Trump to unveil plans for new U.S. ‘battleship’, reports say

Yes, it would be big, obsolete and ineffective thing, but this is exactly why this thing may be an impressive handicap move. It's like saying: "Hey, I'm so rich and powerful that I can just throw a trillion dollars in a trash bin, and still be in control of the situation. I'm rich, strong and generous, I'm not going to fight any near-peer adversary, follow me, and you'll be rewarded". But to make those moves properly you really should be rich, powerful and generous, and I'm not sure America is really that rich. Because if you are not, people will see you just stupid.

Or it may be a way to support shipyards without being too provocative by building more cost/effective ships.
 
JoeB131 said:
Okay, a few points.

Why do we need to "Cross an Ocean"? Most recent wars, we didn't send men in by ship, we sent them by plane.

The hypothetical naval battle everyone imagines is us fighting against the Chinese over Taiwan (which is none of our business).

The Chinese would have a huge advantage because they can just launch hypersonic missiles from their land bases to take out any ships.
Click to expand...
What about Battle for Greenland against the EU or for Canada against Britain? (If China and Russia are, at least, neutral and don't sell hypersonic missiles to EU).

 
Primary offensive weapons: 128 cell VLS, 12 cells CPS

DDG(X) was close to being ready for the initial ship construction, but Trump now says it's cancelled and the Navy also recently announced the cancellation of the FFG Constellation Class Frigate.

DDG(X) was to have a 96 cell VLS and one 32 cell rack could be swapped out for a 12 cell large diameter stack (assuming it would be able to handle CPS). DDG(X) is roughly estimated to cost about $4 Billion a pop with the design work mostly complete.

BBG-1 initial cost estimates are $10-$15 Billion per ship (close to, as much as, or more than a Ford Class Aircraft Carrier). But let's be real, design engineering isn't even started yet. At most there is a concept of a plan. Those costs will skyrocket with initial ship likely to be $15-20 Billion (IMHO).
.
.
.
.
.
#1 For the cost of 1 BBG-1, you could build around 4 (maybe 5) DDG(X) ships.

#2 Individually the DDG(X) would "technically" slightly weaker than a single BBG-1, however multiple ships end up being more powerful than the single BBG-1.

#3 If you look at offensive weapons you get 128 VLS cells and 12 CPS cells with BBG-1. 3 DDG(X) at the same cost would be 288 VLS cells up front. If each of the 3 swapped out 1 32 VLS cell for a 12 cell CPS then you get 192 VLS cells and 36 CPS cells. 3 DDG(X) have MORE offensive firepower than BBG-1. Now if you take that to 4 DDG(X) for roughly the same cost you end up with 384 VLS cells up front and if each swap out to a single 12 cell CPS you get 256 VLS cells and 48 CPS.

#4 Distributed targeting. Swarm targeting the BBG-1 means a loss of all capability to use it as an offensive platform. The ship doesn't have be sunk, just rended mission incapable, such as damaging the propeller area, damaging the superstructure containing the sensors needed to fight the ship. BBG-1 will be a single big juicy target. Multiple DDG(X) hulls not only provide more offensive firepower, they make the "mission kill" more difficult because the enemy now has to target multiple platforms.

#5 The Railgun doesn't even exist and the program was cancelled in 2021. That means dusting off the research and restarting the program. Then on to solving the technical problems that caused the high cost of the program to begin with. The 32 MJ Railgun has an expected range of 100 NM for it's hyper velocity projectile. Meaning for any useful shore bombardment (the main purpose of the gun), BBG-1 would have to be close to shore (i.e. within 100 NM) and for each mile inland they want to shoot the ship has to be that much closer. Putting BBG-1 squarely within land based anti-ship missile range for a swarm attack. After the US abandoned the railgun research, Japan has developed a shipborn railgun prototype and has had successful testing. But even with improvements the barrel is expected to last only 120 rounds (a definate improvement over the US Navy's few dozen rounds - but still). The Iowa Class BBs carried around what 1000 rounds for the 16" inchers? While the railgun will have greater range then the 16", it will not have the depth of magizine for large scale shore bombardment (in this case is not the depth of ammunition, it's barrel limitations).

WW
 
Last edited:
Zavulon said:
Yes, it would be big, obsolete and ineffective thing, but this is exactly why this thing may be an impressive handicap move. It's like saying: "Hey, I'm so rich and powerful that I can just throw a trillion dollars in a trash bin, and still be in control of the situation. I'm rich, strong and generous, I'm not going to fight any near-peer adversary, follow me, and you'll be rewarded". But to make those moves properly you really should be rich, powerful and generous, and I'm not sure America is really that rich. Because if you are not, people will see you just stupid.

Or it may be a way to support shipyards without being too provocative by building more cost/effective ships.
Click to expand...
Everyone on earth is using fiat currency.

The weapons are real. In 94 100 aimed missles could be fired in 3 minutes. Escort groups with Atrack subs can see 1200 miles. And thats old tech.

Im ok with this if increased range and not aluminum.
 
Meathead said:
It's complicated. Today destroyers are bigger than some battleship of yore.
Click to expand...
I read where they want more Frigates for screens.

Maybe because the Chineese are going to a more PT hydrifoil fleet to overwhelm battle groups near their waters.
 
Zavulon said:
Yes, it would be big, obsolete and ineffective thing, but this is exactly why this thing may be an impressive handicap move. It's like saying: "Hey, I'm so rich and powerful that I can just throw a trillion dollars in a trash bin, and still be in control of the situation. I'm rich, strong and generous, I'm not going to fight any near-peer adversary, follow me, and you'll be rewarded". But to make those moves properly you really should be rich, powerful and generous, and I'm not sure America is really that rich. Because if you are not, people will see you just stupid.

Or it may be a way to support shipyards without being too provocative by building more cost/effective ships.
Click to expand...

We don't have enough shipyards to build the ships the Navy Wants, that's part of the problem. If we build the USS Douchebag, it means that we won't be able to build the next aircraft carrier.

The thing is, with the Russian Navy being an absolute bad joke, (hey, have you gotten that aircraft carrier fixed yet?) the real adversary we have to worry about is China. (Because we hate China for being better than we are at manufacturing.)

The Chinese aren't buying Battleships. They aren't buying Cruisers. They are investing in destroyers and frigates.

While the US tries to project power all over the world, the Chinese are really only interested in projecting power in their own region.
 
eagle1462010 said:
I read where they want more Frigates for screens.

Maybe because the Chineese are going to a more PT hydrifoil fleet to overwhelm battle groups near their waters.
Click to expand...
Unmanned sea drones were effective against the Russian fleet in the Black Sea
Low cost lethality seems to be the future
 
rightwinger said:
Unmanned sea drones were effective against the Russian fleet in the Black Sea
Low cost lethality seems to be the future
Click to expand...
You still gotta have a Blue Water Navy. I wouldnt mind a drone aircraft carrier so to speak.

But defensive systems are knocking them down which is why the shift to Hypersonic, rail guns, and lasers.
 
JoeB131 said:
While the US tries to project power all over the world, the Chinese are really only interested in projecting power in their own region.
Click to expand...
Bull. You don't build these 1036-foot ships if you just want to project regional power. Just 60 feet shorter than USA's biggest, USS Ford:

1766673667704.webp

Chinese aircraft carrier Fujian - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
15th post
You must log in or register to reply here.

BREAKING: A video of a failed Moscow suicidal cavalry attack on a well‑protected Ukrainian...

< Previous Thread

putin´s generals convinced putin he will soon win the war

Next Thread >

Similar threads

1srelluc
The USS Ford crew is struggling with sewage problems on board the Navy's new carrier
Replies
13
Views
359
JoeB131
JoeB131
Doc7505
Iran unveils enormous supply of naval suicide drones in chilling footage from underground ‘missile city’
2
Replies
25
Views
299
task0778
task0778
berg80
For members of the regime, staring at their shoes is becoming a thing.
5 6 7
Replies
129
Views
2K
berg80
berg80
citygator
Military Falling Apart Under Trump/Hegseth - Navy Ships Collide Day After Party Balloon Incident
3 4 5
Replies
83
Views
1K
ThisIsMe
ThisIsMe
Doc7505
Iran Sent Short-Range Missiles to Russia, Western Officals Say
Replies
3
Views
173
Yarddog
Yarddog

New Topics

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom