Don't think that's the plan though... at least for now. Seems like DDG 1000 was going to do most of what has been pitched. May see a similar plant, scaled up. I imagine going nuke would significantly increase the cost.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Road to 350: What Does the US Navy Do Anyway?
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
I anticipate it being the highest of HVTs and wanting it well over the horizon from me.
USS Aggravated
I haven’t played any Star Trek video games in over 20 years, so my knowledge is dated, to say the least. There was a Trek-themed RTS we used to play in college that was pretty fun- on the same order as other RTSs of the day, it was all about out-producing the other guy.
He said there may be a significant range penalty if not, especially given the claimed size, weight and weapons.
So, they're just going to slap an A1B in there and call it good? I can't imagine NR being down with that - especially on a short timeline.
Won’t be a short timeline. I think I saw somewhere 2030s to start construction. It’s basically an extension of what was proposed for DDG X, so I will be shocked if it actually survives in current design form that long. Also nobody knows just exactly which yard this behemoth gets built in?
That said, there is some merit to having a larger ship, which is why LSC/DDG X programs existed.
DDG51s are maxed out. They are the workhorses of the Fleet, can do amazing things barely conceived of when they started construction, and will be continuing on well into the next decade. But ask them to fit any new major system at this point, you better be taking something out, and it better not be adding much demand in topside weight, cooling or power. The CGs are rust buckets and barely hanging on at this point.
I could see a use case for this thing as the primary escort for the CVN. There are many threats out there that now handily outrange the air wing and can also bypass the defensive layer it provides the CSG. I mean, I’m not saying it’ll actually be technically feasible (either technology or industrial capacity), or that it will even be the most cost effective way to provide its capability. Just that it has a potential use case if it worked out. As I told a friend, this thing is either uniquely brilliant vision, or the most fucking batshit crazy idea ever.
Nuclear cruise missiles as a primary mission is kinda nuts though. If we are going to have one in the Navy arsenal, from a sub it makes sense. Even off FFGs or DDGs it could let them punch above their weight. But from a BBG? It’ll carry super long range hypersonics but then be stuck with a nuclear cruise missile with less range? As is, that makes no sense.
Last edited:
Haha dude it is hilarious that you were playing Star Trek as recently as that. Fucking NERD!!!
The Alaskas (35,000 tons) required 150,000 SHP to hit 33 knots, the Iowas (55,000 tons) required 212,000 SHP to hit 33 knots - so 4 LM-2500 turbines around the 45,000 SHP each simply for propulsion? How much more engine power you would need for everything else, I don’t know.
Someone mentioned earlier to start with conventional weapons systems first and replace them with laser / railguns later. Maybe Phalanx for the lasers and the Mark 71 lightweight 8” auto cannon for the railgun. Still, only 128 VLS is not enough for a ship this size.
Ryan Szimanski’s video below mentioned a 6” armor belt - interesting. But as he said, the Navy’s shipbuilding track record doesn’t inspire confidence.
As for the proper name, battleship, battlecruiser or large cruiser, who knows.
Looks like China is experimenting with this concept (and China has a 200 to 1 ratio in commercial shipbuilding capacity over the US):Good article from Proceedings. Whether you call it an Arsenal Ship or perhaps a Q-Ship, an interesting take on how to get more hulls in the water at a cost effective price.
Converting Merchant Ships to Missile Ships for the Win
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2019-01/converting-merchant-ships-missile-ships-win
Near the bow of the vessel, high-up mounted on above two containers, we see an Type 1130 30mm close-in-weapon system (CIWS) for last-ditch defense against incoming threats, especially cruise missiles. One container lower, on both sides, we see Type 726 decoy launchers mounted on top of another pair of containers...Then we get to the real eyebrow raiser, a deck literally covered with containerized vertical launchers. Installed five wide and three deep, each packing four large launch tubes, this arrangement gives the vessel a whopping 60 vertical large launch cells.
Chinese Cargo Ship Packed Full Of Modular Missile Launchers Emerges
China has packed a deck of a medium-sized cargo ship with 60 containerized vertical launch cells, radar, and close-in weapons.
www.twz.com
This is a good read…
www.csis.org
The Golden Fleet’s Battleship Will Never Sail
The recently announced “Trump” class of battleships is cast as the world’s largest and most powerful ships. But these ships will take years to design, cost $9 billion each, and run counter to the Navy's new concept of distributed operations. They will never be built.
This ship building plan, unmoored from modernity or strategic coherence is what happens when you fill DoD appointees from CDR Salamander's comments section...or worse, get suckered into thinking Jerry Hendrix is anything other than a partisan hack.
Last edited:
What ship is appropriate? A new version of the Arleigh Burke? That design appears maxed out. Restart the Zumwalt? A 15,000 ton cruiser with only 80 VLS?
Good video from Drachinifel on the lineage of the battleship and how the characteristics that defined “A ship of the battle line.” changed over time.
DDG X was probably conceptually headed in the right direction. Note “conceptually”. There were still plenty of ways to fuck up the execution.
Another thing I don’t love about the BBG is it is yet another special snowflake design. This isn’t like going from the Spruance hull and upgunning it for Ticonderoga/AEGIS. Going clean sheet on building a first of class for a concept we haven’t even done since WW2 is going to be sporty.
Looks like China is experimenting with this concept (and China has a 200 to 1 ratio in commercial shipbuilding capacity over the US):
Near the bow of the vessel, high-up mounted on above two containers, we see an Type 1130 30mm close-in-weapon system (CIWS) for last-ditch defense against incoming threats, especially cruise missiles. One container lower, on both sides, we see Type 726 decoy launchers mounted on top of another pair of containers...Then we get to the real eyebrow raiser, a deck literally covered with containerized vertical launchers. Installed five wide and three deep, each packing four large launch tubes, this arrangement gives the vessel a whopping 60 vertical large launch cells.
Chinese Cargo Ship Packed Full Of Modular Missile Launchers Emerges
China has packed a deck of a medium-sized cargo ship with 60 containerized vertical launch cells, radar, and close-in weapons.
Honestly, I think this kind of conceptual technology plus unmanned vessels brings the most potential capability to the table. Kind of scary how fast the PRC was able to kluge it together.
9 carriers by 2035.
China plans to field a force of nine aircraft carriers by 2035, according to a Defense Department report on Beijing’s military power released on Tuesday...China currently operates three carriers — second only to the U.S. This expansion would triple Beijing’s ability to deploy carrier strike groups within the next decade…While not dedicated aircraft carriers, the upcoming Type 076 class of amphibious warships come equipped with an electromagnetic catapult and command facilities dedicated to the operation of fixed-wing unmanned aerial systems, marking another boost to the PLAN’s flattop force.
news.usni.org
China plans to field a force of nine aircraft carriers by 2035, according to a Defense Department report on Beijing’s military power released on Tuesday...China currently operates three carriers — second only to the U.S. This expansion would triple Beijing’s ability to deploy carrier strike groups within the next decade…While not dedicated aircraft carriers, the upcoming Type 076 class of amphibious warships come equipped with an electromagnetic catapult and command facilities dedicated to the operation of fixed-wing unmanned aerial systems, marking another boost to the PLAN’s flattop force.
China Wants Nine Aircraft Carriers by 2035, Says New Pentagon Report - USNI News
China plans to field a force of nine aircraft carriers by 2035, according to a Defense Department report on Beijing’s military power released on Tuesday. The U.S. report says that the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) will embark on the largest carrier build-up effort in the Indo-Pacific...
news.usni.org