Build a modern battleship

[Cirov]

The difference is that a battleship gun is more like 50,000 G acceleration. So you'd have to completely redesign SDBs to survive that launch force.

Now, I did have an idea with a larger-diameter rocket booster and a strongback/sabot that mounted to the bomb shackles

2500 feet per second in about 66 feet of barrel length doesn't sound anywhere close to 50,000 G acceleration. That is below 1,500 G acceleration.

How is this still part of the conversation? Now I REALLY feel like I'm losing my mind.

Every gun-launched shell looks the same: heavy casing, small payload. Non-gun rockets/bombs look the same: light casing heavy payload. Quite obviously, the solution isn't "gun shells are designed wrong, stick GLSDB in a gun and it works."

To clarify the (mind-boggling) confusion on acceleration: it is not evenly distributed. The gun does NOT impart equivalent acceleration for the full length of the barrel. If you picked an arbitrary point 500 meters away from the tip of the barrel and measured velocity at that point, why, my goodness! The acceleration experienced by your projectile is now tiny! It could be 75% payload and hardly any casing at all, right?

No! Because we aren't talking about the average acceleration over the length of the barrel. That might be a useful number in some contexts, but what we want here is the greatest magnitude of the forces experienced by the projectile. You don't care at all what the average acceleration is. The instantaneous acceleration at the moment of charge detonation is, as I have said half a dozen times by now, tens of thousands of Gs. The acceleration slacks off massively at this point, but you do still experience positive acceleration for various reasons for some time--why longer barrels tend to shoot faster projectiles.

So, once again, I have to put forward--if GLSDB was modified to be fired out of a true gun, not a slow and steady magnetic accelerator but a gun that detonates a charge, it would not be GLSDB. It would be LRLAP. Short range, high price, small payload.

 

[Cirov]

Airplanes are just cheaper.

Any mach 2 capable fighter can deliver as much energy as a traditional gun system to a projectile, while having no robustness demands on the projectile. Can add any aerodynamic features or engine at minimum cost to extend range.

Aircraft's basic mode of operation enables vastly superior survivability than ships. What is point blank range for naval warfare is not consistently within weapons range for aircraft.

Air mobility is quite cheap. It is telling that air transport is cheaper than....trains in practice a good fraction of time. Fuel is not that expensive compared to everything else.

If the war being planned is a case of distant power projection where the only aircraft available is from carriers, that is one thing. It is a completely different thing when it is a defensive campaign with land bases available all over the theater.

Guns are simply inferior propulsion than turbojets, and stuff like naval gun fire support need to rest on features like immediate responsiveness and other factors that aircraft may not be suited for.

Aircraft are certainly not cheaper than tube artillery, I can't believe you would start a post like that. Every nation on the planet with a military knows that aircraft-delivered fires are more expensive and risky than tube artillery. It is an axiom of warfare. I don't know what would possess you to disagree.

Both have advantages and disadvantages. Aircraft are much easier to spot and kill, including stealth aircraft. Each airframe is as costly as a whole battery of high-end self propelled guns. Aircraft can be more cost effective when they deliver glide bombs, but that has dependencies--the enemy must have poor air defenses to allow a relatively close approach, and you need some kind of designator to take advantage of precision. A shell is still cheaper per effect on most targets, without factoring cost of inevitable airframe losses.

If you meant to say that air-delivered fires are cheaper for certain effects in certain contexts, and you believe those effects and contexts are relevant to a hypothetical Pacific (or at least primarily naval) war, then I would just ask you to be more articulate. Broad platitudes like "guns are simply inferior propulsion than turbojets" are not productive.

For imprecise fire, gun is inferior to multiple rocket launcher.

P.S. Couldn't a version of GLSDB with cluster warhead be made specifically for area bombardment?

Context matters. Rocket artillery can deliver a higher volume of fire in sixty seconds, but slower reload time and smaller magazine capacity in a similar volume mean that tube artillery outshoots rockets over a meaningful stretch of time. As I have dogged this entire thread, cost IS a factor, as well, and even dumb rockets are more costly than 155mm shells.

If it were simple, then one of them would have won. All armies worth note maintain significant tube AND rocket artillery capability, so it must not be simple.

 

[Cirov]

Battleship is going to be a big ship due to other reasons, but because it is a big ship it is ideal to place BMD-sized radar antennas on it.

The other option is to build a 25,000ton+ ship specifically for BMD and nothing else.

Frankly, that gets rejected on cost grounds alone, because you'd need a "BMD battleship" and your "shore bombardment battleship". And that's one BMD Battleship per formation, minimum.

I find this convincing.

Thing is, BMD needs big radars. Like 4x 69RMAs, while Burke 3s only have 4x 37. Big radars need a big ship. Crud, even 3x 9 RMAs needed a ship that was 7000 tons, so 4x 69 RMAs is going to have to be huge.

So, to reiterate: a dedicated ASW frigate could then mount SPY6, with less than 4x37 RMA. Ergo, it is not a ship fully capable of self-defense, because that is the role of a missile defense ship. It is not helpless, and most importantly, it does not cost an extra billion dollars for a role it isn't filling. You don't lose your fleet missile bubble when you lose at submarine tag. Minimum viable number of antennae, minimum viable number of VLS, primary emphasis on ASW sensors and passive optimizations like hull quieting. Still mounts SPY6. Happy?

 

[Dilandu]

Context matters. Rocket artillery can deliver a higher volume of fire in sixty seconds, but slower reload time and smaller magazine capacity in a similar volume mean that tube artillery outshoots rockets over a meaningful stretch of time.

Erm, what about autoloading launchers? Like on rocket support ship during Korean and Vietnam war?

 

[MadRat]

Guns don't detonate powder, they burn it. And while guns most certainly accelerate at different rates through the barrel path it is controlled by the accelerant chosen.

 

[shin_getter]

Aircraft are certainly not cheaper than tube artillery, I can't believe you would start a post like that. Every nation on the planet with a military knows that aircraft-delivered fires are more expensive and risky than tube artillery. It is an axiom of warfare. I don't know what would possess you to disagree.

We are seeing in real conflict that aircraft is so much cheaper than tube artillery that it is affordable to dispose of the airframe for every round fired, even for mission within range of a compact fiber optics spool.

Bombs is the lowest cost explosive payload, nothing else comes close. Glide bombs comes close and its ranges can exceed artillery.

Airframe costs was high only because a (expensively trained) human is involved. Without the human, the airframe can be scaled to fit the mission, and it is known that it can cover the artillery range case while still being cheaper.

Guidance for air launched munitions simply cost very little with mass production and increases performance. You probably have the required systems stuck in you pocket that'd only take some jury rigging to work.

Artillery piece on the surface of the earth is slow moving and lack potential energy advantage, result in a simple target to destroy. Simply catching up to an aircraft imposes heavy costs on required projectile kinematics performance.

Artillery in practice depends on concealment, dispersion and deception to survive. There is the theory of using active defenses however offense have been consistently cheaper than defenses and anywhere remotely similar investment in aircraft defenses or redundancies result in greater survivability.

A technological environment where it is plausible for a battleship to shoot down every flying projectile at it is one where it is possible for a fortress to shoot down everything the battleship is shooting at it. (and sink the battleship with long range torpedoes, to use another threat vector) The battleship is even choosing a weapon with low rate of fire while those shooting at the battleship would logically choose munitions with greatest defense penetration capability.

 

[Seragina]

We are seeing in real conflict that aircraft is so much cheaper than tube artillery that it is affordable to dispose of the airframe for every round fired, even for mission within range of a compact fiber optics spool.

It's not that simple. Someone make a cost comparison table.
The thing going for aircraft is speed and arguably range. But range is consumed by the distance of the homebase airport. So this does not apply generally to all aircrafts.
Typical allied/coalition/NATO operation involves a hundred aircrafts for one or two strike flights. From what I see it's been the same since the Vietnam war.
A towed/selpropelled cannon can act on their own.
Even if we ignore the airport/base cost the aircraft still needs a runway and a shelter, and tankers (car).
A proper cost comparision has to be widen to a force size level rather than a single system.

 

[MadRat]

It circles back around, naval firepower is about striking in a time sensitive window at level of force that is unable to be carried out by other means. Tube artillery can cover a much greater volume at a sustained and measureable quantity. Aircraft are best for hitting targets of opportunity. Aircraft sorties will always have greater costs.

 

[Dilandu]

A technological environment where it is plausible for a battleship to shoot down every flying projectile at it is one where it is possible for a fortress to shoot down everything the battleship is shooting at it. (and sink the battleship with long range torpedoes, to use another threat vector) The battleship is even choosing a weapon with low rate of fire while those shooting at the battleship would logically choose munitions with greatest defense penetration capability.

Yeah, but battleship have one advantage there; it's mobile, and several of them could concentrate to oversaturate the fortress defenses. The fortress cannot move; it's defenses and attack capabilities are the fixed parameter. It could be overwhelmed with enough battleships to oversaturate defenses and knock them down.

P.S. Why autoloading cannons are weapon with low rate of fire?

 

[shin_getter]

Yeah, but battleship have one advantage there; it's mobile, and several of them could concentrate to oversaturate the fortress defenses.

Ground forces are mobile and better still, can be practically concealed to ambush ships.

Fortresses are default because earthworks is cheap compared to the mobile elements.

P.S. Why autoloading cannons are weapon with low rate of fire?

Cannon barrels have to handle a lot of energy and is a bottleneck. Rocketry and other self-propelled munitions have no such bottleneck.

A towed/selpropelled cannon can act on their own.
Even if we ignore the airport/base cost the aircraft still needs a runway and a shelter, and tankers (car).
A proper cost comparision has to be widen to a force size level rather than a single system.

A strike package that needs to self escort to hit thousands of kilometers behind the enemy front is a different issue than a force covering artillery range.

Even backpack FPVs can now cover conventional tube artillery ranges, and logistics support for aircraft up to exotic artillery designs still fits in a normal van.

Increasing maturity of stuff like tail sitting VTOL turbojets really change the support requirement to vehicle performance equation.

It circles back around, naval firepower is about striking in a time sensitive window at level of force that is unable to be carried out by other means.

People talk about the time sensitive window because bombs are cheaper than shells and price is not the main talking point. The advantage of artillery is persistent readiness unlike airplanes with limited time on station.

Which is likely useful in an amphib situation, but not that useful if you just want utter tonnage on target.

 

[MadRat]

Maybe you can rephrase some of that to fix the broken logic. Bombs are not cheaper than shells in most circumstances. If you can reach it by gun its getting used for delivery. Like a cargoship carrying goods, there is no cheaper delivery service than tube launched per ton of pyrotechniks.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Why autoloading cannons are weapon with low rate of fire?

Big tubes? I think some of it is the sheer size that the shells are, and the sheer size of the required loading gear. That stuff can't move quickly, at least not safely.

5" guns seem to max out at about 40rpm. But 6"/155mm guns seem to be more like 12-15rpm, and 8" guns are 10rpm at best.

 

[Dilandu]

Big tubes? I think some of it is the sheer size that the shells are, and the sheer size of the required loading gear. That stuff can't move quickly, at least not safely.

5" guns seem to max out at about 40rpm. But 6"/155mm guns seem to be more like 12-15rpm, and 8" guns are 10rpm at best.

Well, I assumed guns of no more than 6-8 inches for "modern battleship"; autoloading, in large enough numbers to provide a saturation attacks.

P.S. There is another advantage battleship have over fortress. The battleship could "blind-fire" against fortress using only coordinates to precisely hit defenses. Fortress need to track battleship in real time.

 

[shin_getter]

Consider: Russia fired the entire stockpile of decades as 2nd strongest military power worth of shells in Ukraine, and it didn't have decisive effects. Ultimately both sides run short of artillery shells and have to hold the front with drones as primary fires.

Consider: Pacific islands were completely encircled by battleships, but still could not be taken without grueling close combat.

The lesson since ww1 is that dumb artillery is destructive against exposed targets, however hard cover massively reduce effectiveness down and one needs dora scaled pieces to defeat tunneling. Tube artillery just doesn't do much without a ground element applying pressure at the same time.

 

[CommanderRenHoek]

Big tubes? I think some of it is the sheer size that the shells are, and the sheer size of the required loading gear. That stuff can't move quickly, at least not safely.

5" guns seem to max out at about 40rpm. But 6"/155mm guns seem to be more like 12-15rpm, and 8" guns are 10rpm at best.

The 8" Mk 71 could do 12rpm; fastest trial was 12.6rpm or 4.76 seconds between rounds. I suspect the lower RoF of the AGS (10 rpm) was due for reliability, could also be due to limitations from the fact its launching LRLAP that are much larger than normal 155mm shells.

Very large-calibre fully automatic guns are an unknown quantity since none IRL were built. The Alaska-class' 12"/50 Mk 8 achieved its ~3rpm RoF due to having two-stage hoists compared to the single-stage ones on BBs; the British Mk IV 16"/45 proposed for the various post 1939 Lion battleship designs allegedly were to have single-stroke ramming of the whole projectile/propellant assembly to get an RoF of 3rpm. I suppose, just by the sheer size of the projectiles and propellants even with all the post-WWII developments, a notional automatic very-large calibre gun that combines single-stage loading and proper hoist design of 12-16" would probably be reliably set for 3rpm, with 4rpm probably possible but then you're gambling with things like hoist reliability and safety.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The 8" Mk 71 could do 12rpm; fastest trial was 12.6rpm or 4.76 seconds between rounds. I suspect the lower RoF of the AGS (10 rpm) was due for reliability, could also be due to limitations from the fact its launching LRLAP that are much larger than normal 155mm shells.

Interesting. That makes the 6"/47 DPs relatively slow for their shell size, if 8" can get up to 12rpm. Admittedly, I think that's with a design taking advantage of the fact that the single barrel put the breech roughly on the center of rotation of the turret. A multiple gun turret would probably make that a lot more challenging.

 

[CommanderRenHoek]

Interesting. That makes the 6"/47 DPs relatively slow for their shell size, if 8" can get up to 12rpm. Admittedly, I think that's with a design taking advantage of the fact that the single barrel put the breech roughly on the center of rotation of the turret. A multiple gun turret would probably make that a lot more challenging.

The British 6"/50 QF Mk N5 could hit 20rpm, though at that RoF barrel heat and reliability became issues, with 15-17rpm being considered the RoF for best reliability.

I think the 6"/47DP Mk 16 twin mount was just not an optimized design and was not given time to mature, evident in its service record relative to the Des Moines' 8"/55RF Mk 16 or even the British QF Mk N5. IIRC there were plans for a revised triple mount for the 6"/47DP that would've improved matters, but the end of WWII and the shift to guided missiles ended any plans to produce them.

 

[MadRat]

An 8-inch rapidfire gun at 10-12 rounds / minute that can reach 40+ miles would look pretty smart in the Hormuz Strait at the moment. If reports are true we are seizing Kharg Island are true, looks even smarter.

 

[shin_getter]

An 8-inch rapidfire gun at 10-12 rounds / minute that can reach 40+ miles would look pretty smart in the Hormuz Strait at the moment. If reports are true we are seizing Kharg Island are true, looks even smarter.

When you don't have a battleship built for the occasion....

 

[Cirov]

We are seeing in real conflict that aircraft is so much cheaper than tube artillery that it is affordable to dispose of the airframe for every round fired, even for mission within range of a compact fiber optics spool.

I think it is deliberately obtuse of you to refer to Mavics as an air force. If you want to go that route, then you need to use much more clear language about when you mean "air force" as in large platforms capable of carrying SDBs at least, or "air force" as in small platforms with a sub-50km range and <40lb payload.

Bombs is the lowest cost explosive payload, nothing else comes close. Glide bombs comes close and its ranges can exceed artillery.

Airframe costs was high only because a (expensively trained) human is involved. Without the human, the airframe can be scaled to fit the mission, and it is known that it can cover the artillery range case while still being cheaper.

Large strike-capable drones still cost tens of millions of dollars, it isn't the pilot driving up the cost.

If you're again referring to COTS octocopters, are you suggesting that a battleship festooned with Baba Yaga drones would be more capable of destructive fires than with a 16" gun armament? Because that is an absurd statement, and I can elaborate why if you are being serious.

Artillery in practice depends on concealment, dispersion and deception to survive. There is the theory of using active defenses however offense have been consistently cheaper than defenses and anywhere remotely similar investment in aircraft defenses or redundancies result in greater survivability.

My friend. Everything relies on concealment, dispersion, and deception to survive. Develop this point better. Why is it different for gun systems compared to aircraft? Why is that difference favorable to your case?

A technologicalenvironment where it is plausible for a battleship to shoot down every flying projectile at it is one where it is possible for a fortress to shoot down everything the battleship is shooting at it. (and sink the battleship with long range torpedoes, to use another threat vector) The battleship is even choosing a weapon with low rate of fire while those shooting at the battleship would logically choose munitions with greatest defense penetration capability.

Knock it off. Stick to a more narrowly defined hypothetical, because this sweeping statement is absurd.

I am suggesting that carrier-based fighters, backstopped by SM-6, ESSM, and SeaRAM, could allow a gun-armed battleship group to approach to ~100 kilometers distance from a target. By evading detection through practices that will be standard in this type of warfare, they will not face a deliberate attack, only a hasty attack--insufficient missiles for a proper saturation of air defenses. The battleship group can likely defend itself from a few dozen missiles at once, a couple of times, which they should only expect to receive after shedding discretion and firing on the enemy.

The enemy "fortress" will not face a few dozen missiles, it will face a sustained barrage of hundreds or thousands of shells. The shells won't be impossible to intercept, but interceptors will run out. The interceptors would run out if the fortress was under missile attack, as well, because the attacker has the initiative and wouldn't plan an attack that failed to saturate. The difference is, 600 Tomahawks to saturate defenses costs a billion dollars and uses up 20% of stockpiles. A saturation with 16" shells costs MAYBE 10% as much and correspondingly would not deplete stockpiles so severely.

The generalization "if the battleship can defend itself, so can the target" is ridiculous and untrue, and logically, could also be applied to systems you DO like. If carrier aviation can strike from 500 miles, well obviously, so can enemy aviation. If the carrier bomber can get through, can't the enemy? I don't think this is a good basis for an argument.

It's not that simple. Someone make a cost comparison table.
The thing going for aircraft is speed and arguably range. But range is consumed by the distance of the homebase airport. So this does not apply generally to all aircrafts.
Typical allied/coalition/NATO operation involves a hundred aircrafts for one or two strike flights. From what I see it's been the same since the Vietnam war.
A towed/selpropelled cannon can act on their own.
Even if we ignore the airport/base cost the aircraft still needs a runway and a shelter, and tankers (car).
A proper cost comparision has to be widen to a force size level rather than a single system.

There really is no need. We have an enormous natural experiment in front of us. Every military in the world has an artillery park; the big and rich ones have an air force.

Consider: Russia fired the entire stockpile of decades as 2nd strongest military power worth of shells in Ukraine, and it didn't have decisive effects. Ultimately both sides run short of artillery shells and have to hold the front with drones as primary fires.

Again, I have to ask. Are you claiming that a drone-carrying warship would have a greater effect on target than a gun-armed warship? And to be clear, when I say drone, I'm talking about Mavics or maybe Vampire drones, not Reapers.

Consider: Pacific islands were completely encircled by battleships, but still could not be taken without grueling close combat.

Terrible point. Pacific islands were also encircled by carriers, and the carrier aviation also failed to seize the islands without grueling close combat. Is carrier aviation pointless as well then?

The lesson since ww1 is that dumb artillery is destructive against exposed targets, however hard cover massively reduce effectiveness down and one needs dora scaled pieces to defeat tunneling. Tube artillery just doesn't do much without a ground element applying pressure at the same time.

This is entirely valid, but also true of aircraft. The point is that fires on their own don't win wars. We aren't arguing that. What is a more efficient way to wipe out enemy infrastructure? Expensive cruise/ballistic missiles, expensive airframes firing expensive cruise/ballistic missiles, expensive battleships firing cheap shells?

 

[MadRat]

Against fixed targets you could get by pretty well without the full sensor suite of a GL-SDB. Laser gyro INS, bolstered with less sophisticated terminal homing, and mid-course corrections would be pretty difficult to defend any fortified target from saturation attacks. I still like the idea of sustainer motors and fold out wings. One ship would overwhelm a cluster of SAM batteries. INS is resistant to any jamming, and modern midcourse datalinks are pretty resistant to detection let alone interuptions. I still like the idea of a big gun getting these kinds of projectiles up to a cruising altitude inline with the previous VGAS concepts. Iran couldn't cluster their speedboats in marinas like they've been doing if they were within reach of big guns like that. Would much prefer a 500km capability as the target but even a 180 km reach would score a lot of clout in a Hormuz Strait or Red Sea situation.

 

[CastleBravo]

Jesus. Anything that big, without a larger VLS, is a complete waste.

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.

 

[Sferrin]

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.

Can't get that with 35k. Also, you get too crazy, the politicians will start to think they can replace CVNs with them.

 

[CastleBravo]

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.

 

[Sferrin]

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.

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.)

 

[Josh_TN]

Look, the fundamental problem of USN is that it could not even hope to leverage Chinese numerical advantage. American shipbuilding simply could not crunch out enough hulls, and even if drastic measures would be undertaken, it would still took decades to significantly improve the situation.

The same for technological advantages. Chinese tech is on pair with American. In some areas ahead, in some behind, but general level is compatible. So creating decisive technological advantage for USN is also out of question.

If you can't got the numbers, and you can't hope for technological advantage, the only solution that does not led to "inevitable defeat at the end" is to try something radically new. Something to which the opponent isn't prepared, against which his armed forces aren't optimized.

To put it simply, a new class of DDGs would provide USN with no quantum leap. It would essentially be "we finally copied Chinese Type 055". But a new class of battleships represent a jump into unknown - unknown for both the USN and PLAN. Neither side have much experience in operating or opposing fleets of large, durable capital ships with excessive self-defense capabilities. Both sides would require to re-think their tactics and strategy. And there the situation is (at least) not doomed from beginning.

Wasting time and money on even bigger targets is hardly the right direction to go in. The best way to counter PLAN surface ship numerical superiority is with asymmetric strategies that focus on mass produced munitions and platforms, and that is being addressed with separate programs that focus on air deliveries weapons, USVs, UUVs, and mines. But there will still be a need for surface ship escorts and sea based ABM. Surface ships are incredibly inefficient at offensive operations and building one around that mission is a fool’s errand.

 

[MadRat]

I've rethought what BBG(X) should resemble.

Any BBG(X) will absolutely need to own the space around it at a granular level that has never existed. For this amount of resources committed it will need instant prosecution of threats at a level not found on cruisers or destroyers. What traditionally set battleships apart from other warships has been the overwhelming redundancy. Instead of thinking about four quadrants of defense, maybe push 6-8 directional, and overlapping, vectors at the same plane of the ship. And perhaps 3-6 vectors each above and below. I don't think having 6-8 SeaRAM is too many, but I would put in 1 Phalanx for every 2 SeaRAM. And lasers and MEW defenses, too. If they are going to put 5" guns on one I want one per quadrant. I want railguns front and back.. And for good measure I want a staggered pair of either Mark 110/57 mm or Mark 75/76 mm. And I want heavier LOS launchers for SAMs than SeaRAM. Maybe think PAC-3 or AMRAAM-ER. And we should probably have scattered podded counter-drone drone launchers. Sure these are redundant and not failproof, but it is the level of presence detail a monster sized ship should exude. And I want this thing ringed with electronic cameras that make a Walmart envious.

The same level of detail below the water, too. I do not think a pair of hydrophones will do, I want a bulb mount and separate side mounts in each quadrant. I want them manned by humans and AI. I want four times the counter measures of a destroyer. I want twice the quad torpedo launcher capability to each side than what a destroyer would have. And the same with depth charges and ASW rockets. BBG(X) doesn't need its own UUVs to carry, support units can do that. It doesn't hurt to have a small bay for loading a small craft for transits. But we also need to have a large enough space for two or three large helicopters. Marine One should be able to land on it alongside either a King Stallion or Osprey, with room to spare for a Sea Hawk.

Then and only then can we address how many missiles it can carry. Mark 41 and Mark 57 launchers. BMD radar? Sure, but at a level not found on cruisers. Hypersonic missiles in bulk like nowhere else. If a cruiser can carry it we do not need the BBG(X). Nuclear power of course. Aim for between a 600 to 800 man crew. It is going to be a complicated ship requiring a lot of highly trained solution makers.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Look, the fundamental problem of USN is that it could not even hope to leverage Chinese numerical advantage. American shipbuilding simply could not crunch out enough hulls, and even if drastic measures would be undertaken, it would still took decades to significantly improve the situation.

The same for technological advantages. Chinese tech is on pair with American. In some areas ahead, in some behind, but general level is compatible. So creating decisive technological advantage for USN is also out of question.

If you can't got the numbers, and you can't hope for technological advantage, the only solution that does not led to "inevitable defeat at the end" is to try something radically new. Something to which the opponent isn't prepared, against which his armed forces aren't optimized.

To put it simply, a new class of DDGs would provide USN with no quantum leap. It would essentially be "we finally copied Chinese Type 055". But a new class of battleships represent a jump into unknown - unknown for both the USN and PLAN. Neither side have much experience in operating or opposing fleets of large, durable capital ships with excessive self-defense capabilities. Both sides would require to re-think their tactics and strategy. And there the situation is (at least) not doomed from beginning.

I mean we could definitely leverage smaller ship/boatyards to build FACs and 1000ton corvettes, and dedicated MCMs, etc to even out the actual numbers since the majority of the PLAN fleet are corvettes, FACs and other small boat classes.

They could be forward deployed to Taiwan, Japan, and the Philippines.

We may not meet to full parity the PLAN numbers but it could be evened out fairly quickly that way with the USN retaining the lead in major combat vessel numbers

 

[johnpjones1775]

Work for what? So BBL-X is just a really large destroyer?

Yeah…just like FFGX was just a small destroyer.
Just like the ship of the line was just a really large frigate, and a sloop was just a really small frigate.

Classifications for surface combatants are basically meaningless in 2026, as they generally have been for most of history. How many times were swaths of ships of the line downgraded from the battle line during the age of sail simply because newer SotL were bigger and had more guns? That’s basically what’s been happening since the Cold War.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Well, USN build 13 San-Antonio class LPDs - of comparable size - in 26 years. So its reasonable to assume, that you could commission a BBG every two years, starting from 2034 (six years for the first one to be build, if laid in 2028).


A comparable force of destroyers would require more peoples to man. One Arleigh Burke required about 330 crewmen. Assuming that Trump-class would require no more than 500-600 - which seems logical, considering only 150+ for Zumwalt - you would have advantage.

San Antonios are comparable size but not cost LPD-17 class costs between $1.6-2b or roughly the same as a Burke.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Well, if the destroyer hull isn't big enough to work - what could you do, but try for the bigger hull?

Build two classes/subclasses on the same hull.

One that has 96-140 MK41 no CPS, and one that has maybe only 60 MK41 and whatever number of CPS they can fit in that extra space.

Same hull, same size, just different VLS make up.

 

[johnpjones1775]

I've rethought what BBG(X) should resemble.

Any BBG(X) will absolutely need to own the space around it at a granular level that has never existed. For this amount of resources committed it will need instant prosecution of threats at a level not found on cruisers or destroyers. What traditionally set battleships apart from other warships has been the overwhelming redundancy. Instead of thinking about four quadrants of defense, maybe push 6-8 directional, and overlapping, vectors at the same plane of the ship. And perhaps 3-6 vectors each above and below. I don't think having 6-8 SeaRAM is too many, but I would put in 1 Phalanx for every 2 SeaRAM. And lasers and MEW defenses, too. If they are going to put 5" guns on one I want one per quadrant. I want railguns front and back.. And for good measure I want a staggered pair of either Mark 110/57 mm or Mark 75/76 mm. And I want heavier LOS launchers for SAMs than SeaRAM. Maybe think PAC-3 or AMRAAM-ER. And we should probably have scattered podded counter-drone drone launchers. Sure these are redundant and not failproof, but it is the level of presence detail a monster sized ship should exude. And I want this thing ringed with electronic cameras that make a Walmart envious.

The same level of detail below the water, too. I do not think a pair of hydrophones will do, I want a bulb mount and separate side mounts in each quadrant. I want them manned by humans and AI. I want four times the counter measures of a destroyer. I want twice the quad torpedo launcher capability to each side than what a destroyer would have. And the same with depth charges and ASW rockets. BBG(X) doesn't need its own UUVs to carry, support units can do that. It doesn't hurt to have a small bay for loading a small craft for transits. But we also need to have a large enough space for two or three large helicopters. Marine One should be able to land on it alongside either a King Stallion or Osprey, with room to spare for a Sea Hawk.

Then and only then can we address how many missiles it can carry. Mark 41 and Mark 57 launchers. BMD radar? Sure, but at a level not found on cruisers. Hypersonic missiles in bulk like nowhere else. If a cruiser can carry it we do not need the BBG(X). Nuclear power of course. Aim for between a 600 to 800 man crew. It is going to be a complicated ship requiring a lot of highly trained solution makers.

Tbh until we get a rail gun, a 5” mount F/A with 4 mk110s, 4 RAM, 6 mk38 mod 4 and whatever lasers we can eventually actually get operational probably need 8 of those.

 

[Dilandu]

Build two classes/subclasses on the same hull.

And have a headache operating two non-incterchangeable classes together? Besides, it would be more costly than one big hull. Especially in maintenance and manning.

San Antonios are comparable size but not cost LPD-17 class costs between $1.6-2b or roughly the same as a Burke.

Yes, because they lack the costly electronic, that makes significant part of Burke's cost.

 

[Dilandu]

Wasting time and money on even bigger targets is hardly the right direction to go in. The best way to counter PLAN surface ship numerical superiority is with asymmetric strategies that focus on mass produced munitions and platforms, and that is being addressed with separate programs that focus on air deliveries weapons, USVs, UUVs, and mines. But there will still be a need for surface ship escorts and sea based ABM. Surface ships are incredibly inefficient at offensive operations and building one around that mission is a fool’s errand.

Big durable warships in modern conditions ARE the assymetric warfare. A symmetric warfare is when you are trying to match enemy with numbers of comparable units. Radically changing the structure would be assymetric.

 

[Josh_TN]

Big durable warships in modern conditions ARE the assymetric warfare. A symmetric warfare is when you are trying to match enemy with numbers of comparable units. Radically changing the structure would be assymetric.

I question how durable such ships will be in an era where weapons can pick their aim points.

DDGX or any similar platform fills defensive roles that will not be going away no matter what other weapons are adopted: AW, ABM, and to a lesser degree ASW. No matter what offensive strategy is chosen, these missions will need to be performed, and ABM in particular is size and power intensive.

But it is pointless to add offensive roles to defensive platforms, and surface ships have been relegated to largely defensive roles since WW2. 96 mk41 cells is a perfectly reasonable number if they are solely filled with defensive weapons, especially if reloading at sea becomes truly effective. Adding offensive weapons and missions just dilutes defensive capabilities, since now you have a more expensive ship that can still only be in one location.

 

[johnpjones1775]

And have a headache operating two non-incterchangeable classes together? Besides, it would be more costly than one big hull. Especially in maintenance and manning.


Yes, because they lack the costly electronic, that makes significant part of Burke's cost.

What do you mean ‘non-interchangeable’? They’d be nearly identical ships. 1 ship can only be in one place at one time. One massive ship is not the answer in the modern era.

I’m so confused what point you’re trying to make here.
Someone asked if we could afford to build enough BBGs to be useful, you said yes and cited LPD-17 class and the numbers we’ve built of them.
I pointed out that despite their size they’re relatively cheap. And now you’re saying ‘because they don’t have expensive electronics’ are you suggesting the BBGX shouldn’t have expensive electronics on it?

 

[johnpjones1775]

I question how durable such ships will be in an era where weapons can pick their aim points.

DDGX or any similar platform fills defensive roles that will not be going away no matter what other weapons are adopted: AW, ABM, and to a lesser degree ASW. No matter what offensive strategy is chosen, these missions will need to be performed, and ABM in particular is size and power intensive.

But it is pointless to add offensive roles to defensive platforms, and surface ships have been relegated to largely defensive roles since WW2. 96 mk41 cells is a perfectly reasonable number if they are solely filled with defensive weapons, especially if reloading at sea becomes truly effective. Adding offensive weapons and missions just dilutes defensive capabilities, since now you have a more expensive ship that can still only be in one location.

I’m going to heavily disagree with you.
You say surface ships have been largely defensive since WWII, and we shouldn’t add offensive capabilities to them, but that’s not true.

Surface combatants have had offensive weapons all through out the Cold War and modern era. From ASMs, to TLAMs, to dual use SAM/ASMs, and again guns for NGFS.
These offensive capabilities have been used fairly regularly considering the relative lack of naval conflicts post WWII. Escorts did NGFS in Korea, and Vietnam. Chinese vessels fired on rivals on atolls/islands in the SCS, and engaged other vessels. Let’s not even get started on TLAM use, NATO navies conducted multiple bombardment missions in Syria.

We just shouldn’t add stupid offensive capabilities like ‘rail guns’ for no real reason.

 

[Dilandu]

Kind of like the Yamoto or Bismarck?

Kind of like "La Gloire" and "Warrior" (to lesser extent - "Virginia") were against unarmored wooden warships.

What do you mean ‘non-interchangeable’? They’d be nearly identical ships. 1 ship can only be in one place at one time. One massive ship is not the answer in the modern era.

The ship with CPS have limited defensive missile supply & could not replace the ship without them. The ship without CPS have no heavy strike capability & could not replace ship with CPS. They specialized to perform different functions, with different tactical niches. It would be a constant headache to ensure that both classes of ships are in service in required numbers, to form groups, to make operation plans.

Someone asked if we could afford to build enough BBGs to be useful, you said yes and cited LPD-17 class and the numbers we’ve built of them.
I pointed out that despite their size they’re relatively cheap. And now you’re saying ‘because they don’t have expensive electronics’ are you suggesting the BBGX shouldn’t have expensive electronics on it?

My point was, that industrial limitations are more important for modern USN than monetary ones.

 

[Josh_TN]

I’m going to heavily disagree with you.
You say surface ships have been largely defensive since WWII, and we shouldn’t add offensive capabilities to them, but that’s not true.

Surface combatants have had offensive weapons all through out the Cold War and modern era. From ASMs, to TLAMs, to dual use SAM/ASMs, and again guns for NGFS.
These offensive capabilities have been used fairly regularly considering the relative lack of naval conflicts post WWII. Escorts did NGFS in Korea, and Vietnam. Chinese vessels fired on rivals on atolls/islands in the SCS, and engaged other vessels. Let’s not even get started on TLAM use, NATO navies conducted multiple bombardment missions in Syria.

We just shouldn’t add stupid offensive capabilities like ‘rail guns’ for no real reason.

Fair enough. But I would argue those offensive uses were against non peer competitors using secondary capabilities. If you want to put a 5” gun on DDGX, ok. TLAM can be substituted for defensive weapons at any time, so there is no downside there - think about how many cells must have been TLAM in the dozen Argus ships present if a thousand were fired.

Things like rail guns and CPS have no place in such a platform, and in any case the former does not exist in any usable form and probably won’t for a decade.

 

[Josh_TN]

Kind of like "La Gloire" and "Warrior" (to lesser extent - "Virginia") were against unarmored wooden warships.

Nothing about BBGX is technically revolutionary, except the pipe dream of putting a rail gun on it. I would argue Kirov is a better example of what BBGX would be - larger but more of the same, with so few built as to be irrelevant.