BBG(X) - DISCUSSION ONLY

Dilandu said:
There would be no new class of DDG(X), there would be BBG(X) in their place. A single big hull with a single set of engines, radars, computers and a single crew is cheaper than two smaller hulls, each of which requre its own set of machinery and its own crew.
Click to expand...
But they cant build ABs for ever so they would need a new DDG(X) in the 2040s or 2050s. I thought the new hull was the point of the DDG(X) program before it was canceled?
 
Last edited:
Dilandu said:
Well, it’s basically a DDG with a hull big enough to accomodate required weapon systems and ammo. The whole BBG(X) project basically was born, after Navy realized that DDG(X) just could not accomodate everything they deemed nessesary.
Click to expand...

No, BBGX was the pipe dream of one man child and his yes men, never a realistic USN goal.
 
Aegrotare said:
But they cant build ABs for ever so they would need a new DDG(X) in the 2040s or 2050s. I thought the new hull was the point of the DDG(X) program before it was canceled.
Click to expand...
Apparently they hope to figure out how to cross that river when they would arrive there. The existing force of Arleigh Burke's would be sufficient till late XXI century - so they have time to think about new destroyer. Or, they might be planning to ditch the destroyers (as medium-size combatat) completely, building a new navy around small number of large battleships and smaller frigates.
 
Josh_TN said:
No, BBGX was the pipe dream of one man child and his yes men, never a realistic USN goal.
Click to expand...
What choice do they have, frankly? DDG(X) didn't work. FFG(X) failed. Arleigh Burke's are becoming obsolete - and USN clearly couldn't compete with PLAN in numbers. A wild gambit of betting on something new, large, durable units, is better than nothing.
 
John Phelan has been fired as Navy secretary after months of simmering tension with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, according to U.S. officials.

Hung Cao, a Navy veteran who is the current undersecretary, will become the acting Navy secretary, Parnell said. Cao lost a bid for a Virginia Senate seat to Democrat Tim Kaine in 2024.

Phelan’s firing comes after a rocky tenure under Hegseth and Feinberg, including tension over Phelan’s close relationship with President Trump, according to three people familiar with the internal discussions. Phelan regularly chats with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago club, just down the street from his own Florida home, and told lawmakers last year that he texts with the president about shipbuilding in the middle of the night.

The top Pentagon leaders were particularly annoyed last fall when Phelan pitched the idea for a modern battleship directly to Trump, bypassing Hegseth, the people said.

Since then, Hegseth and Feinberg have worked to undermine Phelan by creating a new czar for submarine acquisition—a portfolio that typically sits within the Navy—who reports directly to Feinberg, the people said.
Click to expand...

WSJ Pete Hegseth Fires Navy Secretary John Phelan
 
lmaoxd said:
Mate I actually cant believe my eyes right now, i thought this would be a 4B-5B dollar battleship at most which on its own is outlandish but at least somewhat reasonable if it had like 230 VLS or some absurd number like the that it would at least be a consolation but only 128 VLS cells and 12 CPS missiles and a railgun is so........... I'm speechless right now
Click to expand...
The warp drive was expensive, and it needed 300 GTs to power it. ‍
Brett Davidson said:
Possibly the Navy is setting it up to fail. Money is poured into the long-lead stuff and once Trump and Hegseth are gone, the programme is cancelled and all the goodies go into a resurrected DDG(X).
Click to expand...
It really looks that way. At 5B there were still supporters so have to push the cost into orbit, high enough to ensure its cancelled.
totoro said:
Maybe it'd have to have fewer mk41 cells, but even that I am not so sure about. (mk57 doesn't seem to be a thing anymore) I do wonder what the relationship between CPS and G-VLS is. Both are made by LM and both are said to have cells around 34 inches in width. I do think it's possible the cell itself is designed to be the same in both, but the system around it is different. With GVLS being developed to be more modular and interchangable with mk41 modules. If true, CPS might end up being a transitional design which might then be replaced by a newer VLS system in time.
Click to expand...
Apparently GVLS can quadpack Mk-41 cells or just take the CPS missiles, and was the system proposed for getting CPS onto the DDG(X). So that's another 48 normal VLS equivalent if you are counting cells. Hopefully the quadpacked variety is compatible with the new at-sea replenishment.
totoro said:
Not sure about the 35 000 t "battleship" though. I'd say there's simply no cost-efficient use case for that one.
Click to expand...
I think Navy's original DDG(X) concept was pretty close, and the CPS module could have been stretched to whatever was required to fit on the CPS version.

Really going to be interesting to see what happens with the new boss.
 
Dilandu said:
What choice do they have, frankly? DDG(X) didn't work. FFG(X) failed. Arleigh Burke's are becoming obsolete - and USN clearly couldn't compete with PLAN in numbers. A wild gambit of betting on something new, large, durable units, is better than nothing.
Click to expand...
DDGX is still funded I believe, and I do not see why it would not work. FFGX is still going to build two ships anyway, and IMO as soon as the current administration is gone it will be reinstated because FFX is not cheaper, faster, or more capable.

Whether FFGX or DDGX go forward or not, the current programs will be cancelled if not for practical reasons (and there are many) then for purely political ones.
 
It all depends on whether Trump can get his wish and the Battleship can get designed and built in time before the next president enters office in 2019 and then cancles it.
 
Josh_TN said:
DDGX is still funded I believe, and I do not see why it would not work. FFGX is still going to build two ships anyway, and IMO as soon as the current administration is gone it will be reinstated because FFX is not cheaper, faster, or more capable.

Whether FFGX or DDGX go forward or not, the current programs will be cancelled if not for practical reasons (and there are many) then for purely political ones.
Click to expand...
DDGX is not in the budget request. BBGX is in there for 1B this year
 
DWG said:
So if Phelan's gone, does that give the USN a convenient person to blame for FF(X) if they're having buyer's remorse?
Click to expand...
They can blame FFX and BBGX on ship and do a course reversal. But fixing BBGX would likely require something happening to trump.
 
cccgong said:
They can blame FFX and BBGX on ship and do a course reversal. But fixing BBGX would likely require something happening to trump.
Click to expand...
What's wrong with BBGX. . .I mean other than it's likely too expensive to afford?
 
DWG said:
So if Phelan's gone, does that give the USN a convenient person to blame for FF(X) if they're having buyer's remorse?
Click to expand...

At that point, the USN should probably just kill SSCs and order 50 more Burkes from Mitsubishi and Hyundai. It'll get them faster.

Sferrin said:
What's wrong with BBGX. . .I mean other than it's likely too expensive to afford?
Click to expand...

Exactly that. The regression to a Cold War SAG is pretty stupid given a transparent ocean surface under constant orbital surveillance.

They could just program in half a dozen more Columbias and make them dedicated SSGNs but that requires the USN to have a brain.
 
Sferrin said:
What's wrong with BBGX. . .I mean other than it's likely too expensive to afford?
Click to expand...
The stated BBGX displacements are absurd for the amount of hardware mounted.

It's basically a DDGX with an extra 12 CPS cells, an extra useless 5 inch gun, and a railgun that doesn't exist yet. While weighing 2.5x as much as DDGX and taking 2.5x the crew in a world where the AB is already overmanned compared to other navy's ships. It's even supposed to only have an AB Flight III sided radar...
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
DDGX is still funded I believe, and I do not see why it would not work. FFGX is still going to build two ships anyway, and IMO as soon as the current administration is gone it will be reinstated because FFX is not cheaper, faster, or more capable.

Whether FFGX or DDGX go forward or not, the current programs will be cancelled if not for practical reasons (and there are many) then for purely political ones.
Click to expand...
Yes as of January DDGX was funded.

I do not see FFX getting canceled for purely political reasons. It would likely be political suicide to cancel the project. Maybe FFGX gets restarted, and we get a high-low mix of frigates, that gets mirrored in burkes & DDGX, or DDGX & BBGX.

