Build a modern battleship

[Dilandu]

As I have pointed out not long ago, since 2000 there’s been at least half a dozen shore bombardment fire missions.

DDGX/CGX/BBGX should have a 5” and a mk57 onboard.

What about a naval 155-mm with the capability of firing sabot-equipped 5-inch rounds?

 

[insidersource]

Replacing the Burke's with a high-end battleship & low-end frigate mix may be reasonable idea. It would avoid a massive headache of trying to make high-end ship cheap enough for low-end missions (what killed the DDX)

This would be a great idea. A simple high-low mix. Skip the destroyer and cruisers entirely.

Each aircraft carrier could have have two nuclear battleships and two nuclear submarines as escorts. Give the battleships a huge radar and it can be the eyes and ears of the strike group. They can cruise around at 30 knots without having to worry about Arleigh-Burke destroyers running out of fuel.

FF(X) has double the range of the Arleigh-Burke at half the size. It should be able to handle many of the low end roles. ESSM and NSM should be sufficient. I'm sure with the Flight II ships it will gain capability.

 

[CastleBravo]

This would be a great idea. A simple high-low mix. Skip the destroyer and cruisers entirely.

Each aircraft carrier could have have two nuclear battleships and two nuclear submarines as escorts. Give the battleships a huge radar and it can be the eyes and ears of the strike group. They can cruise around at 30 knots without having to worry about Arleigh-Burke destroyers running out of fuel.

FF(X) has double the range of the Arleigh-Burke at half the size. It should be able to handle many of the low end roles. ESSM and NSM should be sufficient. I'm sure with the Flight II ships it will gain capability.

I would want an FFG instead of an FF, but yeah something like a mini-Burke frigate that can do everything the Burke can except BMD and is backed up by BBGs providing theater wide BMD radar coverage would be a good mix.

 

[Desertfox]

I just love how y'all want to use a hugely expensive BMD/C2/CPS asset for NGFS...

 

[TomS]

Good luck with that.

30rpm is about as fast as you can get for a 5" gun that works reliably, 20rpm for a 6".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_120_mm_Automatic_Gun_L/46

Ok, that's 120mm not 127mm, but not far off. And it could run at well more than 60 rpm, albeit in fairly short bursts.

It does need fixed ammo, though, not the USN's semi-fixed pattern. It achieves that very high ROF by maintaining a constant geometry between the magazine and the breech.

If the USN is going to have a new battleship then it needs big guns, something based on the M110 8" cannon would be a start.

Why? The Army abandoned 8-inch years ago. There's no ammunition commonality to be had, no efficiencies, and frankly no obvious benefits.

 

[Forest Green]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_120_mm_Automatic_Gun_L/46

Ok, that's 120mm not 127mm, but not far off. And it could run at well more than 60 rpm, albeit in fairly short bursts.

It does need fixed ammo, though, not the USN's semi-fixed pattern. It achieves that very high ROF by maintaining a constant geometry between the magazine and the breech.




Why? The Army abandoned 8-inch years ago. There's no ammunition commonality to be had, no efficiencies, and frankly no obvious benefits.

Doesn't the twin 130mm on the Kirov Class have a combined fire rate of 80spm (40spm each) also?

 

[johnpjones1775]

Replacing the Burke's with a high-end battleship & low-end frigate mix may be reasonable idea. It would avoid a massive headache of trying to make high-end ship cheap enough for low-end missions (what killed the DDX)

What about a naval 155-mm with the capability of firing sabot-equipped 5-inch rounds?

I mean sure, but we don’t have that, and there’s no indication the navy plans on making one of those.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Some of the defenses/justifications put forward for it (including some Navy reps I think) involve having it escort CSGs—but this is the sort of huge, expensive, vulnerable asset that needs escorts, not the other way around.

Everything needs an escort, except for an escort, but especially a SAG centerpiece. The entire job of the Iowas in the 80s was to muscle as many TLAMs to sea as possible. Maybe BBGX is to put CPS and air defense railguns to sea as soon as possible but it seems to be tacking on increasingly dumb things.

