DDG(X) - Arleigh Burke Replacement

[Felocie]

Not really, the last major update to the Blue Ridges open up their Flexibility ALOT and you be surprise what a bunch of sailors can work with. At this level of command you not controlling platoons but Batteries, working to ensure they have what they need and be where they are needed. Which is extremely close to controlling a modern fleet. The big thing the command teams on these ships are doing, are pull intelligence, make that information readalbe to the Admiral, drawing up the gross plans of who doing what, setting up the Supply Lines of who need what, Listing out who is able to go, and the like. The Gear and training needed for that is very much the same as Landing work, with the big difference being from which WHO you go to get and send the information. And changing That is literally simple of changing the Address on the Commo System.

Thus the BIG deal being communications to talk to everyone. Which not many ships have, only the Blue Ridges and the FLattops do and they dont go where the Burkes and LCS Hoard need commanding.

Your whole argument ignores the ESBs and expanded flag facilities on amphibs which are supplanting the Blue Ridges. It also crucially doesn't provide any coherent reason why LSCs need the flag facilities of anything like a Blue Ridge, especially given that DDG(X) is the purpose of the thread. BBG(X) is an obvious political move and providing some sort of messed up justification just further politicizes a procurement structure which should be as apolitical as possible. It is telling that NAVSEA have never advocated for something like this.

Its also awfully silly to put you command teams in a office on shore connected by only Satcomms. Which has been a MAJOR grip of the fleet. Especially when you have Burke working in teams doing what ever duties needed.

That doesn't justify why you need such massive flag facilities on an LSC.

And 32 is roughly what the old Destroyer LEADERS turn cruisers were count in the Cold War.

Have you not moved past the Cold War? I've already stated, as the Navy did before me, that the DDG-CG structure is dead. NAVSEA has moved away from it. DDG(X) is in some ways a misnomer as they fulfill the functions of both prior destroyers and cruisers. If you read what the Navy states about their future fleet architecture, they do not want battleships.

Like make no Mistake from this thing being call a Battleship, this a merely a glorified cruiser call a battleship to get the Idiots in DC on both sides to pay for it. The Age of these terms meaning ANYTHING died out 70 years, Stop acting like they have any weight outside of budget fights. This thing be called a Corvette if the Navy thought it allow its to get built.

Cruiser and Destroyer are meaningless. They have no weight outside of communicating to the public that they are large surface combatants. DDG(X) is an LSC program that combines destroyer and cruiser functionality. DDG(X) is meant to form the backbone of the future fleet architecture in which they are sensor and shooter nodes for offboard weapons. There are other surface combatants that NAVSEA have looked into, these focus on the sensor and shooter aspects with less focus on onboard weapons. NAVSEA and Navy have expressed no interest in massive platforms such as this before. The battleship, or glorified cruiser, or whatever ridiculous term you seek to use, does not fit the future fleet architecture. It's procurement is a political decision and it will cripple the US Navy for at least 20 years if it goes ahead in place of DDG(X)

 

[Reddington777]

They defend themselves by using their onboard cells and cueing targets for munitions on UxVs. The big cells carry strike weapons, although G-VLS may be able to replace all cells with a common cell which would be optimal

Well its also a problem that as of current no USVs carry any VLS cells that I know of. MUSV can possibly get up to 8 cells (4 per 40 ft container, 2 containers), which isn't much. MASC also carries a max of 8 cells. You'd need 12 of either to match a single DDG's VLS count. Unless you decide to also use cargo ships to launch, then it still seems like a whole lot to generate sufficient magazine depth for a surface force.

There's also no plans of making any dedicated VLS USVs either... unless I missed some new program announcement. This may or may not also be why the navy is asking for a dedicated strike fighter - to be the shooters, but that's also being delayed.

 

[Felocie]

Well its also a problem that as of current no USVs carry any VLS cells that I know of. MUSV can possibly get up to 8 cells (4 per 40 ft container, 2 containers), which isn't much. MASC also carries a max of 8 cells. You'd need 12 of either to match a single DDG's VLS count.

Fallacious assertion, workable railguns also don't exist yet but they are designing DDG(X) with allowances for railguns. You build for the fleet architecture you want, not what you've got. There is a reason that USV programs are such a massive part of US development atm

 

[Firefinder]

Cruiser and Destroyer are meaningless. They have no weight outside of communicating to the public that they are large surface combatants. DDG(X) is an LSC program that combines destroyer and cruiser functionality. DDG(X) is meant to form the backbone of the future fleet architecture in which they are sensor and shooter nodes for offboard weapons. There are other surface combatants that NAVSEA have looked into, these focus on the sensor and shooter aspects with less focus on onboard weapons. NAVSEA and Navy have expressed no interest in massive platforms such as this before. The battleship, or glorified cruiser, or whatever ridiculous term you seek to use, does not fit the future fleet architecture. It's procurement is a political decision and it will cripple the US Navy for at least 20 years if it goes ahead in place of DDG(X)

Not interesting in large platforms? What was he CGX? Oh right a 20k design for command and heavy BMD work. As was teh Mission Essential Unit bfore that, and the Strike Cruisers before that.

Hell in the early ninties the Navy did research on a 30k Aegis cruiser. The navy been trying to get a big combat vessel for the last 50s years.

Your whole argument ignores the ESBs and expanded flag facilities on amphibs which are supplanting the Blue Ridges. It also crucially doesn't provide any coherent reason why LSCs need the flag facilities of anything like a Blue Ridge, especially given that DDG(X) is the purpose of the thread. BBG(X) is an obvious political move and providing some sort of messed up justification just further politicizes a procurement structure which should be as apolitical as possible. It is telling that NAVSEA have never advocated for something like this.

No I did not, the ESB are set up for Special operations command and control and is heavily used in that role with very little side. While the Amp Fleet is expected to drop everything to go support what even the Marines just got task for so is expected to be too focus on that. While the normal ship, the CVN, is too few in number to properly cover everyone, which is why the Blue Ridges often do that job to cover some of that.

A ship that only does navy things is needed. And if you notice, I notionally cut the size of the Blue Ridge command staff in HALF. Which is roughly historicaly was the command need.

Have you not moved past the Cold War? I've already stated, as the Navy did before me, that the DDG-CG structure is dead. NAVSEA has moved away from it. DDG(X) is in some ways a misnomer as they fulfill the functions of both prior destroyers and cruisers. If you read what the Navy states about their future fleet architecture, they do not want battleships.

And as for the Drone Shooter role.

Who job is to command those Drones? And which will have more reliable connections was well as serve as a good back up?

A Building in CONUS connected via always shaky SATCOMMS or a ship in Radio distance?

Those things are going to need a brain and a ship with the added CnC gear being right there with them and have self defense be the prime choice.

Fallacious assertion, workable railguns also don't exist yet but they are designing DDG(X) with allowances for railguns. You build for the fleet architecture you want, not what you've got. There is a reason that USV programs are such a massive part of US development atm

Also by the USN own test work back in 2014, they got up to 400 full power 32 MJ shots from the test unit with the goal of 1000 shots. If that hasn't getten close in the decade since Ill eat my hat.

 

[Reddington777]

Fallacious assertion, workable railguns also don't exist yet but they are designing DDG(X) with allowances for railguns. You build for the fleet architecture you want, not what you've got. There is a reason that USV programs are such a massive part of US development atm

You could certainly calm down lol. Every single one of your responses in this thread have been so belligerent for reasons that aren't clear that even someone like me who low key agrees with you finds you abrasive. I - more than anyone here, would love to see shooter USVs supplementing other large ships as sensor nodes. I also believe that manned ships are going to increasingly become command and control nodes. I too found it ridiculous that this program was replacing the DDG(X). It's because of that belief that I find the lack of any formal programs to push forth shooter USVs concerning.

I'm not sure where you got the "DDG(X) is getting a railgun" idea. Yes - DDG(X) was initially designed with a railgun, but the navy seems to have walked away from the rail gun on the DDG(X) in 2022:

https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R44175/R44175.87.pdf

As for the re-addition of the rail gun on trump's proposal, how much of that is actually going to happen and how much of that description is hot air - no one knows. Of the things named on that proposal/concept, the least useful one is the railgun.

What I do know - and what isn't fallacious - is that aside from MUSV and MASC, there's still not a single USV program in the works built to carry VLS cells. Sure - you do build around the fleet you want, but how then do you explain the lack of programs for actual shooters? What are we shooting then? torpedoes? stand-off munitions from 6th gen fighters? What is actually the shooter then? the large surface ships? The lack of movement in fleshing out the shooter USV as you describe really doens't help your case that that is the direction the navy is moving in - even if that's the direction they want to move in, as the MUSV/MASC concept seems well below the "minimally useful surface combatant" threshold.

I should also remind you that even if BBG(X) over DDG(X) is a political decision, given the pace that these things go in, there's a lot of leeway as far as if and how that gets implemented. Even if that's what Trump & friends want, there's plenty of ways for the navy and congress to either screw it up even harder or make it more reasonable. There's a good reason BBG(X) thread got closed - this is basically concept art at this point. In fact, compared to the killing of the E7 program or the delaying of F/A-XX, the reaction to BBG(X) seems mild.

 

[Felocie]

You could certainly calm down lol. Every single one of your responses in this thread have been so belligerent for reasons that aren't clear that even someone like me who low key agrees with you finds you abrasive.

Respectfully, I am utterly sick of threads such as this being ruined by uneducated, baseless, and downright false assertions. Many people in this thread share valuable information or pose very good questions but ridiculous claims degrade the quality of the website, make it hard to learn new information, and makes it hard to properly combat disinformation. The exact same thing happened on the FFG(X) thread with people suddenly arguing that merchant vessels should be able to combat salvos of Zircon missiles. It's not really what you're saying, it's the general ridiculous nature of other claims

I'm not sure where you got the "DDG(X) is getting a railgun" idea. Yes - DDG(X) was initially designed with a railgun, but the navy seems to have walked away from the rail gun on the DDG(X) in 2022:

The more important facets are growth weight margins and power margins, both of which are accounted for. I have also seen some evidence that DDG(X) will have a stored power system to further facilitate this growth.

there's still not a single USV program in the works built to carry VLS cells.

UxV tech is advancing at a rate of knots at the moment. It doesn't entirely make sense to begin a program where requirements would have to be revised every other week. That is why systems are being built and designed that are modifiable to meet new demands and emerging technology.

I should also remind you that even if BBG(X) over DDG(X) is a political decision, given the pace that these things go in, there's a lot of leeway as far as if and how that gets implemented. Even if that's what Trump & friends want, there's plenty of ways for the navy and congress to either screw it up even harder or make it more reasonable. There's a good reason BBG(X) thread got closed - this is basically concept art at this point. For this BBG(X) to even make a dent and formally screw things up, it would have to survive at least the next two administrations before we get to the steel cutting part.

Congress will likely scrap it as literally no one at NAVSEA or in the Navy has ever advocated for this type of platform in recent memory. Secondly BBG(X) has already made a dent. The money is being appropriated from DDG(X) and it has already been appropriated from FFG(X). Next week I would not be surprised if it's SSN(X) that's on the chopping block so that they can fund this dream machine. One hopes logic will prevail

 

[Kat Tsun]

And 32 is roughly what the old Destroyer LEADERS turn cruisers were count in the Cold War.

The U.S. will only need about 16-22 cruisers or BBGs or whatever because it will only have 8-11 carriers in the coming decades. If you tie the BBGs/CGs to the number of deployable carriers, maybe that number drops to 12, though.

 

[Felocie]

The U.S. will only need about 16-22 cruisers or BBGs or whatever because it will only have 8-11 carriers in the coming decades. If you tie the BBGs/CGs to the number of deployable carriers, maybe that number drops to 12, though.

Alternatively just produce DDG(X) and have a surplus of LSCs and then supplement them with an FFG or a DDG(L), whatever name you want to use

 

[Training_Dummy]

These FF(X), FFG(X), DDG(X) and now BBG(X) threads have been absolutely unhinged!

 

[Reddington777]

Respectfully, I am utterly sick of threads such as this being ruined by uneducated/, baseless, and downright false assertions. Many people in this thread share valuable information or pose very good questions but ridiculous claims degrade the quality of the website, make it hard to learn new information, and makes it hard to properly combat disinformation. The exact same thing happened on the FFG(X) thread with people suddenly arguing that merchant vessels should be able to combat salvos of Zircon missiles. It's not really what you're saying, it's the general ridiculous nature of other claims

That's fair. I've certainly met people like that on this forum too. I think it's okay to express exasperation and ofcourse you are free to say anything you wish, but unless they are truly egregious, it's probably more productive for the conversation to return to discussion.

Many people, myself included, are also just learning. I can't speak for others, but from first discovering interest in these topics to now where in some threads, I can tell something ridiculous from something not, that process was roughly 3 - 4 years. Even now - I'm still unfamiliar with naval warfare (clearly), but I'm just trying to make sense of what's going on too. I posted in the F/A-XX thread before, but the Navy hasn't exactly been as clear as the USAF has been about how it wants to operate, and even if I can assume that they want distributed operations, I'm also in the process of trying to reconcile their decisions with what they say they want. It should be noted that even before the Trump admin, the Navy's actions haven't exactly followed their own words.

UxV tech is advancing at a rate of knots at the moment. It doesn't entirely make sense to begin a program where requirements would have to be revised every other week. That is why systems are being built and designed that are modifiable to meet new demands and emerging technology.

That does make sense, but you'd have to start turning drawings into metal eventually in order to field capability - even if that capability is going to get replaced quickly. And at a certain point, you absolutely have to stop changing requirements and get something built. Besides -it doesn't have to be super capable. It's initial mission can just be a shooter cell anyway. Every passing year without fielding MUSVs or larger in volume is another year the whole fleet must rely on burkes.

I think it could be workable to have an FFG(X) loaded with sensors and little shooting ability only if there are enough MUSVs and other shooters to sail alongside major surface ships. Perhaps, I'm too impatient and in the next few years we'll start seeing that happen. DARPA's drone ship looks promising.

Congress will likely scrap it as literally no one at NAVSEA or in the Navy has ever advocated for this type of platform in recent memory. Secondly BBG(X) has already made a dent. The money is being appropriated from DDG(X) and it has already been appropriated from FFG(X). Next week I would not be surprised if it's SSN(X) that's on the chopping block so that they can fund this dream machine. One hopes logic will prevail

A lot of us use "they" to refer to the government as a whole, but for every layer of beauracracy in place, there's opportunity for ameliorating decisions to be made. It's still early, but I'm optimistic that this isn't a simple political decision as there hasn't yet been much backlash from the current navy regarding the BBG concept.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Late model Burkes have been fitted with the necessary command and control functionality to take over from the Ticonderoga class as they retire.

Show me where Burke IIIs got enough space to add the full AAW flag spaces needed.

FFS, the AAW flag was on an LCS in the most recent Red Sea Turkey Shoot. Not on a Burke. Not on a carrier. Not on one of the other command ships. A freaking Little Crappy Ship. Because it was the only ship with the physical space for the flag staff.

If your assertion is true, a maximum of 11 of these so called Battleships would be more logical with DDG(X) proceeding as is.

Just talking AAW flags, you need one per carrier and one per Amphib group. That's 24. If convoys are still a reasonable thing to make (If the average merchant ship can do 20 knots you don't need convoys for ASW protection), you're going to need AAW flags for them, too.

Having another 7 for Numbered Fleet flagships would be reasonable, assuming the ship is physically large enough for a full Fleet flag staff.

The U.S. will only need about 16-22 cruisers or BBGs or whatever because it will only have 8-11 carriers in the coming decades. If you tie the BBGs/CGs to the number of deployable carriers, maybe that number drops to 12, though.

See Above for basic reasoning.

In 1990, the US had 42 cruisers of all types in service.

A flagship production run of ~36ish would not be unreasonable.

 

[Dilandu]

The battleship, or glorified cruiser, or whatever ridiculous term you seek to use, does not fit the future fleet architecture.

All your assumptions are based on one idea - that Navy have some kind of "future fleet architecture" plan that they are totally relying on. Considering the abysmal USN sucsess rate in large-scale programs of all kind in recent decades (even modernization of Ticonderoga-class failed eventually), you can't demand peoples to NOT been skeptical about all this.

 

[Felocie]

Many people, myself included, are also just learning.

Entirely true, I try never to dismiss a question and my frustrations may have trickled over in my response to you so I do apologies

And at a certain point, you absolutely have to stop changing requirements and get something built. Besides -it doesn't have to be super capable.

I can only guesstimate really but I'd say we'll see that within 5 years.

FFG(X) loaded with sensors and little shooting ability only if there are enough MUSVs and other shooters to sail alongside major surface ships.

Has been discussed, I have not been able to ascertain how serious this will be. References online are to something like a "light destroyer".

Show me where Burke IIIs got enough space to add the full AAW flag spaces needed.

Unfortunately the plans are not public. However flag facilities as they stand aren't all that extensive (which is being rectified on DDG(X)) so they don't take a ton of space.

FFS, the AAW flag was on an LCS in the most recent Red Sea Turkey Shoot. Not on a Burke. Not on a carrier. Not on one of the other command ships. A freaking Little Crappy Ship. Because it was the only ship with the physical space for the flag staff.

Desperate for a source on this, we know that the Tico in theatre (Gettysburg) acted in this role to at least some extent. I have no seen a reference to LCS fulfilling this role but maybe that's my fault. Also, despite calling it a Little Crappy Ship, being able to act as a flagship is a pretty damn good capability if that's true.

Just talking AAW flags, you need one per carrier and one per Amphib group. That's 24. If convoys are still a reasonable thing to make (If the average merchant ship can do 20 knots you don't need convoys for ASW protection), you're going to need AAW flags for them, too.

Horrifying thought that, 24 of these waste of space ships that are more expensive than DDG(X) and less capable to boot.

All your assumptions are based on one idea - that Navy have some kind of "future fleet architecture" plan that they are totally relying on. Considering the abysmal USN sucsess rate in large-scale programs of all kind in recent decades (even modernization of Ticonderoga-class failed eventually), you can't demand peoples to NOT been skeptical about all this.

I'm struggling to write a sensible response to this given the reactionary nature of the assertion. I've refuted the idea that US programs are failures to you previously and yet you assert it once again. And even worse you now assert the US has no future fleet architecture strategy and just builds things based on vibes? It's a little sad to be quite honest

 

[Scott Kenny]

Desperate for a source on this, we know that the Tico in theatre (Gettysburg) acted in this role to at least some extent. I have no seen a reference to LCS fulfilling this role but maybe that's my fault. Also, despite calling it a Little Crappy Ship, being able to act as a flagship is a pretty damn good capability if that's true.

Came from a conversation here, but I don't remember where exactly.

May have been the LCS thread, may have been the Red Sea Turkey Shoot thread.

Horrifying thought that, 24 of these waste of space ships that are more expensive than DDG(X) and less capable to boot.

That's how many flagships you need, with the USN we have. Not counting the need for any extras.

 

[Felocie]

Came from a conversation here, but I don't remember where exactly.

May have been the LCS thread, may have been the Red Sea Turkey Shoot thread.

Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense given why the LCS dos and how it’s outfitted but hey, maybe they know something I don’t

That's how many flagships you need, with the USN we have. Not counting the need for any extras

No, that’s how many sets of flag facilities you need distributed across the fleet. DDG(X) meets these requirements and the Burkes since Flt IIA have met these requirements to some extent. The CVN fills the role you envision for a flagship, as do some amphibious warfare ships. The flag facilities of a LSC are to command SAGs and unmanned assets, not amphibious landings and not CSGs

 

[Scott Kenny]

Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense given why the LCS dos and how it’s outfitted but hey, maybe they know something I don’t

It had space and communications channels for a good 50 dudes.

No, that’s how many sets of flag facilities you need distributed across the fleet. DDG(X) meets these requirements and the Burkes since Flt IIA have met these requirements to some extent. The CVN fills the role you envision for a flagship, as do some amphibious warfare ships. The flag facilities of a LSC are to command SAGs and unmanned assets, not amphibious landings and not CSGs

No, the Burkes have one extra console in CIC. Which isn't adequate for AAW flag work.

The AAW Flag needs a whole CIC to themselves. A modern flagship effectively has/needs two separate CICs.

The CVN doesn't have a space for the AAW CIC, the command spaces are occupied by the group flag (separate flag from the AAW Flag) and the air wing control spaces.

 

[Felocie]

No, the Burkes have one extra console in CIC. Which isn't adequate for AAW flag work.

The AAW Flag needs a whole CIC to themselves. A modern flagship effectively has/needs two separate CICs.

Which is being resolved in the DDG(X) design so again I ask, as was the original point of this track, what reason does this give to supplant DDG(X) with a BBG?

 

[cccgong]

Which is being resolved in the DDG(X) design so again I ask, as was the original point of this track, what reason does this give to supplant DDG(X) with a BBG?

We will see what this ship settles down to. I’m hoping for a 20-25kt ship as a supplement to ddgx. With a larger radar 20ft or larger bmd array, more lasers, and 150-200 cells. If we get some programs of record with vls carriers I’d be happy to reduce the cell requirement and off load strike and some defense cells to the drone carriers

 

[Kat Tsun]

In 1990, the US had 42 cruisers of all types in service.

Leahys and Belknaps were cruisers in name only. CG-47 was the only actual cruiser because it had space available for AAW commanders and two Aegis big boards. Cruisers are picked at 2 per CVBG. You can get away with one and three Burkes and that will probably be necessary as the surface fleet contracts in the coming years.

This all assumes the DDG(X) or BBG or whatever actually gets built. That's quite unlikely at this point given the state of US naval construction. We're far more likely to slow production of CVs even more and start reducing submarine production rates to get the Columbias out faster. This necessitates cuts to the escort production, besides the Burkes, I guess. Burkes are pretty hot so they can get long leads out quick-ish.

Amphibs are mostly okay though and maybe a suitably equipped and dedicated carrier escort can be found with the LPD-17 hull.

 

[DrRansom]

These FF(X), FFG(X), DDG(X) and now BBG(X) threads have been absolutely unhinged!

They have been unhinged because this is where the deep strategic weakness of US shipbuilding appears blatantly and inescapably. FF(X) exists because the US cannot design a warship. BBG(X) looks to be a case of DDG(X) getting out of hand and needing a re-direction.

I find it likely DDG(X) is going to be re-baselined to be a Burke-sized replacement so it can use existing Burke infrastructure. BBG(X) takes San Antonio infrastructure and shipyard. Fleet design enforced by shipyard capability, there's deep thought beyond blunt necessity.

There is no good solution to anything. The experts (NAVSEA and the Navy) have completely failed, and we're left with a WWE Hall of Famer and his Fox News Host, who may do better than NAVSEA or who may do worse, but no one can say that the status quo is acceptable.

So it is really a bunch of tantrums that the future has caught up with the US. "Waaah, the 2020s weren't supposed to come" in effect.

 

[Hydroman]

You know the bottom line is, if you define a good baseline of operational requirements, stick to them, have competent leadership (I know currently that is and has been a stretch) and have a good build plan. Whether you are developing a FFG-X, DDG-X, CG-X or BBG-X, size the platform for the mission, the amount of armament and types it requires which includes propulsion and power generation, we all know by now everything has and is going more electric.

We (the US) has let our ship building capabilities really decay and its sad, we cannot even build any commercial vessels. Decades ago we did have a very good mix of frigates, destroyers and cruisers but overtime, the USG and the USN has screwed this up. A large, new and modern battleship, by all means, just do the damn the right.

Another issue is uniform leadership which rotates out every 2 to 3 years then the next leader (normally an admiral) wants to take the program to a different direction and that is a huge problem, one of the best ways to screw things up. I like that the head of naval reactors is an 8 year stretch. I think the USN did this for a reason regarding how critical the naval nuclear program is, maybe apply this method to warships and aircraft, keep competent leadership in-place for a good duration of the program.

 

[Kat Tsun]

They have been unhinged because this is where the deep strategic weakness of US shipbuilding appears blatantly and inescapably. FF(X) exists because the US cannot design a warship. BBG(X) looks to be a case of DDG(X) getting out of hand and needing a re-direction.

If the USN decided CVBGs needed to go from 300-400 km wide to 700-800 km wide, I can see the need for a much larger conventional escort on the lines of the BMD CGN(X), but the A1B powered cruiser monster they were talking about in the 00s that peaked at something like 25,000 or 28,000 tons with a single reactor.

That would fit with the Osprey capability, the need for IEP and massive fuel bunkers, and the ordinary DDG(X) sensor fit using AMDR or whatever. If every airbase potentially operating C-2s in the SCS is going to be killed, including Guam, and the closest bases are Diego Garcia, and Pearl or Coronado, then you're going to need a muscular escort that can operate at range for extended periods with long range COD.

If that's all true, then, perhaps it suggests DDG(X) was probably only viable with a nuclear powerplant or with a massive increase in size?

Since it doesn't have a bigger radar than DDG(X) I doubt BMD is driving the size increase. I think it's mostly a combination of actually amateurish CGI rendering, the "railgun and laser" stuff that sounds like it was dug up from some Obama era computer server, and the unfortunate optics of timing with a major failure like the Constellations that makes people mad.

It makes NAVSEA seem incompetent, which they probably are, but it's also masking the actual reasoning perhaps? A simple PR heavily pushed saying "carrier groups are going to need to be bigger in the future" would likely solve it, or whatever their reasoning is, otherwise you get the (justified) impression that it's simply a whim and it'll change in 2-3 years with another hollowing out of the 20-year shipbuilding program.

 

[Scott Kenny]

If the USN decided CVBGs needed to go from 300-400 km wide to 700-800 km wide, I can see the need for a much larger conventional escort on the lines of the BMD CGN(X), but the A1B powered cruiser monster they were talking about in the 00s that peaked at something like 25,000 or 28,000 tons with a single reactor.

That would fit with the Osprey capability, the need for IEP and massive fuel bunkers, and the ordinary DDG(X) sensor fit using AMDR or whatever. If every airbase potentially operating C-2s in the SCS is going to be killed, including Guam, and the closest bases are Diego Garcia, and Pearl or Coronado, then you're going to need a muscular escort that can operate at range for extended periods with long range COD.

If that's all true, then, perhaps it suggests DDG(X) was probably only viable with a nuclear powerplant or with a massive increase in size?

There's only 2 shipyards certified for construction** of nuclear vessels. EB in Groton, and NNNS in Virginia. Building nuclear BBGs would likely require the same building slips as the carriers, since EB is stretched beyond capacity with 774s and 826s.

** PSNS/Bremerton is only certified for repair and decommissioning, Pearl Harbor is only certified for repairs.

Building a conventional BBG could be done at HII in Pascagula, MS, and IIRC their big building slips will be idle once the America-class amphibs are done.

However, a significant increase in size for the Primary Carrier Escort with AAW Flag above the 15k of a Zumwalt is likely. You just cannot pack some 128-192x Mk41 cells plus at least 4x APMs into 15,000 tons.

(personally, I'd want to install some Mk57 PVLS units around the outside of the helo deck and possibly the sides of the hangar, because they make better packaging than Mk41. I'd also want the largest radars the hull can support, but that's obviously a "very nice to have")​

Plus, I suspect that the battleship proposal is a deliberate political ploy to appear giving up a lot in order to get a ~20-25kton ship with all the capabilities needed.

 

[Firefinder]

There also other yards as well like the Rebuilt Baltimore yard that the South Koreans are working on.

Those are expected to build big frieghters, so the Tubby be able to fit.

Be issue is getting use to the standards differences.

 

[Felocie]

We will see what this ship settles down to. I’m hoping for a 20-25kt ship as a supplement to ddgx. With a larger radar 20ft or larger bmd array, more lasers, and 150-200 cells. If we get some programs of record with vls carriers I’d be happy to reduce the cell requirement and off load strike and some defense cells to the drone carriers

How does that fit into the 30 year shipbuilding plan?

They have been unhinged because this is where the deep strategic weakness of US shipbuilding appears blatantly and inescapably. FF(X) exists because the US cannot design a warship. BBG(X) looks to be a case of DDG(X) getting out of hand and needing a re-direction.

I find it likely DDG(X) is going to be re-baselined to be a Burke-sized replacement so it can use existing Burke infrastructure. BBG(X) takes San Antonio infrastructure and shipyard. Fleet design enforced by shipyard capability, there's deep thought beyond blunt necessity.

There is no good solution to anything. The experts (NAVSEA and the Navy) have completely failed, and we're left with a WWE Hall of Famer and his Fox News Host, who may do better than NAVSEA or who may do worse, but no one can say that the status quo is acceptable.

So it is really a bunch of tantrums that the future has caught up with the US. "Waaah, the 2020s weren't supposed to come" in effect.

You don't know what you're talking about and it shows. You just ignored the numerous corrections and then repeated the "NAVSEA and Navy have failed" rubbish. This isn't discussion about DDG(X), it's just your own half informed rant about your personal issues with procurement.

You know the bottom line is, if you define a good baseline of operational requirements, stick to them, have competent leadership (I know currently that is and has been a stretch) and have a good build plan. Whether you are developing a FFG-X, DDG-X, CG-X or BBG-X, size the platform for the mission, the amount of armament and types it requires which includes propulsion and power generation, we all know by now everything has and is going more electric.

You're just describing what has been done for DDG(X) so why would you deride the program? DDG(X) is sized for the mission, it has the armament it needs, and it has the excess power generation. So what are you even complaining about?

we cannot even build any commercial vessels.

Bait used to be believable.

 

[Kat Tsun]

There's only 2 shipyards certified for construction** of nuclear vessels. EB in Groton, and NNNS in Virginia. Building nuclear BBGs would likely require the same building slips as the carriers, since EB is stretched beyond capacity with 774s and 826s.

** PSNS/Bremerton is only certified for repair and decommissioning, Pearl Harbor is only certified for repairs.

Building a conventional BBG could be done at HII in Pascagula, MS, and IIRC their big building slips will be idle once the America-class amphibs are done.

A nuclear surface escort is completely non-viable when the SSBNs are delayed by 18 months, going on 20; the SSNs are slipping from 1.2 hulls per year to 1.0; and the CVNs are 5 years late due to Betchel and other contractors having problems. That's all without getting into expanding NPS, and somehow finding the slips to build them, which is all much easier than solving the structural problems of the supply chains.

A giant IEP goober is actually economical if it can be built in the LPD yards like it might.

Mfw the LSD has more service ribbons and medals than most GWOT Sailors. :|

Plus, I suspect that the battleship proposal is a deliberate political ploy to appear giving up a lot in order to get a ~20-25kton ship with all the capabilities needed.

I don't think the USN needs to project that appearance, when it just had a failed frigate program, and is looking to be cutting off its thigh bones in terms of submarine and carrier production. It's just a truism at this point because it can't even build on regular schedules. Virginias might drop to 1 submarine per year to keep the Columbias from being delayed even more than they already are (the two boats after Columbia cannot slip) and the CVNs will probably slip again before the Ike gets her inevitable SLEP to 2031 or whatever.

It's so bad rn.

 

[Moose]

We will see what this ship settles down to. I’m hoping for a 20-25kt ship as a supplement to ddgx. With a larger radar 20ft or larger bmd array, more lasers, and 150-200 cells. If we get some programs of record with vls carriers I’d be happy to reduce the cell requirement and off load strike and some defense cells to the drone carriers

How can it supplement DDG(X) when DDG(X) is dying so that this may live?

 

[Felocie]

How can it supplement DDG(X) when DDG(X) is dying so that this may live?

I think he's referring to a notional third class other than BBG(X) which would work with DDG(X)... that would also have to kill the DDG(X) program so that it may be developed and built...

 

[Not James Stockdale]

The DDG(X) program implied a single class of large surface combatants to replace both the Ticonderoga and Burke classes, but BBG(X) and the Constellation cancellation leave an obvious gap for a medium combatant somewhere between a FREMM/Type 26 frigate and a Burke. If you offload a lot of the high-end capabilities like CPS from the DDG(X) to BBG(X), you can re-scope downwards to an AAW escort closer to a Luyang or Type 45 than a Renhai. However, if you are looking in that range, just continuing Burke production is probably easier than designing a new ship with generally similar characteristics.

 

[Scott Kenny]

How can it supplement DDG(X) when DDG(X) is dying so that this may live?

Different DDGX program.

So you have the Flagships (let's go ahead and call them BBGs for now, even though I suspect that they'll be built as CGs), and then you need a DDGX class to replace the Burkes.

Depending on how many CPS cells the BBG has and how many other cells it has, "battleship" might actually be a reasonable name for it. Didn't one of the concepts have space for 192x Mk41s as well as space for Mk57s around the helo deck? It had midships space that could have gone to a third 64-cell Mk41. Or that could have gone to a big number (12-16?) of APMs.

 

[Hydroman]

How does that fit into the 30 year shipbuilding plan?

You don't know what you're talking about and it shows. You just ignored the numerous corrections and then repeated the "NAVSEA and Navy have failed" rubbish. This isn't discussion about DDG(X), it's just your own half informed rant about your personal issues with procurement.

You're just describing what has been done for DDG(X) so why would you deride the program? DDG(X) is sized for the mission, it has the armament it needs, and it has the excess power generation. So what are you even complaining about?

Bait used to be believable.

What do you mean deriding, I was speaking in general terms regarding vessel programs and requirements in general, I assume you can read and knock it off with the bait crap. You must have a chip on your DDG(X).

 

[Hydroman]

This person is just trying to rile everyone up, must be a DDG(X) program manager. We were having some good posts and reasonable discussions.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Different DDGX program.

So you have the Flagships (let's go ahead and call them BBGs for now, even though I suspect that they'll be built as CGs), and then you need a DDGX class to replace the Burkes.

Depending on how many CPS cells the BBG has and how many other cells it has, "battleship" might actually be a reasonable name for it. Didn't one of the concepts have space for 192x Mk41s as well as space for Mk57s around the helo deck? It had midships space that could have gone to a third 64-cell Mk41. Or that could have gone to a big number (12-16?) of APMs.

DDG(X) was always to replace the Ticos, though. There is no present plan to replace the Burkes. Flight III is their top out right now.

 

[Felocie]

This person is just trying to rile everyone up, must be a DDG(X) program manager. We were having some good posts and reasonable discussions.

Is that why I’m the one who cited program requirements and real information about DDG(X). I’d advise you find some real hard facts to back up your generalisations.

So you have the Flagships (let's go ahead and call them BBGs for now, even though I suspect that they'll be built as CGs), and then you need a DDGX class to replace the Burkes.

But that isn’t what the USN wants, they want DDG(X), which has flag facilities, 40MW of excess power generation at 19 knots, provisions for CPS, etc. They do not want the BBG. DDG(X) may be supplemented by a ship without CPS and a focus on sensors over firepower but a BBG is more expensive and has less versatility than DDG(X).

What do you mean deriding, I was speaking in general terms regarding vessel programs and requirements in general, I assume you can read and knock it off with the bait crap. You must have a chip on your DDG(X).

this isn’t about “general terms”, it is the DDG(X) thread. None of what you’ve said is applicable to DDG(X). The idea that I’m focusing too much on the subject of the thread is hilarious to say the least.

 

[Felocie]

DDG(X) was always to replace the Ticos, though. There is no present plan to replace the Burkes. Flight III is their top out right now.

That’s not true, Navy has already stated that DDG(X) is designed to supplant Burkes and Ticos into one class of large surface combatants. They have also stated this may be supported by a second rate destroyer or large frigate but that doesn’t change what DDG(X) is meant to do. This is why DDG(X) production is meant to supersede Burke Flt III with about 2(?) years overlap, not for them to be built in tandem.

 

[Kat Tsun]

That’s not true, Navy has already stated that DDG(X) is designed to supplant Burkes and Ticos into one class of large surface combatants.

It seems the DDG(X) was too expensive to do that, then.

 

[Felocie]

It seems the DDG(X) was too expensive to do that, then.

Maybe, maybe not. The idea is to build as large a number of DDG(X) as was possible and it is seen as economically feasible and politically tenable on account of the current threat environment. The most important thing, as we look forward to the 2040s and 50s, is sensors over sheer firepower. It is conceivable that, as USV tech matures, DDG(X)’s firepower will come second to its sensor-shooter capabilities and hence a Light Destroyer focused on commanding USVs will enter production.

 

[Scott Kenny]

DDG(X) was always to replace the Ticos, though. There is no present plan to replace the Burkes. Flight III is their top out right now.

I was under the impression that DDGX was supposed to replace both Burkes and Ticos?

The 21x Burke Flight 1s are 30-35 years old. The 7x Flight 2s are 27 years old. 34x Flight 2As are 12-25 years old. The 3x 2A Restarts and 8x 2A Tech Insertions are 2-8 years old, and we have 1 or 2 Flight IIIs lurking around. Total in service of 74, with 99 total planned.

So the Flight 1s are running out of life (likely being replaced by either 2AR/TI and 3s). Flight 2 and 2As are at the point where the ships replacing them need to be designed.

Remember, the intended fleet setup was Burkes for AAW and Zumwalts for ASW, with a Zumwalt-derived CG replacing some Burkes.

The BBG is replacing the CG, there should be a Burke Replacement program, and there should be an ASW Destroyer program. This does assume that it would save money to have a separate ASW DD class than simply designing the Burke Replacement with enough silencing to make a good ASW platform. I'm not sure that with the rest of the USN's design practices that you can make a cheaper ASW Destroyer, because it's going to have SPY6 and Aegis and probably 96x Mk41s

By fleet design, there should be a run of about 30-40 BBGs, at least 60something Burke Replacements, and 30something ASW Destroyers (or 100something Burke Replacements). Plus ~50something FFGs and ~50something FFs.

I am considering that it may be better to make the FFs large USVs to pull a towed array and a VDS, but how fast do surface ships go while streaming their tails?

 

[Kat Tsun]

I was under the impression that DDGX was supposed to replace both Burkes and Ticos?

I think it was only supposed to replace the Flight Is and the Ticos?

32 ships or whatever is just about enough for that.

 

[Scott Kenny]

This. Doesn't. Work. The BBG is already more expensive than DDG(X), which itself was more expensive than Burkes. DDG(X) was seen as the most expensive ship that could be mass producible, otherwise the 30+ ton CG(X) proposals would've been built. The ASW DD class is not a serious proposal anymore. With the all electric fleet the Navy wants, even DDG(X) should be capable for ASW. Please read the 30 year shipbuilding plan, it clearly outlines that the Navy wants few classes of multirole surface combatants that can be built in numbers. Your fleet fantasy does not fit into this and is frankly a pipe dream that does not accurately meet USN operational requirements.

I did mention that an ASW DD assumes that it is cheaper to build the ASW DD than the Burke Replacement. I'm not convinced that that is true with the Navy installing SP6 and Aegis on everything, and as you mention the IEP ships should be pretty quiet. But ASW DDs not being cheaper than the Burke Replacement means that you need to build 100something Burke Replacements.

Each Carrier Group needs a BBG. Each Amphib Group needs a BBG in wartime. Each Numbered Fleet should have a BBG, assuming that the Flag CIC can do more than just AAW, else the Numbered Fleets will need a modified Flag CIC. That's 31.

If merchant ships are still slow enough that convoys would be required, you will want a BBG for each convoy as well. That makes a total of about 40.

You must spend at least this much to play, or you lose your next war. Take your pick.

An easy point that demonstrates this: the USN believes that the FF role is not only filled currently, they believe there is a surplus of SSCs to fill the role, hence they divested some LCS hulls early. So why would the USN want 50 something FFs at the moment?

No, the divested LCS hulls were "Flight 0" and had serious material issues. Also, LCS are incapable of ASW except by acting as a lily pad for ASW helos.

The USN needs 50something ASW FFs (which may be 3-5kton USVs) to track the metric shit-ton of submarines China is fielding, and to keep the Russians honest. Two towed arrays, or a hull array and a VDS, whichever works out to be cheaper. 16x Mk41, SeaRAM, the usual 2x triple LWT launchers, and a couple ASW VTOL UAVs. Oh, and 4x RWS for anti-UxV.