Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook

TomS said:
Sure, but is there any evidence that this is what Trump and Friends are thinking of? No, there is not. It's yet another example of someone in the press trying to turn the delusional ideas of this administration to something at least semi-rational.
Click to expand...

TomS said:
For what mission? They aren't defining a mission they want these ships for, they're defining an image. Big ships with giant phallic guns.
Click to expand...


Really? You think the President (ANY President) knows what the latest and greatest hardware is on USN ships? Just A President's way of saying, "we need the best". If the USN can't even articulate WTF it wants you can't really fault the guy at the top for taking a swing.
 
Sferrin said:
Really? You think the President (ANY President) knows what the latest and greatest hardware is on USN ships? Just A President's way of saying, "we need the best". If the USN can't even articulate WTF it wants you can't really fault the guy at the top for taking a swing.
Click to expand...

Yes, I can. I listened to the full comment and it's him rhapsodizing about how old battleships maybe aren't actually obsolete after all. It's the same BS about ditching EMALS and going back to steam catapults.
 
TomS said:
Yes, I can. I listened to the full comment and it's him rhapsodizing about how old battleships maybe aren't actually obsolete after all. It's the same BS about ditching EMALS and going back to steam catapults.
Click to expand...
And? Are we going back to steam catapults? Nope. As for battleships, pretty sure we'll see ships with large rail / coil guns someday. Not because of anything he said but because at some point it will be cheaper to lob a JDAM equivalent 500 miles than to fly it there. Sometimes I think he just says shit to shake things up.
 
Sferrin said:
Sometimes I think he just says shit to shake things up.
Click to expand...
EXTREMELY OT:

The thing is that Trump has to pump optics, meaning keeping the adrenaline high and people engaged in every matters he touch. America is/was a high trust society, so spreading BS means everyone's calling out each other's stuff now. Think, X's community note when it's legit. Stir up stuff and get the facts out instead of pandering around social credentials.

Back to topic:

I can't believe people are unironically believing Trump is going to have Hegseth touch the NVR for BBs. And here's the deal. The Navy is not a staked asset, not like when Trump touched Lockheed's stock with his lamenting. It's just a call for cool stuff. Everyone likes BB.
 
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
China appears to be testing something similar to AGS, that is if the description of it as a "guided missile gun" is in any way accurate (would be similar to AGS originally being described as a "trainable rocket launcher")

https://china-defense.blogspot.com/2025/08/a-closer-look-plans-155mm-naval-gun.html?m=1
Click to expand...

It seems odd in the day and age of super cheap missiles and massively expensive surface combatants for China to go this road. The U.S. perhaps could be forgiven for thinking it owned the world in the early 2000s.
 
Firefinder said:
Feel the need to point out that the Newest Brit ship has the Zumwalts autoloader and it works....

Reasonably well, got NEW SHIT TEETHING ISSUES at the moment but it can handle all standard and some extra shells that the RN uses.

So yeah it was really the USN Fucking it up.


As for the differences between 155 and 127MM?

About 10 to 25 kilometers of range depending on shell and barrel combo for land attack and similar to ADA in most likilhood for current in service deals. Throw in what the Army been screwing with like the Ramjet shell and you have nearly 100km of difference.

The Navy has not upgrade their Ammo since the damn 70s performance or fusing wise with every attempt dying.

Bringing the 5-inch shell up to modern army spec will close that performance a whole lot very cheaply to say nothing of a PGM type fuse that can do Air Attack.


Now going to 8 inch with the 155mm advances? You be looking at nearly 80km stock and pushing 200km for the advance stuff in range increase alone at the minimum. Favor that idea since you can do more with a 8 inch shell then a 6 inch as much as the 6 is over the 5.
Click to expand...

Are any of these systems worth the development costs and ship volume/mass vs just having more VLS tubes? For existing ships, 127mm is there and a sunk cost; might as well get the most useful round to it. But why pick a new caliber with greater costs in finance, mass, and volume for a tertiary system?
 
Sferrin said:
And? Are we going back to steam catapults? Nope. As for battleships, pretty sure we'll see ships with large rail / coil guns someday. Not because of anything he said but because at some point it will be cheaper to lob a JDAM equivalent 500 miles than to fly it there. Sometimes I think he just says shit to shake things up.
Click to expand...

But most of time he says shit because he is ignorant, and having technical discussions based on his statements is like trying to design a car based on the drawing of an eight year old.
 
Josh_TN said:
Are any of these systems worth the development costs and ship volume/mass vs just having more VLS tubes?
Click to expand...
It's the difference between instantaneous firepower and sustained firepower. Both have their place.

VLS tubes can essentially fire their total load at once (yes, there's delay time to give rocket exhaust to cool). While a gun allows sustained fire over time.

Note that the early VGAS designs could fit into some chunk of what we currently use for Mk41. Not counting the full magazine, the VGAS fit roughly into a single 8cell block (or less). With the magazine, I think it was a 32cell block.




Josh_TN said:
For existing ships, 127mm is there and a sunk cost; might as well get the most useful round to it. But why pick a new caliber with greater costs in finance, mass, and volume for a tertiary system?
Click to expand...
Range first, payload second. Same reason that the Mk71 was developed in the 1970s, and AGS in the 90s and 00s.
 
Scott Kenny said:
It's the difference between instantaneous firepower and sustained firepower. Both have their place.

VLS tubes can essentially fire their total load at once (yes, there's delay time to give rocket exhaust to cool). While a gun allows sustained fire over time.

Note that the early VGAS designs could fit into some chunk of what we currently use for Mk41. Not counting the full magazine, the VGAS fit roughly into a single 8cell block (or less). With the magazine, I think it was a 32cell block.

Range first, payload second. Same reason that the Mk71 was developed in the 1970s, and AGS in the 90s and 00s.
Click to expand...

There is no sustainable firepower in an obsolete weapon that puts its launcher in mortal peril. The Russians have vast numbers of 2S1 available in their reserve depots - because their range is so short they would be engaged by UAVs easily. Shore bombardment is something for historians.
 
Josh_TN said:
There is no sustainable firepower in an obsolete weapon that puts its launcher in mortal peril. The Russians have vast numbers of 2S1 available in their reserve depots - because their range is so short they would be engaged by UAVs easily. Shore bombardment is something for historians.
Click to expand...
THe 2s1 is a 122mm piece with the range of an excuse and an explosive mass of a joke.

The 2s7 pion 8 inch spg is been extremely heavily used to the point of Ukraine pulling out the older US M110 from other countries like Greece to Replace theirs due to its hard hitting ability second only to the MLRS but at a fraction of a cost. Enough that there is noise of the US bringing ours back.


There is a serious usage for a weapon system of this size in both mediums to high intensity wars. In both ASUW and ADA roles. Especially with modern shells that will put the launch ship out of range of most ground base antiship systems. As well as increase defensive fire magazine space with the like likes of an HVP round able to smack down Supersonic Cruisers from 10km plus range.
 
Josh_TN said:
There is no sustainable firepower in an obsolete weapon that puts its launcher in mortal peril.
Click to expand...
Which is why you do need something with more range than the 122mm or 130mm, silly.

And an 8"/60 firing subcaliber rounds at ERCA Charge Super velocities does that. And you get even more range with rocket-boosted subcalibers.
  • If it uses 155mm subcalibers, make it compatible with NATO 155mm in addition to the dedicated long-range stuff. Note that you might have to limit the NATO-compatibility to guided rounds if you are using vertical guns. If it's still in a turret you get to use all the dumb rounds as well.
  • If you're doing 5" subcalibers, make it compatible with US 5"/54 and maybe even make a set of 4.5" sabots as well (assuming that the UK still makes 4.5" ammo but not barrels). In this case, you pretty much have to use a turret mount instead of a vertical gun, because there are very few guided 5" or 4.5" projectiles.
Overall, I'd prefer 5" subcalibers because that gives you a much better length-for-caliber in the same storage volume, which means better range. But 155mm means NATO ammo compatibility.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Which is why you do need something with more range than the 122mm or 130mm, silly.

And an 8"/60 firing subcaliber rounds at ERCA Charge Super velocities does that. And you get even more range with rocket-boosted subcalibers.
  • If it uses 155mm subcalibers, make it compatible with NATO 155mm in addition to the dedicated long-range stuff. Note that you might have to limit the NATO-compatibility to guided rounds if you are using vertical guns. If it's still in a turret you get to use all the dumb rounds as well.
  • If you're doing 5" subcalibers, make it compatible with US 5"/54 and maybe even make a set of 4.5" sabots as well (assuming that the UK still makes 4.5" ammo but not barrels). In this case, you pretty much have to use a turret mount instead of a vertical gun, because there are very few guided 5" or 4.5" projectiles.
Overall, I'd prefer 5" subcalibers because that gives you a much better length-for-caliber in the same storage volume, which means better range. But 155mm means NATO ammo compatibility.
Click to expand...

If I can throw 50 cruise missiles out the back of a C-130 for ten million, why the hell am I building a 3 billion dollar destroyer around a requirement that has not actually been used since Lebanon in 1982?
 
Last edited:
https://breakingdefense.com/2025/11/what-it-would-take-to-build-trumps-golden-fleet-battleships/
They probably just settle with building SSGNs if the idea ever come to pass. Otherwise, go to the koreans and ask them to revive the arsenal ship program and foot some of the bills.

We need to aggressively move towards joint buys with Korea or/and Japan. Sort out some compromise in term of specific requirements and operations between the different navies. It's too late to say "we gonna build ships to numerically counter China before Taiwan deadline and also revive our industrial base" we just gotta focus on get the ships in number, go all in. China is sprinting and we'll slow walking red tapes with a heavy dose of copism and wishful thinking.

When we have large number of ships, the industry will catch up be it infrastructure or work force at some point. We can't tie our purchasing tempo to that of trying to reviving an extremely complex industry and highly skilled workforce.
 
Last edited:
Korea isn't quite threatened by China, so it's questionable at best to try and bring them in. Japan is suffering from a stagnant economy and it's ultimately the US and Japan have rather different ideas of what they want out of a ship in the larger WESTPAC context.

Lastly outsourcing shipbuilding is, among with GWOT, what brought the Americans into this situation in the first place. Korean or Japanese ships don't fix Americas lacking shipbuilding. Only investing in the own yards and taking a step back from "forever ships" and going back to regular turn over on order to retain experienced designers and workers helps long term. But that's costly and time consuming. Luckily there is no such thing as a Taiwan deadline outside of the the mind of US "analysts". If the mainland folks want to annex Taiwan they could have done it yesterday, or tomorrow, in 5 years, 10 years, 15 years or 50 years. If they feel like this goal can only be achieved through military action, they won't adhere to some made up timeline.

Consequently the US shouldn't make panicked short term decisions with terrible long term consequences. The Second Cold War is only getting started, this isn't a sprint, it's a marathon.
 
EmoBirb said:
Korea isn't quite threatened by China, so it's questionable at best to try and bring them in. Japan is suffering from a stagnant economy and it's ultimately the US and Japan have rather different ideas of what they want out of a ship in the larger WESTPAC context.
Click to expand...
Any country that hosts a US base is a target in an all out war. Though I agree Korea probably plays backline and focus on target of opportunities, more so because they need to monitor what North Korea gonna do.

EmoBirb said:
Lastly outsourcing shipbuilding is, among with GWOT, what brought the Americans into this situation in the first place. Korean or Japanese ships don't fix Americas lacking shipbuilding. Only investing in the own yards and taking a step back from "forever ships" and going back to regular turn over on order to retain experienced designers and workers helps long term. But that's costly and time consuming. Luckily there is no such thing as a Taiwan deadline outside of the the mind of US "analysts". If the mainland folks want to annex Taiwan they could have done it yesterday, or tomorrow, in 5 years, 10 years, 15 years or 50 years. If they feel like this goal can only be achieved through military action, they won't adhere to some made up timeline.
Click to expand...
My previous statement is an obvious admission that outsourcing was a problem that hollowed out the industrial base. But I'm arguing that we left it dead for too long and now think there's a perfect solution to have our cake and eat it too. It comes down to whether we believe if there's a taiwan deadline or not. Mainland isn't doing it yet because the they don't believe they could win yet or at least the cost would be unacceptably high. Once they BELIEVE (whether that is in fact reality is another matter) they have enough numerical superiority that they could deter US from even entering the fight they will attack. They already believe they have achieved technological parity or very close to it. Remember the CCP is a centralized government around a single strong man surrounded by yes men. Hubris is present in any government (US entering Iraq), but it is acutely more present in a system that punishes dissent such as Russia or China.
 
Grey Havoc said:
Needs to be nuclear powered from the outset, though.
Click to expand...
Nukes are terrible for power stuff like super heavy EWAR, or Radars let alone the shit like Railguns and Lasers...


They not power dense enough nor efficient enough to do so on a good size.


Diesels and GTELS are far better at that and to sweeten the pot. Easier to man, upgrade, and like compare to nukes as well.
 
Grey Havoc said:
Needs to be nuclear powered from the outset, though.
Click to expand...
Disagree, if only because of the limited number of shipyards that could build a nuclear powered ship: EB and NNNS. And, I don't believe that EB has any spare construction space, while NNNS would be preempting a carrier for a ship that long.

A conventionally-powered ship is much more producible. Crud, we could build a 17kton or so ship (225x23.8x8.2m) in the Great Lakes, if the USN handed those shipyards a finished design.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Disagree, if only because of the limited number of shipyards that could build a nuclear powered ship: EB and NNNS. And, I don't believe that EB has any spare construction space, while NNNS would be preempting a carrier for a ship that long.

A conventionally-powered ship is much more producible. Crud, we could build a 17kton or so ship (225x23.8x8.2m) in the Great Lakes, if the USN handed those shipyards a finished design.
Click to expand...


I was under the impression FFGX was at the ragged edge of what could be moved down the St Lawrence.
 
Josh_TN said:
I was under the impression FFGX was at the ragged edge of what could be moved down the St Lawrence.
Click to expand...
Those dimensions are for the Welland Canal and St. Lawrence Seaway locks. The entire system also has a controlling air draft of 35.5 meters (116 ft), coincidentally just taller than a Burke's 112 ft mast height. Fincantieri Marine at Sturgeon Bay recently built a 26,000 gt lake freighter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Mark_W._Barker. The main issue I've heard discussed with regards to Lake-built combatants is draft, especially with bow-mounted sonars. A lot of combatants have 6 - 8 m keel depths, but adding another 1 - 2 m to draft with a large sonar would prevent them from transiting the Seaway. I suspect this is one reason why the Constellation class lacks the bow sonar that the Italian FREMMs have.
 
View: https://youtu.be/geFwrm2OT5o?si=R_y099qW7mK3ORZs
This fella is a traitor to the usmc counter a2/ad cause. Long range guns are necessary to support ground forces. Even the 5x5in guns being proposed for BB aren't enough or have sufficient range for ground forces long term, high mass support. VGAS was the beginning of addressing the ground support requirements.
The USN needs to address the VLS-sea capabilities concerns separately from addressing the ground support requirements.
 
Last edited:
jsport said:
View: https://youtu.be/geFwrm2OT5o?si=R_y099qW7mK3ORZs
This fella is a traitor to the usmc counter a2/ad cause. Long range guns are necessary to support ground forces. Even the 5x5in guns being proposed for BB aren't enough or have sufficient range for ground forces long term, high mass support. VGAS was the beginning of addressing the ground support requirements.
The USN needs to address the VLS-sea capabilities concerns separately from addressing the ground support requirements.
Click to expand...

Using billion dollar ships to provide fire support is the height of stupidity and part of the reason Zumwalt failed.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom