BBG(X) - US Next Generation Battleship

Attachments

  • 20260422_201302.jpg
    20260422_201302.jpg
    123.9 KB · Views: 49
Moose said:
Size grew by as much as a third and cost has gone intergalactic. Just a guess but I think a nuclear power announcement is in the future.
Click to expand...
Wow, this pressure is directly on Congress, and the key issue is America's shipbuilding capabilities...
 
totoro said:
Now, whether USN wants a 15 000 t ship or a 18 000 t one, or a 22 000 t one - that's a different matter. Bigger is better, sure, but even if crew size doesn't scale up - fuel consumption does. There is probably a sweet spot for a design that will eventually replace 80 Burkes. And IF we are talking about a single ship class, it probably isn't over 20 000 t. Granted, a two class solution might be better. 12-15 000 t one and a 20 000+ t one. 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'm expecting ~20-30 BBG/CGX, a ship with the 69RMA BMD radars, 12 CPS tubes holding 36 missiles, ~128 or more Mk41 (and/or Mk57, there's arguable reasons to use Mk57s around the perimeter of the helo deck), a 5" gun or two, and most importantly flag CIC and berthing for all the crew for that. 22-35ktons

Plus another class that isn't as big to replace the Burkes. Maybe 17ktons.



Moose said:
Size grew by as much as a third and cost has gone intergalactic. Just a guess but I think a nuclear power announcement is in the future.
Click to expand...
IIRC, the long-lead items of a nuclear plant are one of the major bottlenecks in general ship production. So any nuclear plant would be 2 fewer submarines or 1 less carrier.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm expecting ~20-30 BBG/CGX, a ship with the 69RMA BMD radars, 12 CPS tubes holding 36 missiles, ~128 or more Mk41 (and/or Mk57, there's arguable reasons to use Mk57s around the perimeter of the helo deck), a 5" gun or two, and most importantly flag CIC and berthing for all the crew for that. 22-35ktons

Plus another class that isn't as big to replace the Burkes. Maybe 17ktons.




IIRC, the long-lead items of a nuclear plant are one of the major bottlenecks in general ship production. So any nuclear plant would be 2 fewer submarines or 1 less carrier.
Click to expand...
They are now “revisiting” the ford class. So I wouldn’t be surprised at cuts there to free up reactors, yard space, or money for this.
 
cccgong said:
They are now “revisiting” the ford class. So I wouldn’t be surprised at cuts there to free up reactors, yard space, or money for this.
Click to expand...
They've been whipping Ford raw for a year, but Sky Marshall Kegseth is still trying to kill CVNs?
 
What is striking is that the two Japanese ASEV cruisers approx. 17,000 tons each with 128 VlS cells each coming in at total of $5.23B which is way over their original 2020 budget of $3.2B due to weak yen and inflation, a substantial proportion of the costs reflects Lockheed's SPY-7 radars $2.34B and Aegis $923M CMS.

Though as said the 2 ASEVs are way over budget but still only less than one third cost of the first BBG(X) at $17B budget and delivery of ASEVs planned for FY '27 & '28, expect delivery of the BBG(X) will be 10 to 12 years off based on Zumwalt record, first steel cut Feb. 2009 – combat sys. install. activation achieved Apr. 2020


www.navalnews.com

Japan's ASEV Super Destroyer: Fresh Details Unveiled - Naval News

The mock-up of the Japan's future AEGIS System Equipped Vessel (ASEV), a large destroyer was showcased at IDEX 2025.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
 

Navy expects construction on first Trump-class battleship to start in FY28​

breakingdefense.com

Navy expects construction on first Trump-class battleship to start in FY28 - Breaking Defense

Secretary of the Navy John Phelan said the service is in talks with two vendors for the battleship.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com

Battleship costs and sub timelines at Sea Air Space​

breakingdefense.com

Battleship costs and sub timelines at Sea Air Space - Breaking Defense

Aaron Mehta and Diana Stancy share highlights from the second day of the Navy League's annual conference.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 
Sounds like it must either be a hybrid amphibious ship with helicopters design or just what Dilandu said is true. I have a feeling the development cost is included and its more of a scaled up Zumwalt.
Dilandu said:
Well, its likely include development cost.
Click to expand...
 
This budget seems more and more like poorly -written fantasy every time I learn more about it.
Josh_TN said:
No, this a pipe dream that even the GOP Congress will not fund. And no post Trump administration will support thus, even a JD one.
Click to expand...
Small chance of that, couches don't vote
 
Moose said:
This budget seems more and more like poorly -written fantasy every time I learn more about it.
Click to expand...
The problem is, that any hopes of somehow being able to prepare US military for a major war WITHOUT massive increase in military funding - are also poorly-written fantasy. The choice is between two fantasies.
 