We have 76 DDGs in commission right now. That means we have 25-26 available for deployment at any one time. We have nearly half our deployable DDGs currently on blockade duty. A job that can be done by an NSC, meaning a job that can be done by FFX.
Being able to replace 7-9 of those DDGs with an FFX would be a massive bonus for the fleet. Carrier and a few burkes provide air defense.
Carrier, ESB, LCS and FFXs provide flight decks or boats for boarding parties.
FFX closes in and fires warning/disabling shots as appropriate.

FFX has its utility regardless of what so many people want to believe and this blockade proves it.
 
Dilandu said:
It is not funded, and it is not working. The Navy admitted, that the DDG(X) design simply can't fit all systems they consider essential. Either large silos for hypersonics doesn't fit, or main gun, or half of Mk-41 VLS.
Click to expand...
Provide documentation DDGX isn’t funded. Since January I’ve provided congressional documentation that DDGX is still an active program.
 
cccgong said:
The stated BBGX displacements are absurd for the amount of hardware mounted.

It's basically a DDGX with an extra 12 CPS tubes, an extra useless 5 inch gun, and a railgun that doesn't exist yet. While weighing 2.5x as much as DDGX and taking 2.5x the crew in a world where the AB is already overmanned compared to other navy's ships. It's even supposed to only have an AB Flight III sided radar...
Click to expand...
How many tons is this thing supposed to be?
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Provide documentation DDGX isn’t funded. Since January I’ve provided congressional documentation that DDGX is still an active program.
Click to expand...
DDG(X) funding is zeroed out in the FY27 RDT&E budget, which explicitly states that the DDG(X) program is being transitioning to BBG(X). So no more DDG(X).

Source: https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/27pres/RDTEN_BA4_Book.pdf (page 519 onwards)
The DDG(X) program is transitioning to BBG(X) addressed below in PU 0413. The Battleship will be an addition to the Large Surface Combatant Fleet; the BBG(X) will not replace the Arleigh Burke class (DDG 51) destroyer. DDG 51 procurement will continue in parallel with the Battleship.

In FY 2026, all DDG(X) System Requirements Review (SRR) products will be updated to BBG(X) requirements as part of the transition from DDG(X) to BBG(X). In FY2026, BBG(X) Concept Design (CD) phase and SRR will be completed and entrance into the Preliminary Design (PD) phase. As part of CD and entering PD phased the following activities will be accomplished: 1) BBG(X) Baseline Concept Design, 2) build the BBG(X) design team leveraging the DDG(X) team.

FY 2027 increased by $594.664M due to the following: 1) $538.306M transition from the DDG(X) ship to the BBG(X) ship design
Click to expand...

DDG(X) to BBG(X) transition.png
 
cccgong said:
The stated BBGX displacements are absurd for the amount of hardware mounted.

It's basically a DDGX with an extra 12 CPS tubes, an extra useless 5 inch gun, and a railgun that doesn't exist yet. While weighing 2.5x as much as DDGX and taking 2.5x the crew in a world where the AB is already overmanned compared to other navy's ships. It's even supposed to only have an AB Flight III sided radar...
Click to expand...
How are 5” guns useless exactly?
 
johnpjones1775 said:
How would another 5” gun be useless in the age of drones when guns have been swatting drones from the sky at sea for the last 3 or 4 years?
Click to expand...

A 5" gun was recently used to take out the engine of a large Iranian cargo ship.

The utility of the gun comes from it's versatility.
 
Jimmo952 said:
A 5" gun was recently used to take out the engine of a large Iranian cargo ship.

The utility of the gun comes from it's versatility.
Click to expand...
And in our last conflict with Iran used to sink Iranian vessels.
Hence why I asked why is a 5” gun or another 5” gun.
 
Dilandu said:
Well, at least it seems that USN is learned the lessons and abandoned "concurring development" in favor of good ol' "project finalized, then ship ordered".
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell, the only concurrent development part of the plan is a rail/coilgun. All other pieces are already in use in the USN. And debatably the 69RMA BMD radars, but I don't think it would particularly take a lot of development to put together the working radar sets. Gotta love "Lego for Militaries"



cccgong said:
The stated BBGX displacements are absurd for the amount of hardware mounted.