Has anyone ever made a 60 RPM 5" gun? I thought 5"/54 Mark 42 was the fastest at the original 40 RPM, but they had to slow it down because it was unreliable at that speed.

Yeah there was the 5" QFs for the 1953 Cruiser-Destroyer. They were between 60-70 RPM depending on who you asked about the design.

The fastest USN guns were ~50 RPM.

Each aircraft carrier could have have two nuclear battleships and two nuclear submarines as escorts.

Really quite dumb and bad. Carriers want at least four, preferably anywhere from 6 to 8, surface escorts. This is regardless of their capacities.

I just love how y'all want to use a hugely expensive BMD/C2/CPS asset for NGFS...

The most obvious use of the 5" will be cruise missile defense tbh.

 

[CastleBravo]

Everything needs an escort, except for an escort, but especially a SAG centerpiece. The entire job of the Iowas in the 80s was to muscle as many TLAMs to sea as possible. Maybe BBGX is to put CPS and air defense railguns to sea as soon as possible but it seems to be tacking on increasingly dumb things.

I think that depends on threat environment. Something like the proposed BBG could do well without escorts in places like the Red Sea.

Carriers want at least four, preferably anywhere from 6 to 8, surface escorts. This is regardless of their capacities.

2x CG/BBG and a bunch of USVs might work.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Everything needs an escort, except for an escort, but especially a SAG centerpiece. The entire job of the Iowas in the 80s was to muscle as many TLAMs to sea as possible. Maybe BBGX is to put CPS and air defense railguns to sea as soon as possible but it seems to be tacking on increasingly dumb things.



Yeah there was the 5" QFs for the 1953 Cruiser-Destroyer. They were between 60-70 RPM depending on who you asked about the design.

The fastest USN guns were ~50 RPM.



Really quite dumb and bad. Carriers want at least four, preferably anywhere from 6 to 8, surface escorts. This is regardless of their capacities.



The most obvious use of the 5" will be cruise missile defense tbh.

Can you please explain where you got those numbers for escorts?

The typical carrier escort group has been 3-4 ships for decades, and even then a Burke may regularly be detached to conduct other operations leaving the escort numbers at 2-3

 

[MadRat]

The AN/SPS-77(V)4 radar is pretty impressive. What else does it need for it to be classed as a FFG?

All it would take is a cleansheet ESSM replacement with 50% more range.

ESSM would be hard pressed to maximize range to full effect with the Giraffe AMB. It made sense on corvettes... I mean LCS... but maybe not on a full fledged frigate if they intended to carry ESSM. Plus it is a mechanical radar, rotating 1-2 times per second, depending on the mode. Legend class would probably be hard pressed to maximize the effectiveness of an AN/SPS-77(V)4 using a naval NASAMS. The reality is the radar will do more for navigation and air traffic control than combat.

Now back to the OP's topic on BBG(X).

 

[cccgong]

What about a naval 155-mm with the capability of firing sabot-equipped 5-inch rounds?

The current HVP design will not work well, too limited range and doesn't seem like it has a seeker. With a clean sheet design + propulsion you can get ESSM range/perform out of 6 inch and SM2 range/performance out of 8 inch.

Combine this with a larger GVLS that can multipack PAC3. Then you replace ESSM and/or SM2 with a 30+ RPM gun and have the BMD capable PAC3 as in the future the BMD/hypersonic threat will only grow and ESSM/SM2 isn't capable of addressing those. You can then add in missiles with longer range than SM3/6 and also remove the need for CPS tubes for shorter range hypersonics/ASBM.

There is no use case for these projectiles being used for NGFS or engaging surface targets due to limited range vs any modern missile.

The AN/SPS-77(V)4 radar is pretty impressive. What else does it need for it to be classed as a FFG?

All it would take is a cleansheet ESSM replacement with 50% more range.

It needs to have some BMD capability self defense capability. You can't just shoot a single ASBM or hypersonic at it and sink the ship. A ESSM only ship wouldn't survive in the Red Sea as some ASBM were fired.

 

[johnpjones1775]

The current HVP design will not work well, too limited range and doesn't seem like it has a seeker. With a clean sheet design + propulsion you can get ESSM range/perform out of 6 inch and SM2 range/performance out of 8 inch.

Combine this with a larger GVLS that can multipack PAC3. Then you replace ESSM and/or SM2 with a 30+ RPM gun and have the BMD capable PAC3 as in the future the BMD/hypersonic threat will only grow and ESSM/SM2 isn't capable of addressing those. You can then add in missiles with longer range than SM3/6 and also remove the need for CPS tubes for shorter range hypersonics/ASBM.

There is no use case for these projectiles being used for NGFS or engaging surface targets due to limited range vs any modern missile.


It needs to have some BMD capability self defense capability. You can't just shoot a single ASBM or hypersonic at it and sink the ship. A ESSM only ship wouldn't survive in the Red Sea as some ASBM were fired.

Do you have any actual evidence to support ESSM only ship wouldn’t be able to defend against the single or at best two ballistic missiles launched at a time in the Red Sea, or is this just your opinion?

 

[insidersource]

Really quite dumb and bad. Carriers want at least four, preferably anywhere from 6 to 8, surface escorts. This is regardless of their capacities.

There will be 10+ escorts. They will be unmanned. I said that on the previous page. There is no point having low end manned escort ships for the carrier strike group just to increase the numbers. They will become a liability rather than an asset.

Fast forward 20 years and the battleship will have small unmanned battery powered escorts They can all recharge from the battleships nuclear reactor.

It needs to have some BMD capability self defense capability. You can't just shoot a single ASBM or hypersonic at it and sink the ship. A ESSM only ship wouldn't survive in the Red Sea as some ASBM were fired.

The AN/SPS-77(V)4 has some BMD capability. ESSM Block 2 is fine for now. They just need a better missile in the long term.

IMO, PAC-3 MSE is the higher performance ESSM we need. The problem is that we are still trying to use Mk41 everywhere, and PAC-3 MSE is just about the worst size for a 25" canister.

Missile length is the biggest problem. The FF(X) Flight II ships will use MK56 VLS and that can not fit missiles longer than 4 metres. A quick Google search I couldn't find a single frigate under 6,000 ton that carries the longer 6m tactical length VLS modules.

A frigate with eight cells (same or less space than 32x Mk41) would be able to carry 64x unmodified PAC-3 or SM-2 IIIC hot launch missiles, or 96x if they are adapted for cold launch.

Modifying FF(X) to fit the longer tactical VLS modules would allow this. It would be easier to just do a cleansheet ESSM replacement using AIM-260 JATM technology that can be quad packed.

Nearly every frigate uses ESSM so a cleansheet missile would sell extremely well. There is plenty of time to development such as missile as it would take decades to replace most of the fleet with this high/low battleship/frigate mix. FF(X) not having a long range missile shouldn't even be a discussion as it is so easy to fix. A new missile can roll out in a year or two at any point.

 

[insidersource]

Do you have any actual evidence to support ESSM only ship wouldn’t be able to defend against the single or at best two ballistic missiles launched at a time in the Red Sea, or is this just your opinion?

It would be his outdated opinion. ESSM Block 2 gained an active radar seeker and can take out ballistic missiles. It was first fielded by the US Navy in 2020. There would be plenty of older block 1 missiles

I'm sure there will be a ESSM Block 3 by the time the US Navy has a dozen FF(X) in service. It will be able to protect itself easily.

 

[CastleBravo]

Missile length is the biggest problem. The FF(X) Flight II ships will use MK56 VLS and that can not fit missiles longer than 4 metres. A quick Google search I couldn't find a single frigate under 6,000 ton that carries the longer 6m tactical length VLS modules.

Nearly every frigate uses ESSM so a cleansheet missile would sell extremely well. There is plenty of time to development such as missile as it would take decades to replace most of the fleet with this high/low battleship/frigate mix. FF(X) not having a long range missile shouldn't even be a discussion as it is so easy to fix. A new missile can roll out in a year or two at any point.

I don't think you are going to match PAC-3 MSE with a MK56 missile though. It wouldn't even match CRI. You make a good point about an ESSM replacement for existing hulls, but that wouldn't be a USN thing. FF(X) FltII might be better off with angled deck launchers where the MK56 would go. I see FF(X) as an emergency stopgap anyway. Buy some now and get hulls in the water ASAP, but start designing a frigate that can actually fight a war and switch to building those when ready. Especially if we are moving away from new DDGs and shifting towards a mostly FFG and BBG navy like we were discussing here.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I dont think anyone wants all DDGs to be 17,000 MT. Originally there was going to be a few with CPS, and the rest setup all normal Mk-41. I understand you could get all-in-one by doing 12 GVLS, but maybe top heavy? 4 is enough i think. Promote them as multipurpose.

Dude, the USN is literally on the record saying that they could not get both CPS and the gun into a ship that was 15-17,000tons.

So the ship had to be bigger, which gets us to BBG.

So thats 4 modules of 32 and 1 module of 8? Sounds like its getting even bigger! Or some of them are GVLS and being counted as quad-packed Mk-41?

3x 64-cell Mk41 and 8x APMs for 24x CPS missiles.

Replacing the Burke's with a high-end battleship & low-end frigate mix may be reasonable idea. It would avoid a massive headache of trying to make high-end ship cheap enough for low-end missions (what killed the DDX)

That's what I'm expecting.

1-2 BBGs per carrier, 2x Burke IIIs, 2x earlier burkes getting replaced by a ~10kton max DDGX that is cheaper than a Burke.

Considering how slow is Ford-class construction, I rather doubt that there would be competition for reactors with Defiant-class units.

Apparently a large chunk of the submarine slowdown in production belongs to reactor production. So carrier production may also be constrained by reactor production, which would also screw over a BBGN.

Still need a 5” for NGFS.

As I have pointed out not long ago, since 2000 there’s been at least half a dozen shore bombardment fire missions.

DDGX/CGX/BBGX should have a 5” and a mk57 onboard.

If you can get a ship close enough to fire inland, you can drop an Artillery battery on a hilltop in an hour.

Either yeah, Burke replacement gets delayed a decade, or they get downsized back into DDGX or ‘cruiser’ status at best

I fully expect it to be downsized to a ~22kton CG.

Really quite dumb and bad. Carriers want at least four, preferably anywhere from 6 to 8, surface escorts. This is regardless of their capacities.

Combined response:

Can you please explain where you got those numbers for escorts?

They come from the 600 ship navy plans of the 1980s-90s.

Carrier group was 2x CGs, 2x Burkes, and 2x Spruance, with one of 15 carrier groups trading one CG for a 3rd Burke. Nuclear carriers got nuclear escorts as much as possible.

The typical carrier escort group has been 3-4 ships for decades, and even then a Burke may regularly be detached to conduct other operations leaving the escort numbers at 2-3

That's because the replacement for Ticos was cancelled without restarting the Tico line. The replacement for the Sprucans was also cancelled, but at least the Burke line was reopened to fill in the numbers.

There should have been a CG-74 class alongside the Zumwalts to replace the Ticos. When I was in the Navy, the planned carrier group was 2x CG-74s, 2x Burkes, and 2x DDG-1000s.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Dude, the USN is literally on the record saying that they could not get both CPS and the gun into a ship that was 15-17,000tons.

So the ship had to be bigger, which gets us to BBG.




3x 64-cell Mk41 and 8x APMs for 24x CPS missiles.




That's what I'm expecting.

1-2 BBGs per carrier, 2x Burke IIIs, 2x earlier burkes getting replaced by a ~10kton max DDGX that is cheaper than a Burke.




Apparently a large chunk of the submarine slowdown in production belongs to reactor production. So carrier production may also be constrained by reactor production, which would also screw over a BBGN.




If you can get a ship close enough to fire inland, you can drop an Artillery battery on a hilltop in an hour.




I fully expect it to be downsized to a ~22kton CG.




Combined response:

They come from the 600 ship navy plans of the 1980s-90s.

Carrier group was 2x CGs, 2x Burkes, and 2x Spruance, with one of 15 carrier groups trading one CG for a 3rd Burke. Nuclear carriers got nuclear escorts as much as possible.



That's because the replacement for Ticos was cancelled without restarting the Tico line. The replacement for the Sprucans was also cancelled, but at least the Burke line was reopened to fill in the numbers.

There should have been a CG-74 class alongside the Zumwalts to replace the Ticos. When I was in the Navy, the planned carrier group was 2x CG-74s, 2x Burkes, and 2x DDG-1000s.

Oh yeah! Sling artillery onto the island that likely has at least half a dozen dudes with MANPADs because that’s not going to be a disaster…

Is that your answer for real?

What if the enemy already has positions on that hill top? What if the enemy decides to assault the arty battery while setting up and loading? Now you have to put infantry ashore as well, so now you’re doing a contested landing simply for the sake of bypassing a deck gun capable of NGFS? Are you shitting me? And on top of ALL of that stupidity, you want to dedicate a whole amphib and marines to do a job a single surface combatant could do with almost complete safety?
I literally highlighted 6 NGFS fire mission of the last 19 years, and in not one of those missions did it make sense to use an amphib to land arty and in most if not all, there was no such resource available in a timely manner, let alone within an hour.

So you’re working off of 40 year old information…

 

[shin_getter]

I just love how y'all want to use a hugely expensive BMD/C2/CPS asset for NGFS...

The logic of battleships is to spend infinite money to make a invulnerable combatant, and because it is invulnerable one can use the cheapest offensive weapon.

Which is to say the logical end point is RAMMING and BOARDING ACTION. No other vehicle can conduct opposed boarding action son~

Rare is the notion that capital combatants gets traded away in campaigns, because invulnerable combatants simply do not become losses in wars and opponents will just throw their hand in the air, oh no the widget is too great, we can not and will not attempt at destroying it~~~~

 

[DJK]

Dude, the USN is literally on the record saying that they could not get both CPS and the gun into a ship that was 15-17,000tons.

So the ship had to be bigger, which gets us to BBG.

Yes that logic got you to BBG, not a huge DDG. There seems to be excessive focus on the headline weapon and then trying to tack on all other roles that need a big ship.

3x 64-cell Mk41 and 8x APMs for 24x CPS missiles.

So you think they are staying with APM silos? Makes it a bit

If you can get a ship close enough to fire inland, you can drop an Artillery battery on a hilltop in an hour.

If they are expecting shore bombardment, they have some ASCMs hidden somewhere. The battery on thd hilltop was just to see whether your big ships could be lured into ASCM range.

I fully expect it to be downsized to a ~22kton CG.

Would be interesting to see what is sacrificed to get everything into a sensible hull.

 

[Seragina]

The ship won't be anywhere near litoral waters. The 5" probably won't see as much use as the 57 mm and other point defense guns/lasers.
Nobody boards "large" warships since WWII. The last line of ship to ship defense is not just the gun but also the torpedo launchers.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yes that logic got you to BBG, not a huge DDG. There seems to be excessive focus on the headline weapon and then trying to tack on all other roles that need a big ship.

The surface Navy wants CPS, I suspect the submarine navy doesn't want CPS on the grounds that it's a single ballistic missile coming out of the water to hit someone. Is that a Trident W76Mod2 nuke doing an escalate-to-deescalate? Is it a full on Trident? Is it CPS? Did WW3 just start?

So you think they are staying with APM silos? Makes it a bit

Unfinished thought?

APMs work and we have dropped them into surface ships. Maybe if LockMart paid for the cold-launch VLS the government would buy it. But as far as I know the Lockmart flexible VLS is vaporware.

Would be interesting to see what is sacrificed to get everything into a sensible hull.

Hull volume, not systems. Though it might lose the ODIN lasers for effective ones.

 

[Hydroman]

It seems the BBG-X may be replacing the cruiser, I know we (the US) need a cruiser type. If BBG-X is to be built and if yes, hopefully done properly may be a good thing. Larger USN vessels like cruisers and the BBG-X need more firepower and firepower type mixes.

 

[MadRat]

The AN/SPS-77(V)4 has some BMD capability. ESSM Block 2 is fine for now. They just need a better missile in the long term.

That is an unsupported statement, not that it has any relevance to the BBG(X) topic.

This thread keeps drifting to FF(X). Take the arguments there.

 

[insidersource]

It seems the BBG-X may be replacing the cruiser, I know we (the US) need a cruiser type.

Both the new destroyer and new cruisers have been cancelled. Everything is being consolidated into the battleship.

The new Trump-class battleships will replace the Navy's previous plans to develop a new class of destroyer, the DDG(X).

https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stori...6952/trump-announces-new-class-of-battleship/

While the US Navy probably wishes they had a cleansheet Frigate, Destroyer and Cruiser in production there wouldn't be enough economy of scale. We must be realistic. If only two brand new ships are developed then the only solution is one high end class and one low end class.

The Navy could always team up a pair of FF(X) frigates to handle a mission performed by a single destroyer. If a pair of frigates can't handle it then you bring in a single battleship. There shouldn't be that many missions that fall between the two.

The biggest selling point of the FF(X) is the extremely long 12,000 mile range. The Arleigh-Burke class has short range. For low end missions that require long duration the FF(X) could easily do the job of the Arleigh-Burke. The last few years has seen big demand for a long range frigate. Securing waterways.

The US Navies Achilles heel is refueling in foreign ports. So going fully nuclear for the high end and having a really long ranged frigate makes perfect sense.

I fully expect it to be downsized to a ~22kton CG.

It can't. The A1B reactor sets the size. It is the only reactor that has huge electrical power output that is in production. It is like the A1B has been designed from the start to be able handle IEP in future ships.

Most nuclear ships have 100% of the steam turning the props but have an electric generator added where maybe 5-10% of that steam can produce electricity. The A1B more than 50% of the steam can produce electricity. That is enough electricity where a battleship could use IEP. They could simple remove the complex parts where the steam directly turns the props. They can use them electricity motors on the props.

One A1B produces nearly 150MW of electricity which is nearly double of the entire Zumwalt. Going electric motors on the props allows only a single A1B as they the battleship could have a single MT30 generator to cover the redundancy requirement.

 

[insidersource]

That is an unsupported statement, not that it has any relevance to the BBG(X) topic.

This thread keeps drifting to FF(X). Take the arguments there.

The capability of FF(X) is highly relevant to BBG(X). Multiple members have posted concern that the destroyer role is being abandoned. FF(X) being able to cover a huge number of destroyer missions would be one of the primary justifications for BBG(X).

 

[Desertfox]

I love how you completely mischaracterize what people are saying so you can straw man the topic

No one has yet come up with a legitimate reason for needing a 40k ton surface combatant (and no it's no battleship no matter the name, battle cruiser at best).

All I've heard is a laundry list of cool stuff to stuff into a single hull. With everyone just fangirling about their favorite vaporware tech to put in it.

I once again ask, what is the mission requirements that can ONLY be met by this 40k ton surface combatant?

 

[DJK]

Fallacy built on pure emotion.

Yes, justified by emotion...

Unfinished thought?

So thats where the battery died... was saying that APM would be less flexible and less compact than GVLS, which could be quadpacked with Mk-41 inserts if you needed an AAW loadout. So CPS or not would only be a question for each deployment, but a bit extra topweight to get you Mk-41 flexibility. So less compromise on missile choices when you plan a mission.

APMs work and we have dropped them into surface ships. Maybe if LockMart paid for the cold-launch VLS the government would buy it. But as far as I know the Lockmart flexible VLS is vaporware.

I like cold launch... BBGX also vaporware, but a new VLS should be relatively low risk if its potential loads are known.

I love how you completely mischaracterize what people are saying so you can straw man the topic

Some people have clearly advocated for NGFS as the primary justification for 5" guns. Why not just build a "street fighter" ship to do that? Wait, you did and no 5" gun. I think the role was going to use hellfire? If you keep trying to go for shore bombardments, you end up with Zumwalt.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Battleships are naturally very wide.
Aircraft carriers are fairly skinny at the waterline.
A Ford class carrier at the water line is only 5% wider than the Japanese Yamato-class battleship.

Aircraft Carriers are naturally beamy, more so than Battleships as their beam is set by the width of their flight deck, and consequently the hull underneath required to support it. Aircraft also require significant protected internal volume for their airwing's fuel and ordnance.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Also, with CPS on the large ships, you can make smaller, ~10kton DDGs that don't even try to carry CPS at all. These would be more affordable than a bunch of ~17kton DDGs armed with CPS in addition to their AA load.

17k ton DDGs with CPS are not going to be that much more expensive than 10k ton DDGs without CPS, missile tubes are not that expensive, whereas radars and combat systems (which will be required by both DDGs) are, and make up a significant proportion of the cost of the ship.

 

[insidersource]

Aircraft Carriers are naturally beamy, more so than Battleships as their beam is set by the width of their flight deck

We are talking about the beam of the hull. Aircraft carriers are one of the skinniest ships in every Navy

San Antonio class: 32m beam 208m length 6.5:1

Ford class is 41m beam and 337m length. 8.2:1

If the Ford class was shortened to 266m it would now have same ratio as the San Antonio class. If the draft was also reduced by 1 metre due to a lower weight top half the displacement would be under 50,000 ton.

Here is the Chinese carrier showing the skinny hull.

 

[Scott Kenny]

So thats where the battery died... was saying that APM would be less flexible and less compact than GVLS, which could be quadpacked with Mk-41 inserts if you needed an AAW loadout. So CPS or not would only be a question for each deployment, but a bit extra topweight to get you Mk-41 flexibility. So less compromise on missile choices when you plan a mission.

APMs exist, though, and as far as I know the GVLS is nothing but a slide deck.

Also, 1 APM can hold 6 or 7 Tomahawks if you load the other inserts. Which lets you pack the 30ish Tomahawks in a loadout into 4 or 5 APMs and put Standards or whatever into the Mk41s.

A certified Bechtel Moment.

"Jingle Bells, Bechtel smells..."

Friend of mine worked for Bechtel way back in the day, running and maintaining fiber all over NTS. Bechtel worked their people into the ground, and didn't bother to hire new people for the work. By the end, he was working 120hr weeks, trying to do everything with 2 people that they'd hired a team of 8 or more to handle.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

People focus on fuel independence that nuclear allows but ignore the people on board. Still reliant on slow supply vessels or foreign ports to restock the food sailors need as fuel

It's a lot easier to move 50 tons of food and mail than 5,000 tons of fuel.

 

[johnpjones1775]

It's a lot easier to move 50 tons of food and mail than 5,000 tons of fuel.

Might be, but still reliant on slow support ships and foreign ports.

 

[CastleBravo]

Might be, but still reliant on slow support ships and foreign ports.

BBGN could have similar unsupplied endurance to a nuke sub, and after that food can be flown in on V-22.

 

[johnpjones1775]

BBGN could have similar unsupplied endurance to a nuke sub, and after that food can be flown in on V-22.

Lmao, how long do you think it would take to resupply by v-22? That’s like supplying a Burke via MH60

 

[Not James Stockdale]

Lmao, how long do you think it would take to resupply by v-22? That’s like supplying a Burke via MH60

A crew of 800 people might consume roughly 2 tons of food per day (5 lbs per person including packaging). A V-22 can carry enough food for the entire crew to last 5 days. There have been SSBNs on patrol for 6+ months with no resupply of food, and routine patrols are 3 months without resupply.

 

[johnpjones1775]

A crew of 800 people might consume roughly 2 tons of food per day (5 lbs per person including packaging). A V-22 can carry enough food for the entire crew to last 5 days. There have been SSBNs on patrol for 6+ months with no resupply of food, and routine patrols are 3 months without resupply.

Ok? You completely avoided the question.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

Ok? You completely avoided the question.

It would take 2 flights per week at more than 500 miles from land, and they would be on the flight deck for 30 minutes to unload pallets and refuel.

 

[MadRat]

That is treating the loadmaster like a loadnovice. They wouldn't take that long.

Ideally the same work can be done by a medium craft unless the sea states are not cooperating. But they could handle substantially more per transit and travel between ships without coming from land.