BBG(X) - DISCUSSION ONLY

[Foo Fighter]

I think you mean 127mm rather than inches. I do that a fair bit these days so I get the point you are going to make.

 

[Scott Kenny]

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.

A freaking USN press release.

 

[cccgong]

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.

I'm uncertain how many relays will be required for these sats as the region of intrest is near China which is conviently where their ground stations and other intel costumers are. They can also just downlink when they are away from jamming sources over a different part of the world but that would invovle 10s of minutes of intel stallness. Though this delay is likely still acceptable. Additionally if you have a automatic system, the sat itself is unjammable as it would just broadcast its data to the downlink station regardless of how jammed it is. You would need to jam/destroy the downlink stations.

Visual sensors are also much much cheaper to deploy so you can deploy 10s - 100s for the costs of any radar system, and you can easily overcome the target identification/discrimination task that plauged visible sensors for decades with ML now.

I'm uncertain obscurants and decoys will do too much due to favorable engagement geometries for ASBM/hypersonics (steep dive) and mutlispectral sensors.

I want to note that anything you suggest here can also be applied to disrupting CEC capability, without which midcourse BM interception is impossible and terminal BM interception becomes very difficult.

 

[Josh_TN]

So trump supporters can't do coherent analysis. Understood. The elephant in the room is much bigger than I expected.



No one here would suggest the USAF buy 8,000 low end F-16 that could suffer significant casualties without a total loss of capacity. Instead we support buying high end F-35 and F-47 with unmanned escorts.

The USN under the democrats was specifically looking for smaller low end solutions that would suffer significant casualties. The USN under Trump would instead use unmanned escorts and keep all it's personnel safe in a high end ship. One solution values the lives of it's citizens greater than the other.

It is total hypocrisy if you support the USAF policy of high end aircraft with unmanned escorts but think it's bad for the Navy. TDS is real.

A more apt BBGX analogy would be to suddenly cancel NGAD and propose designing an FB-21 from scratch. An obviously stupid idea on the face of it, all politics aside.

Thought experiment for you: pretend the Biden administration came up with BBGX and analyze it again.

ETA: Also your insinuation that the Trump administration somehow invented or championed unmanned systems for the USN when democrats would not ignores more than a decade of automation experimentation by the navy. Task Force 59 stood up in 2021. Again, the real TDS is people who do gymnastics in their head to make him the hero of every story. We can analyze BBGX on its merits, and IMO there are none.

 

[TomS]

So, Newport News is supposed to do final assembly on this new battleship. No shock, since they are probably the only yard big enough with experience in complex systems integration.

However, IIRC, they don't have a spare dock, so this inherently displaces carrier builds. That's a terrible trade if you ask me.

 

[Scott Kenny]

So, Newport News is supposed to do final assembly on this new battleship. No shock, since they are probably the only yard big enough with experience in complex systems integration.

However, IIRC, they don't have a spare dock, so this inherently displaces carrier builds. That's a terrible trade if you ask me.

As long as it's not nuclear, we can have the beast fitted out in Pascagoula.

HII has built a whole lot of Burkes, and is currently building Burke IIIs.

 

[TomS]

As long as it's not nuclear, we can have the beast fitted out in Pascagoula.

HII has built a whole lot of Burkes, and is currently building Burke IIIs.

But it is going to be nuclear, according to the Navy.

 

[Dilandu]

Worth reading.

Nothing new but standard "we should invest into distributed platforms instead", while omitting the fact, that Chinese industrial advantage there even greater. Basically he is providing criticism, but no alternate solutions.

 

[Dilandu]

A comment on content, as opposed to attacking the messenger.

His arguments are basically boil down to "it would cost too much" and "distributed solutions are better". For the first - the cost is NOT a major limitation for USN, the industrial capabilities are (and industrial limitations favor large units, that require less high-tech components). For the second - distributed solutions by now are the symmetrical approach, where USN would always be in losing position toward the PLAN.

 

[Arjen]

the cost is NOT a major limitation for USN, the industrial capabilities are

The PRC took its time building those capabilities. Successive US governments with suitably sustained long term policies could remedy that. But will they? Would voters accept that?

the symmetrical approach, where USN would always be in losing position toward the PLAN.

I have difficulty in seeing any large USA-PRC armed conflict NOT escalating into nuclear conflict.

 

[Josh_TN]

His arguments are basically boil down to "it would cost too much" and "distributed solutions are better". For the first - the cost is NOT a major limitation for USN, the industrial capabilities are (and industrial limitations favor large units, that require less high-tech components). For the second - distributed solutions by now are the symmetrical approach, where USN would always be in losing position toward the PLAN.

The difference I see is that any major force projection by PLAN requires actual ships, even a blockade, and certainly an invasion. So a smaller number of USVs that are difficult to completely eliminate is a much more credible threat. If any of several dozen medium sized unmanned platforms with four containers on its back deck might be able to launch a dozen aeroballistic missiles a thousand kilometers, that’s a harder problem than one big BBGX. It gets even harder if the local Allie’s allow the basing of much smaller semisubmersibles that might carry mines, short ranged missiles, or themselves act as IEDs. And UUVs are probably a better investment still. This forces a much larger counter effort by the PLAN than BBGX, which is a more straight forward PLARF problem. Going in the other direction, something like the Alaska class or Lewis&Clark class fitted out as a CPS platform can put coastal targets at risk outside most any practical ballistic missile range, and potential blend in with other TKO/tanker traffic. Cheaper platform with about as much long range threat as BBGX. Give it an escort if necessary or have it just do laps around Guam.

Defensive escorts are still needed, so DDGX or something like it is necessary. But BBGX fills no practical role outside looking cool.

 

[MadRat]

Although the ship may have the president's name pinned to it, this is not about politics. The ship is not going to be publicly discussed in every detail for security reasons. The Navy needs to get back to obsuring its equipment on the public side and keep the threat side guessing.

If the ship has a couple of reactor options but only the Bechtel Corporation A1B fits in my opinion. It is a two-reactor vessel with 700 MW of heat output her hour. Peak efficiency on a Ford class is 385 MW (260 MW of steam simultaneous to 125 MW electricity) being used of that original number. So with an A1B they would be aiming to basically flip the propulsion and electrical numbers around. I may be reading the details incorrectly, but that sounds pretty reasonable for the A1B.

The alternative? Westinghouse C1W was only used in USS Long Beach and will not be an option. The alternative is a General Electric D2G at approximately 150 MW per unit. If the BBG(X) is 35,000 tons it will need approximately 160 MW for propulsion for a conservative 30 knot target. You would need a minimum of four D2G which would consume as much as half of the hull interior. That sounds unlikely.

 

[CastleBravo]

Yes, but don't forget that USS Stark should be able to engage (theoretically) at least three missiles - with its Mk-31 GMLS, 76-mm autocannon and Vulcan CIWS. But on practice, she didn't even fire a single shot.

By 2029, an unrealistically optimistic timeframe for the BB to be operational, the USS Stark attack will be closer in time to WWII. The only way a high end surface combatant gets attacked with high end super/hyper-sonic weapons unaware in the 2030s is if one side has achieved complete dominance in space, and if that happens it will be to our advantage not China's IMO.

 

[cccgong]

I really doubt anything under 500 miles altitude is talking directly to China from more a thousand miles off their coast in UHF, but I could be wrong. How long until a friendly station is available depends totally on the orbit, but a polar orbit typical of observation satellites basically lets the world travel to it, not the other way around. US recon satellites typically upload to a satellite in GEO or to a satellite in a Molniya orbit over the target area (invariably Asia, also similar orbit for ELINT satellites like JUMPSEAT or TRUMPET). However you dice it, sans laser mesh network, which is a newer thing and requires a certain sized constellation, LEO needs to uplink to a higher orbit to downlink to a control station in (near) realtime. The US also has the advantage of global downlinks connected to hard wired, be it Hawaii, Australia, Diego, Qatar, or wherever.

Those relay satellites are at around 20,000 miles where they can receive most any signal, including a shit load of ground based jamming with a lot more power and only marginally more distance (if any, depending on geometry) than a LEO satellite. The only publicly known system that does anything like this is a relocatable US one with a really forgettable generic name - counter communication system, new version Meadowlands. But there’s no reason an entire building sized antenna in Guam could not be dedicated to the purpose either. ETA: always wondered if some of the numerous satellite com domes on USN ships did not have a dual/alternate function of uplink jamming - plenty of power on a mobile platform).

You can download data next time you pass over a friendly download site, and I assume that’s how most current commercial systems work. But that is with an obvious severe lag time that is not target grade information.

Obviously laser mesh networks solve all of this, and I know China has two separate ones it is beginning to orbit. So that is just a matter of time. But my point is, reliable realtime satellite communications are non trivial.

CEC has been replaced with NIFCCA and I believe most of the system utilizes internal lines of communication within the task force, which should be difficult to jam. But clearly early warning of ballistic attack is essential and could potentially be denied. The main difference I see is that current US ballistic early warning satellites operate in GEO or Molniya orbits to begin with, and should not need a relay, and that the new LEO SDA missile tracking system is explicitly laser mesh linked along with the tactical communications network being orbited next to it. A additional MEO system is also about to orbited. None of that is fool proof, but it is probably harder to jam or screw with either compared to a non mesh LEO satellite, and clearly the US is attempting to cover every base when it comes to BM warning/tracking. I am unaware of similar PRC programs outside their GEO IR satellites, but then the US is hardly a major ballistic missile threat…currently…

You need ships hundreds of miles infront of the taskforce for mile course interception which makes most of the kill chain disruption methods applicable. I don't believe those sats are designed to downlink to anything other than land based ground stations. So there would still be relays of some nature required to get it to ships/aircraft in theatre.

I would say non-meshed LEO sats are harder to jam due to potentially requiring no/fewer relays if archtectied correctly. As they have relvent intel when they are directly above the region of intrest with the forces they need to communicate with. They could just transmit their intel then directly to ships/aircraft in the region on loop regardless of what jamming signals are sent at it.

The difference I see is that any major force projection by PLAN requires actual ships, even a blockade, and certainly an invasion. So a smaller number of USVs that are difficult to completely eliminate is a much more credible threat. If any of several dozen medium sized unmanned platforms with four containers on its back deck might be able to launch a dozen aeroballistic missiles a thousand kilometers, that’s a harder problem than one big BBGX. It gets even harder if the local Allie’s allow the basing of much smaller semisubmersibles that might carry mines, short ranged missiles, or themselves act as IEDs. And UUVs are probably a better investment still. This forces a much larger counter effort by the PLAN than BBGX, which is a more straight forward PLARF problem. Going in the other direction, something like the Alaska class or Lewis&Clark class fitted out as a CPS platform can put coastal targets at risk outside most any practical ballistic missile range, and potential blend in with other TKO/tanker traffic. Cheaper platform with about as much long range threat as BBGX. Give it an escort if necessary or have it just do laps around Guam.

Defensive escorts are still needed, so DDGX or something like it is necessary. But BBGX fills no practical role outside looking cool.

At the end of the day, the question becomes how many long range missiles hard to intercept can you launch at known targets while risking the smallest amount of equipment/money yourself. Carriers are absolutely the wrong answer, BBGX is slighlty less wrong, USV even less, and semi-submersible UUV are are another increment less wrong.

I consider it questionable that hypersonics or ballistics have anything multispectral. AFAIK all previous guided MARVs were radar, and it is hard for me to imagine hypersonic gliders or re-entry vehicles having optical or IR sensors. That said, basic bitch SRBOC could potentially push chaff and flares to obscure a target. IR obscurent smoke is standard on any modern ARV. Pandara Fog was experimented with by the USN using army smoke generators integrated with uptake stacks of Burkes. So you could literally generate a wide spectrum optical/IR/x band smoke screen en mass, assuming you had to. I always wondered if perhaps tactical munition dispensers with mixed obscurent smoke could not simply be heavily loaded on to F-18s so they could rapidly “bomb” their own carriers with 10,000 lbs of mixed cluster munitions for cover.

A smarter way to go about this might be to instead use a swarm of UAVs to fake a target rather than obscure one. The USN experimented with Perdix drones drones from flare dispensers that effectively could act as smart chaff. If you needed to fool an EO sensor, that might be as simple as massed upward facing LED lighting, especially if the actual target was obscured.

There also was an entire program dedicated to persistent hovering decoys, basically super nukla.

I do know what the USN project Nemisis cooked up, but many years ago they were already hard at work trying to creating realistic cross spectrum decoys. I would not rule out the possibility that real targets might be obscured and false positives might be injected during the 10-20 minute flight time of any DF-21/26.

ETA: I am also interested in the max elevation angle of the USNs test laser systems. That might be another way to narrow spectrum options for an incoming seeker, even if dazzling orbital sensors is not practical.

Thaad specifically example is going ~M8 and has MWIR sensors (though at higher altitudes) done with gas film cooling and windows recessed into side wells. There's some Chinese papers on dual mode EO/radar terminal guidance for BM's so I wouldn't be surprised if it's implemented on their newer BM/hypersonics. Generating smoke screens only sort of works as it's clear where the large smoke sources are when the targets are moving and you're coming in near vertically so you can just hit those. Also it would require a tremendous amount to not thin out over 1/2 a mile to protect a carrier in the middle.
It's highly unlikely you would have the response time to enable F-18 dropping smoke on the carrier, nor the drone solution with their loiter times and numbers needed. I don't believe at all a LED field would fool EO sensors.

I agree that you can fool radar more easily through system like nukla and Nemsis. However fooling both radar + MWIR + NIR or VIS all simultaneously will be very difficult (latter requires multiple lasers and extremely short engagement windows). Also modern ML algos or even just orders of magnitude more compute using traditional algos make traditional radar deception much more diffiucult.

By 2029, an unrealistically optimistic timeframe for the BB to be operational, the USS Stark attack will be closer in time to WWII. The only way a high end surface combatant gets attacked with high end super/hyper-sonic weapons unaware in the 2030s is if one side has achieved complete dominance in space, and if that happens it will be to our advantage not China's IMO.

Strongly disagree. Submarines have torp tube launched hypersonics, high end supersonics, in addition to VLS cells. Also gen5/6 aircraft launching them at ships without CV/AWACS near by.

 

[CastleBravo]

The launch platform can phase into existence from nothing for all I care, overhead sensors will detect any weapon doing Mach 1+. The idea that you are going to salvo some ballistic missiles or HGVs at a ship in the 2030s and not have those missiles detected at launch and tracked in flight without first winning a huge fight in orbit is absurd to me.

 

[shin_getter]

Nothing new but standard "we should invest into distributed platforms instead", while omitting the fact, that Chinese industrial advantage there even greater. Basically he is providing criticism, but no alternate solutions.

The strategic advantage in this conflict is that one is defending, and there is no need for "power projection" or mobility when you can build fortresses.

Consider Iran can LOLFACETANK the United States and retain its launch capability with ZERO interception capability simply by TBM (tunnel boring machine) go burrr~

For weapons with thousands of kilometers of range, you can build a lot of fortresses~
-----
And to return to the Iran example. Stop thinking silly water going toys with super expensive needles is going to seriously neutralize a continental land power that had spent years of digging, even if the opponent can't shoot back! Sure they may lose some high value assets when they act stupidly, but the war goes on with low cost asset spam nonetheless. Consider the history of strategic bombings and the warhead size and the orders of magnitude difference....

Actually, to look at Iran at another perspective. Even the USN can't effectively escort ships against a 3th rate power. The west should be glad the PLAN built a bunch of targets instead of try novel concepts that might actually work, like spamming hybrid evtols or something.

At the end of the day, the question becomes how many long range missiles hard to intercept can you launch at known targets while risking the smallest amount of equipment/money yourself. Carriers are absolutely the wrong answer, BBGX is slighlty less wrong, USV even less, and semi-submersible UUV are are another increment less wrong.

You can get a dozen starships for a BBGX, and a dozen starships is dropping a "destroyer" worth of tonnage of hypervelocity projectiles in a single sortie cycle. People are counting the tubes and shots when you are kilotonnage with conventional explosives.

...on top of making money in peace time and enforcing space dominance in general. Just have a project figure out payload integration, don't even need to buy thing since you can rent.

Imagine throwing a battlefleet budget into that, and dump a conventional hiroshima every launch cycle....

I consider it questionable that hypersonics or ballistics have anything multispectral. AFAIK all previous guided MARVs were radar, and it is hard for me to imagine hypersonic gliders or re-entry vehicles having optical or IR sensors.

There are Chinese studies where hypersonics have a space component that does the observation at standoff and does command guidance of munition. We know it would work, see starship reentry livestreams.

Defensive escorts are still needed, so DDGX or something like it is necessary. But BBGX fills no practical role outside looking cool.

Politicians are good at politics and worst than random forum goers at military stuff. "Rope a dope" is legit, the dreadnaught won ww1 (by getting high seas fleet built). Also, consider Chinese Carriers (not actually relevant for the next war they plan to fight). Stranger things happens.

Not that is a high yielding strategy, though. Anyway, powerful people want their toys.

No one here would suggest the USAF buy 8,000 low end F-16 that could suffer significant casualties without a total loss of capacity. Instead we support buying high end F-35 and F-47 with unmanned escorts.

Trump class as a incoherent, do everything vehicle that is Vickers A1E1 Independent than relatively focused concepts like F-35 or F-47. Its logic is predreadnaught~

 

[MadRat]

Bechtel Marine Propulsion Corporation has a product (S1B) that does 210 MW thermal. It will deliver steam for approximately 45 MW of propulsion to Columbia class submarines. BBG(X) would need three to four. But I have a feeling that restricting designers to just three would suffice for the mission. The S1B is designed for 40 years before refueling the core. It does go through a maintenance cycle at two years rather than four of other previous designs. Previous submarine reactors were scheduled to last 25 years with a four year maintenance schedule.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Trump class as a incoherent, do everything vehicle that is Vickers A1E1 Independent than relatively focused concepts like F-35 or F-47. Its logic is predreadnaught~

I disagree on this point.

1) CPS/Dark Eagle is effectively a Tomahawk in terms of range and effect on target. Just faster. The physical size of the CPS means it needs a big chunk of space in the ship or just flat a big ship to haul it around, but I expect it to be used in much the same way as a Tomahawk.

This means that a ship big enough to trivially carry ~20something CPS is the new "destroyer" size. 6-8x APM tubes (18-24x CPS) plus 92-96x Mk41. The "cruiser" equivalent is ~10-12x APM plus 122-128x Mk41. And yes, I would expect the ships to still have a few Tomahawks in the Mk41s for a little bit, but not the full 20-30 like now. Probably 10-15 Tomahawks.

2) the laser systems are defensive. There to handle drones/cheap cruise missiles.

 

[Forest Green]

I disagree on this point.

1) CPS/Dark Eagle is effectively a Tomahawk in terms of range and effect on target. Just faster. The physical size of the CPS means it needs a big chunk of space in the ship or just flat a big ship to haul it around, but I expect it to be used in much the same way as a Tomahawk.

It has at least twice the range of a conventionally-armed Tomahawk (3500 vs 1700km) and that 3500km figure is probably ballistic range only without including glide range. Airspace closures during testing indicate around 4500km.

Post #2,173
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ic-weapons-projects-general.30673/post-698124

 

[Josh_TN]

I disagree on this point.

1) CPS/Dark Eagle is effectively a Tomahawk in terms of range and effect on target. Just faster. The physical size of the CPS means it needs a big chunk of space in the ship or just flat a big ship to haul it around, but I expect it to be used in much the same way as a Tomahawk.

This means that a ship big enough to trivially carry ~20something CPS is the new "destroyer" size. 6-8x APM tubes (18-24x CPS) plus 92-96x Mk41. The "cruiser" equivalent is ~10-12x APM plus 122-128x Mk41. And yes, I would expect the ships to still have a few Tomahawks in the Mk41s for a little bit, but not the full 20-30 like now. Probably 10-15 Tomahawks.

CPS has double the range and costs about 10x as much and probably a much smaller warhead; it is in no way analogous to tomahawk and would be used on a far more restrictive target list.

 

[totoro]

But by early 2030s the army does plan to have thousands delivered per year, costing similar to a cruise missile.

 

[Josh_TN]

But by early 2030s the army does plan to have thousands delivered per year, costing similar to a cruise missile.

That is a different system and it remains to be seen if Castelion lives up to the hype. Right now that’s vaporware.

Also if some kind of Blackbeard weapon is adopted for mk41, presumably everyone can stop obsessing about putting CPS on escorts?

 

[totoro]

That is a different system and it remains to be seen if Castelion lives up to the hype. Right now that’s vaporware.

Also if some kind of Blackbeard weapon is adopted for mk41, presumably everyone can stop obsessing about putting CPS on escorts?

Was not talking about castelion missile but lrhw. Armys name for cps. 5 year army budget plans have them ordering thousands per year at like a million or two each.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

Was not talking about castelion missile but lrhw. Armys name for cps. 5 year army budget plans have them ordering thousands per year at like a million or two each.

Please show us exactly what you're talking about. 7 ton missiles with hypersonic glide vehicles are not in the realm of a million or two each. Maybe PrSM would be about that expensive.

 

[Josh_TN]

Was not talking about castelion missile but lrhw. Armys name for cps. 5 year army budget plans have them ordering thousands per year at like a million or two each.

I am going to need a source for that.

 

[totoro]

https://www.asafm.army.mil/Portals/...dget/Procurement/Missile Procurement Army.pdf

Page 146

 

[Josh_TN]

https://www.asafm.army.mil/Portals/...dget/Procurement/Missile Procurement Army.pdf

Page 146

First of all, that seems like $4 million per round. Second of all, I think this is a different program than Dark Eagle, since this document would indicate no purchases until 2029, which we know to be untrue (first battery already stood up). So I think there is some kind of disconnect between this document and LRHW, or else this is a program with a similar generic name.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

https://www.asafm.army.mil/Portals/72/Documents/BudgetMaterial/2027/Discretionary Budget/Procurement/Missile Procurement Army.pdf

Page 146

I think something else is going on here. The current Dark Eagle AUR+C unit cost is $35 - 40 million. The Navy expects to pay $50+ million per AUR+C for CPS. The tables on the subsequent pages don't break down procurement between AUR+Cs and all of the GSE and other equipment like they do with other programs like the Javelin on the next set of pages.

I found this article talking about the FY27 budget saying that the 4,500 missiles to be procured for the LRHW are not Lockheed Dark Eagles but some other kind of low-cost hypersonic missile. I haven't seen any other articles else talking about these 4,500 missiles, so I have no other information. I also don't know how the Army thinks they will even be able to use 4,500 missiles with the limited number of launch batteries they will field.

https://aviationweek.com/defense/missile-defense-weapons/strike-weapons-boom-pentagon-spending-plan

The Army’s Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW) program has paid Lockheed Martin since 2018 to develop and produce the hypersonic Dark Eagle missile, which includes the Dynetics Common Hypersonic Glide Body and a two-stage Northrop Grumman booster rocket. However, each Lockheed missile—also being supplied for the Navy’s Conventional Prompt Strike program—came with a roughly $40 million price tag, which limited annual orders to 2-3 dozen.

Castelion entered the missile business in 2022 with a new approach, informed by the founders’ experience at SpaceX. The company bypasses traditional aerospace suppliers of low-volume, high-cost components that come qualified for the rigors of rocket launches. Instead, the company acquires as much as possible—electronics, pumps and more—from the high-volume, low-cost automotive industry, then adapts them for aerospace. Castelion also builds its own thermal protection systems, propellant and rocket motors.

Although the company has yet to produce at scale, the Army’s leadership has embraced its low-cost concept for hypersonic missile manufacturing. The fiscal 2027 budget proposal calls for shutting down Dark Eagle production for the service and transitioning all management of the program to the Navy, which will continue acquiring the Lockheed missile for submarines and ships.

Starting in fiscal 2029, the LRHW program is to ramp up orders substantially, buying 500 that year and 2,000 each in fiscal 2030 and 2031, according to budget justification documents. Castelion selected a 1,000-acre site in November for a solid-rocket motor manufacturing campus in Sandoval County, New Mexico.

Additionally, the budget numbers ($312M prior years, $669M in FY25, and $347M in FY26) seem to be considerably smaller than what has been spent on the Dark Eagle program in recent years.

https://www.overtdefense.com/2026/0...illion-dark-eagle-hypersonic-weapon-contract/
https://news.lockheedmartin.com/201...756-Million-Hypersonic-Weapon-System-Contract

 

[DWG]

https://aviationweek.com/defense/missile-defense-weapons/strike-weapons-boom-pentagon-spending-plan

TLDR: 2000 LRHWs per annum isn't Dark Eagle, it's probably Blackbeard.

"Although the company has yet to produce at scale, the Army’s leadership has embraced its low-cost concept for hypersonic missile manufacturing. The fiscal 2027 budget proposal calls for shutting down Dark Eagle production for the service and transitioning all management of the program to the Navy, which will continue acquiring the Lockheed missile for submarines and ships.

Starting in fiscal 2029, the LRHW program is to ramp up orders substantially, buying 500 that year and 2,000 each in fiscal 2030 and 2031, according to budget justification documents. Castelion selected a 1,000-acre site in November for a solid-rocket motor manufacturing campus in Sandoval County, New Mexico.

MACE and LRHW may not be the only opportunities for future orders of Blackbeard variants. Army Brig. Gen. Patrick Costello told the Fires Symposium in mid-April that service leaders had approved a plan to stop work on a Lockheed contract to develop Increment 4 of the Precision Strike Missile (PRSM).

The baseline PRSM is a ground-launched Lockheed ballistic missile with more than 400-km (250-mi.) range. Increment 4 is expected to exceed 1,000-km range by integrating a ramjet propulsion system. The Army plans to shift to a low-cost option for PRSM Increment 4, opening up another opportunity for a future combined-cycle variant of Blackbeard."

If the Army is abandoning LRHW/Dark Eagle for Blackbeard or similar, how secure is CPS/Dark Eagle? And should the USN be making major design decisions around it?

 

[DWG]

I also don't know how the Army thinks they will even be able to use 4,500 missiles with the limited number of launch batteries they will field.

Blackbeard is small enough to go on an F/A-18E/F (the Navy has just given Castelion a $105m contract for integration as the winner of MACE), which means it's almost certainly small enough to fit an M-270/HIMARS pod.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

If the Army is abandoning LRHW/Dark Eagle for Blackbeard or similar, how secure is CPS/Dark Eagle? And should the USN be making major design decisions around it?

The confusing part is that the Justification Statement associated with the LRHW entry in the budget request specifically describes the Dark Eagle battery structure (BOC + 4 launchers with 8 AUR+Cs and 8 reloads) and the missile with the C-HGB and the 34.5-inch booster.

Blackbeard is small enough to go on an F/A-18E/F (the Navy has just given Castelion a $105m contract for integration as the winner of MACE), which means it's almost certainly small enough to fit an M-270/HIMARS pod.

The 4,500 missiles make plenty of sense for the Blackbeard procurement, although I have heard that the Blackbeard unit cost is supposed to be closer to $400k per. I have never found conclusive numbers for the weight and dimensions of the Blackbeard. I have seen 12-inch diameter and 4 m length with a mass of 1,250 kg, but that mass makes no sense compared to the weight of GMLRS and ATACMS or the BM-30 Smerch, which was a 12-inch rocket with a length of 7.6 m and a mass of 800 kg. The size would position it between GMLRS and PrSM, possibly with four missiles per pod. I don't know how the Blackbeard with the booster that looks like a Mk 12 figures into any plans, or if there is actually a smaller Blackbeard that is supposed to fit in an F-35 and be about the size of an AMRAAM.

 

[Josh_TN]

The reason there are no numbers for Blackbeard is because it does not exist yet and I highly suspect that it will be largely different products of different sizes for the different services. There are so many confusing requirements and alleged capabilities that at this point Blackbeard should be thought of as a product line, not a distinct missile.

But the 500 number in the budget doc meshes with the DoD commitment to buy at least 500 missiles a year from Costelion, so despite the LRHW program name, I am quite certain that is what we are looking at.

If the Army is truly abandoning Dark Eagle, then it is possible they reused the LRHW program funding to jump start Blackbeard under that program. MACE seems to have done exactly the same, as it used to be a low cost subsonic missile but suddenly seems to have attributes of HALO instead.

 

[totoro]

So they have a name for a program which then got reused for a completely different system of a completely different class and abilities?? That is totally not gonna cause any issues...

 

[Not James Stockdale]

So they have a name for a program which then got reused for a completely different system of a completely different class and abilities?? That is totally not gonna cause any issues...

Like I said, the program description clearly describes the Dark Eagle LRHW as we know it, but the acquisition numbers and the cost figures don't seem to match. I wouldn't want to draw any real conclusions from this document.

 

[Seragina]

There are at least two main versions: one for fighter weapons bay format and one for surface to air launchers.
At the moment it looks like the difference is in the 1st stage motor size. And it seems it's not quite there yet with hypersonic speed.

 

[Josh_TN]

So they have a name for a program which then got reused for a completely different system of a completely different class and abilities?? That is totally not gonna cause any issues...

That is just a guess on my part, because that seems to be what happened to MACE and none of the details of that LRHW entry seem to match Dark Eagle.

As for causing problems, the current administration sued itself and settled with itself for 1.8 billion dollars, to be distributed by the guy who was the president’s personal lawyer, so I while I am not familiar with the legality of completely changing the requirements of an existing program, I expect it will not be noticed, assuming this is not a normal practice anyway.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The confusing part is that the Justification Statement associated with the LRHW entry in the budget request specifically describes the Dark Eagle battery structure (BOC + 4 launchers with 8 AUR+Cs and 8 reloads) and the missile with the C-HGB and the 34.5-inch booster.

Wouldn't be the first time that a major typo/copypasta oops has appeared in official government documents.

Won't be the last, either.

if there is actually a smaller Blackbeard that is supposed to fit in an F-35 and be about the size of an AMRAAM.

You can use a fat booster on things going in an F-35, the bay will physically fit 20x19x168"

 

[Hood]

I have a serious question to interject with.
Is Congress' mandate that all future surface combatants (unless notified it's not in the national interest by the Def Sec) in the 2008 Defence Authorisation Act and 2009 Defence Authorisation Act (which included all amphibs over 15,000 tons deadweight light ship displacement - whatever the hell that is), still in force or did it fall by the wayside in the intervening years?

 

[Arjen]

Many mandates are in place. If Congress chooses not to enforce them, they might as well not be.

 

[Felocie]

nuke it with a railgun from a Trump BBBG(X) (Bigly Battle Boat of Gold (X= cool)).

The same railgun these abject fools claim will replace carrier based air power and missiles?

I have utter disdain for this slop, nothing but man-babies larping as the educated. This thread should be closed and all those who spread blatant horseshite banned from future commenting. Utterly disgraceful