Buddy and the senator he’s liasing with had a meeting with SECNAV right before he got fired and they grilled him on the BBGX

Here’s what the response was. Pure copy/paste, so typos aren’t mine lol

“Yeah I’m going to paraphrase heavily. In roughly his words. “I recognize that BBGX has a branding problem. And all those bullshit weapons like rail guns and lasers…it won’t have that. It’ll have the space to have them in the future, but not now, but that’s why it’s as big as it is. We’ve got surface action groups (3-4 DDGs) that can poke some holes in the enemy but don’t have good sustainment. We’ve got CVNs that can poke a lot of holes in the enemy and have good sustainment. But we’ve only got 11 of them with maybe 6 active at any given time. I envision BBGX as the platform inbetween a SAG and a CSG. It’s got the sustainment and also the ability to poke a lot of holes, but doesn’t depend on the logistical train that a CSG does. CVNs cost $18 billion and BBGX is projected to cost $17 billion. I recognize that’s a tough pill to swallow on the surface. But a CVN doesn’t just deploy and strike the enemy. Its aircraft strike the enemy. While on paper a CVM costs $18 billion, that’s not taking into account the aircraft, and all the logistics of aircraft. And I can’t just deploy a CVN instantly. It had a basic phase. And an advanced phase. And ALL of its aircraft have basic and advanced phases. Getting one out the door takes a lot of coordinating between training cycles. BBGX won’t have to do that, I just worries about itself, can go out there when we need it to poke a lot of holes one its own. It’s what we will send when we need to strike a lot of land targets quick, and don’t want to go through the logistical hurtles of a CVN.” “
 
totoro said:
Some CPS and a deck gun can definitely both fit on a 15 000 t hull. In Zumwalt's example, they fit 4 CPS modules (for 12 missiles) besides existing 20 mk57 modules (80 cells) which are each bigger than a notional 4cell mk41 module. Zumwalt also has other peculiarities on which it "wastes" space. So a clean sheet design of 15 000 t should comfortably fit the same number of CPS modules, *and* a 5 inch deck gun
Click to expand...
The USN is on record that they could not pack both the desired CPS module count and a gun into a 15-17kton ship design. It kept being one or the other, not both.

I happen to suspect that they're talking a dozen CPS tubes for 36 total missiles, and that takes up a lot of space.
 
www.linkedin.com

#seaairspace | Hepburn and Sons LLC

Day 2 at Navy League of the United States #SeaAirSpace at our Hepburn and Sons LLC booth was fanatstic. Our annual Old Fashioned reception was wonderful to reconnect with our potential and current clients. Our Battleship concept was well received.
www.linkedin.com www.linkedin.com

JFC…

IMG_2613.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2610.jpeg
    IMG_2610.jpeg
    881.8 KB · Views: 31
  • IMG_2612.jpeg
    IMG_2612.jpeg
    782.1 KB · Views: 44
  • IMG_2609.jpeg
    IMG_2609.jpeg
    7 MB · Views: 44
raptor82 said:
www.linkedin.com

#seaairspace | Hepburn and Sons LLC

Day 2 at Navy League of the United States #SeaAirSpace at our Hepburn and Sons LLC booth was fanatstic. Our annual Old Fashioned reception was wonderful to reconnect with our potential and current clients. Our Battleship concept was well received.
www.linkedin.com www.linkedin.com
JFC…
Click to expand...
Okay, that's interesting. They are basically decided to mate the Iowa-class hull shape (with perfectly understood hydrodynamic) with an upsized version of DDG-51 superstructure.
 
It's still a DDG-level array size, yet this is a 30,000+ ton ship. This ship needs a radar of SPY-6 69 RMAs level. Have a big dream!
 
TwoTribes said:
It's still a DDG-level array size, yet this is a 30,000+ ton ship. This ship needs a radar of SPY-6 69 RMAs level. Have a big dream!
Click to expand...
Well, its 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. The main problem were the CPS cells - their installation on DDG(X) required drastic reduction of Mk-41 VLS modules. The Navy briefly considered designing two sub-types of DDG(X) - one with CPS and reduced Mk-41 numbers, the other without CPS but with full Mk-41 numbers - but at that point they realized that two different destroyer types would be far more costly to operate, than a single big warship.
 
Dilandu said:
Well, its 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. The main problem were the CPS cells - their installation on DDG(X) required drastic reduction of Mk-41 VLS modules. The Navy briefly considered designing two sub-types of DDG(X) - one with CPS and reduced Mk-41 numbers, the other without CPS but with full Mk-41 numbers - but at that point they realized that two different destroyer types would be far more costly to operate, than a single big warship.
Click to expand...
How is a BBG(x) + a DDG(X) cheaper then two classes of DDG(X) ? You likely could even make them in more or less the same hull with most of the same sub systems. Pls tell how the first option can be cheaper?
 
Aegrotare said:
How is a BBG(x) + a DDG(X) cheaper then two classes of DDG(X) ? You likely could even make them in more or less the same hull with most of the same sub systems. Pls tell how the first option can be cheaper?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom