BBG(X) - US Next Generation Battleship

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?
 
Sferrin said:
Jesus. Anything that big, without a larger VLS, is a complete waste.
Click to expand...

For 35kt I want JS Izumo sized flight deck with a bunch of VLS and a massive radar. A modern aviation battlecruiser that can operate a bunch of UAS and a handful of F-35B.
 
CastleBravo said:
For 35kt I want JS Izumo sized flight deck with a bunch of VLS and a massive radar. A modern aviation battlecruiser that can operate a bunch of UAS and a handful of F-35B.
Click to expand...
Can't get that with 35k. Also, you get too crazy, the politicians will start to think they can replace CVNs with them.

album-the-kiev-class-carrier-and-its-knock-off-harrier-the-v0-5zm2pki20ped1.jpg
 
Why not? Tico displacement plus Izumo displacement is ~35kt. Extend the hull a bit, move the island forward, angle the flight deck, and put missiles on the bow.
 
CastleBravo said:
Why not? Tico displacement plus Izumo displacement is ~35kt. Extend the hull a bit, move the island forward, angle the flight deck, and put missiles on the bow.
Click to expand...
Except you wouldn't want a Tico with a flight deck. That's just a Tico with a flight deck. (Probable should go in BBGX thread.)
 
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.
 
Wonder if the battleship will manage to enter service when Trump is still president without being delayed.
 
Maybe there has been no modern twin 5 inchers for the simple fact the twin turrets are relatively large.

We basically had this debate elsewhere. First came VGAS then it was decided to more or less move to smaller gun barrels. VGAS and its potential offshoots promised to be even more compact than the single 5 inch mount. Obviously the utility of the gun for shorter ranges on low trajectory becomes a major loss. The 5 inch however had the punch to kinetic kill some of the largest missile and bomb threats, so a VGAS could never completely replace the single mount. But if you had a 155mm or 203mm VGAS it is much easier to warm up to the smaller 3 inch guns for low trajectory targets. Somehow they circled back to AGS. Navy planners designing the next great solution are worst than brides planning for weddings over a year out. Total insanity and no real decisions, just lots of money wasted to only go with different solutions in crunch time.
 
Scott Kenny said:
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.
Click to expand...
So these 12 tubes hold 36 missiles? o_O
 
After what happened to the Zumwalt class destroyers I can totally agree with you on that point Jimmo952. Also it will be highly doubtful if it will enter service at all especially in sufficient numbers to make up for how much the total cost will be.
 
Back
Top Bottom