And remember, the typical carrier group has 7 ships in it: carrier, 2x cruisers, 4x destroyers. Now you need to send 168 planes carrying nearly 900 missiles to kill the entire carrier group.

I take it, you realize, that on practice situation is far less optimistic?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Can you provide a source for that?

It's either in this thread or the DDGX thread.

I take it, you realize, that on practice situation is far less optimistic?

And here I thought a 0.5Pk was excessively negative. Aren't most Pk numbers thrown around in the 0.8 range?

 

[JS23]

It might also be worth remembering that the goal isn't necessarily to TPK enemy fleets, just threaten them enough to zone them out of certain areas, or do enough damage (or even just resource drain, particularly missiles) to render them mission ineffective so that they turn back. Although, conversely, this would also be true of BBG(N?)X--what Captain/Admiral isn't going to get their 15 billion dollar national investment out of the conflict zone as soon as its interceptor magazine runs low?

 

[cccgong]

And here I thought a 0.5Pk was excessively negative. Aren't most Pk numbers thrown around in the 0.8 range?

That’s Pk in a test environment with no jamming, 1 target coming in, calm weapons operators, advanced warning with perfect intel/tracks on target, no battle damage, no reliability issues, good weather, likely favorable engagement geometry. And other things I’m likley missing.

It’s a value for when everything is going perfectly.

For an example of somewhat more realistic Pk values of different systems look at the Isreali and Ukranian BM intercept videos and the former was still in pretty close to ideal conditions, the latter less so but still way better than a conflict vs China. Also note the huge drop in Pk once the MaRV guidance on the BM's were changed.

 

[Josh_TN]

False targets aren't feasible vs visible system which will be cued onto radar intel for target confirmation, afterwards you can track tracks. If there's confusion reconfirm with visible.

Coms jamming doesn't work when there's optical downlinks and downlink stations on other parts of the global (downlink away from jamming locations). There are no persistant VIS/IR/radar obscurents to protect you from sat. You also need all three at once without gaps otherwise positive ID will be made as there is 24/7 coverage over the regions of intreset. I also can't imagine ingesting a constant cloud of carbon/metallic particles won't destroy aircraft and helo turbines in short order.

I see you've come to pretty much the same conclusion. Use very long ranged missiles wheter they are ALCM, ALBM, normal ships launching far away. You need range to be able to engage. After that you want your projectiles to have a chance of making it to the target, through some combination of LO, speed, volume, jamming, or altitude.

My whole point is that carriers are obsolete and that BBGX is better, but insufficient.

Most current LEO satellite systems still rely on relays (or time delays), with Starlink and Starshield being the only two constellations I know of that exist in significant numbers. That will change in a matter of years of course, but it is probably still true for most commercial satellite constellations or even most PRC remote sensing satellites. Directing a lot of energy at GEO or Molniya orbits from the ground could be modestly effective in many cases. Laser cross links do pretty much prevent any practical uplink/downlink jamming. Another alternative might be jamming or spoofing command signals to the ground units carrying out the fire mission.

Radar satellites are pretty easy to jam with available surface based power; the trick is more in not having your target be the source of the jamming. Visual sensors are much harder to spoof but have much smaller collection footprints.

Obscurants and decoys are mostly only useful against the terminal sensors in the weapons themselves, though that combined with navigation denial could potentially be quite effective. Not a lot of sensor phenomologies are available to hypersonic or ballistic weapons.

I am not saying soft kill and ISR disruption is something that can be relied on but there is also a lot potential there, if you have a very good understanding of the enemy’s kill chain. What I certainly know is the case is that matching every hypersonic and ballistic missile with 2+ interceptors is unworkable, and no BBGX is not the least bit more survivable along any timeframe that matters if that is the only means of defense.

 

[Josh_TN]

It's either in this thread or the DDGX thread.

Could you at least restate the name of the site that gave that info? I have a hard time believing accommodating a 57mm was hard or that 127” was considered mission critical for DDGX. Even CPS seemed optional in the renders I saw, and of course I feel like it has no place on that platform anyway. But I would love to know who thought these two systems were necessary and why.