It's basically a DDGX with an extra 12 CPS tubes, an extra useless 5 inch gun, and a railgun that doesn't exist yet.
Click to expand...
Note that a CPS tube is 85" internal diameter, which holds 3x CPS missiles. Not the quad pack of Trident tubes holding 12x CPS birds that are fitted to the Zumwalts.

12 CPS tubes is a 3x4 block roughly 36x48ft. Minimum. ~40x60 is more likely. And ~35-45ft deep.


cccgong said:
While weighing 2.5x as much as DDGX and taking 2.5x the crew in a world where the AB is already overmanned compared to other navy's ships.
Click to expand...
It's also carrying a very critical Flag Bridge, functionally an entire extra CIC plus all the bodies needed to run one 24/7, as well as all the Admiral's staff. Admiral's staff comes up to about 20. And they're basically all officers, so they need their space.


cccgong said:
It's even supposed to only have an AB Flight III sided radar...
Click to expand...
Not for long. They're utter morons to not specify the BMD radars now.
 
Scott Kenny said:
As far as I can tell, the only concurrent development part of the plan is a rail/coilgun. All other pieces are already in use in the USN. And debatably the 69RMA BMD radars, but I don't think it would particularly take a lot of development to put together the working radar sets. Gotta love "Lego for Militaries"
Click to expand...
Yep, and the railgun is the part they could ditch most easily, if something would not work as planned with it. Railgun is the only high-risk component there - and it is not essential. All other systems and weapons are either already in service, or relatively close to.
 
If they want to add another 5" gun then make the 5" turret a dual-gun turret instead of single gun turret.
 
Quite Dilandu. When was the last time a destroyer was armed with dual gun turrets?
 
Scott Kenny said:
As far as I can tell, the only concurrent development part of the plan is a rail/coilgun. All other pieces are already in use in the USN. And debatably the 69RMA BMD radars, but I don't think it would particularly take a lot of development to put together the working radar sets. Gotta love "Lego for Militaries"




Note that a CPS tube is 85" internal diameter, which holds 3x CPS missiles. Not the quad pack of Trident tubes holding 12x CPS birds that are fitted to the Zumwalts.

12 CPS tubes is a 3x4 block roughly 36x48ft. Minimum. ~40x60 is more likely. And ~35-45ft deep.



It's also carrying a very critical Flag Bridge, functionally an entire extra CIC plus all the bodies needed to run one 24/7, as well as all the Admiral's staff. Admiral's staff comes up to about 20. And they're basically all officers, so they need their space.



Not for long. They're utter morons to not specify the BMD radars now.
Click to expand...
Sorry I mistyped. The posters say 12cps cells not tubes. So I take that to mean 12 missiles.

A flag bridge and accommodations does not take an extra 10kt.

With the morons we are dealing with and their desire to start building asap I’m expecting them to just go with the existing flight 3 radars.
 
Dilandu said:
Well, at least it seems that USN is learned the lessons and abandoned "concurring development" in favor of good ol' "project finalized, then ship ordered".
Click to expand...

No it hasn’t, if it is putting a railgun on a ship it plans to start building in 2028. IMO, this is an attempt by the administration to get steel cut before Trump leaves office to make the project to big to fail and avoid cancellation.

We shall see what gets through Congress. The Republicans will struggle to get that budget through via reconciliation and the Democrats will definitely not support Trump’s vanity projects, the huge defense spending, and the cuts to other programs.
 
Dilandu said:
Yep, and the railgun is the part they could ditch most easily, if something would not work as planned with it. Railgun is the only high-risk component there - and it is not essential. All other systems and weapons are either already in service, or relatively close to.
Click to expand...

Which part of FFGX was not already in service?
 
Nowadays the US government looks like it's simply spitballing lots of ideas, with some, irrespective of merit, accidentally crossing into policy. Mayhem follows.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom