BBG(X) - US Next Generation Battleship

Scott Kenny said:
It's my understanding that CPS is capable of engaging moving targets.

As to SM6s as an AShM, how well do you think any ship, even an Aegis ship, would deal with multiple incoming Mach 4+ high divers?
Click to expand...

I can’t find anything about it hitting moving targets.
The closest I can find is fleeting targets
 
Scott Kenny said:
It's my understanding that CPS is capable of engaging moving targets.

As to SM6s as an AShM, how well do you think any ship, even an Aegis ship, would deal with multiple incoming Mach 4+ high divers?
Click to expand...
It cannot, it has no seeker. It is very accurate and can hit targets that move, provided they have not moved since targeting information was given to the missile.
 
Desertfox said:
It cannot, it has no seeker. It is very accurate and can hit targets that move, provided they have not moved since targeting information was given to the missile.
Click to expand...
If you can update targeting while the missile is in flight it can hit a moving target.
 
Desertfox said:
It cannot, it has no seeker. It is very accurate and can hit targets that move, provided they have not moved since targeting information was given to the missile.
Click to expand...
Active homing, in radar or thermal bandwidths is ideal for terminal homing towards a ship. Semi-active radar homing was really good at it, too. I don't know where the notion is that an SM-6 wouldn't be able to home in on a moving target. It may not be ideal if a ship is throwing up clouds of chaff and pyrotechnics to obscure itself, but ships do not have unlimited supplies of that stuff.
 
MadRat said:
Active homing, in radar or thermal bandwidths is ideal for terminal homing towards a ship. Semi-active radar homing was really good at it, too. I don't know where the notion is that an SM-6 wouldn't be able to home in on a moving target. It may not be ideal if a ship is throwing up clouds of chaff and pyrotechnics to obscure itself, but ships do not have unlimited supplies of that stuff.
Click to expand...
This was about the CPS or whatever they're calling the US ship-launched hypersonic missile. Not SM6
 
Scott Kenny said:
This was about the CPS or whatever they're calling the US ship-launched hypersonic missile. Not SM6
Click to expand...
That makes a little more sense, but I guess it makes little sense to even use such as asset against a moving target.
 
MadRat said:
That makes a little more sense, but I guess it makes little sense to even use such as asset against a moving target.
Click to expand...
Future modifications could allow for it though. The CPS RV is definitely big enough to fit a radar.
 
Scott Kenny said:
If you can update targeting while the missile is in flight it can hit a moving target.
Click to expand...
If you can update the middle the enemy can as well. I don't believe CPS has that capability.

CPS is actually quite small, it would be hard to fit any large radar in it. It is no Pershing II, which was massive.

CPS is designed to hit TELs and other soft, semi-fixed land targets, it can hot ships at port. It is not designed at all to hit ships at sea.
 
Desertfox said:
If you can update the middle the enemy can as well. I don't believe CPS has that capability.

CPS is actually quite small, it would be hard to fit any large radar in it. It is no Pershing II, which was massive.

CPS is designed to hit TELs and other soft, semi-fixed land targets, it can hot ships at port. It is not designed at all to hit ships at sea.
Click to expand...
Pershing II massive? Not sure where you got that idea. They have one on display at several museums across the country. They aren't massive.
 
CPS and Pershing II are both 7.5 tons. With the hypersonic glider and modern boosters, CPS can probably double Pershing II's range with around the same post-boost weight of 1,500 lbs. If they could put a radar in the Pershing II MaRV in the 1970s, I imagine they could put something in a modern glider and still have enough weight for a reasonable anti-ship warhead.
 
cccgong said:
The price estimate along with displacement, crew size, and armament are all completely at odds with reality. You don't need 750 crew for this ship. Neither do you need 35kt to field what they want.
Click to expand...
You may need 35kn but that would be easier to achieve without CPS and railguns. Crew estimates might be inflated to ensure they can go back to the preferred DDGX or CGX.
cccgong said:
It's better to put CPS tubes on BBG(X) until the navy decides and finally fields a drone boat capable of carrying something that large. Even then, industrial limitations might prevent the fielding of very many of these drone boats.
Click to expand...
If not a USV then some other alternative that won't compromise the AAW escorts.
cccgong said:
Also if you remove the central hull plug on DDG(X) you only have 32 mk41 VLS, which is a non-starter.
Click to expand...
Yeah with only 32 forward you would also need some in the midships hull plug. Navy may decide 96 is enough or go for the full 128 given current geopolitics. The basic hull plug could still remove anything specific to the AAW Commander version and probably switch to a smaller radar. Thats not happening for many years until all CGs been replaced, and probably after a technology refresh anyway.
 
Last edited:
... survivability of the PLAN, accuracy of a number of missiles, a lot about carriers .... :rolleyes:
But moment, please, wasn't the theme of this thread the BBG(X) (whatever that will be ...) ?
So, please back to the original topic ! ;)
 
MadRat said:
Pershing II massive? Not sure where you got that idea. They have one on display at several museums across the country. They aren't massive.
Click to expand...
I have seen the front ends of Pershing II and CPS, and they are no where close to being the same, there is a significant size difference, and part of that is the Pershing II radar.
 
Desertfox said:
I have seen the front ends of Pershing II and CPS, and they are no where close to being the same, there is a significant size difference, and part of that is the Pershing II radar.
Click to expand...

An HGV would probably have a seeker on the top pointed forward somewhat. For terminal attack it would roll inverted and pull a high G dive into the target. I think an optical seeker would be more likely than active radar. Another option would be command guidance from satellites or aircraft tracking the target.
 
Back
Top Bottom