This was going to be a dual post about last Friday’s frigate announcement and the battleship announcement, but I decided that would be a bit too much and will split it in two.
Considering the current state of our shipyards, this is equivalent to JFK's "the moon by the end of the decade" announcement. ""We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." Building a BB (?) will be hard.
Not exactly. You have Ingalss shipyards, which are building San-Antonio amphibious ships. Which are roughly in the same size category (not exactly the same, but close enough). They already suggested a missile cruiser based on San-Antonio hull in past. If the construction of amphibious ships would be reduced (which is highly likely, since warships are more of priority now), the same facilities could handle cruisers/battleships.
Study the radar. The SPY-6 and SPY-7 are bother AESA radar types, but the SPY-7 is not called the Long-Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR) for no reason at all, and that radar family comes in different sizes/formats too just like SPY-6. From an ESM/ECM point of view . . . having different radar in the same formation provides complexity to the adversary Electronic Warfare equation.
As I have said for the last decade and longer . . . every U.S. Surface Combatant, logistics ship, and vessel at sea should have a Non-Rotating 3D AESA radar at the appropriate size, provides fire control and other facility, and fills the place the the AN/SPS-10 used to fill which was on almost every ship.
Lockheed Martin has not shown us a minimal SPY-7 yet, but they do have multiple ship classes they are supporting with sensors.
Your comparison is made better with an LHA. BIW was to build LPDs as they had built ships that large previously. BIW as configured cannot build this ship right now. Not sure how they got the design contract other than the fact this is another splash money to the MIC for kickbacks effort.
thanks Matt. I agree with you. But the difference between this and the Moon project is America built a brand-new infrastructure to get to the moon in a time we could do that in our budget. And the physical land space was there to do it. This effort will take new shipyard(s) that presents many physical and economic challenges that I am not sure our current economic model ($38T debt & counting) and political landscape can sustain. I think the first step is to partially nationalize the (3) primary Navy shipyards. The partially nationalize is the term I would use (to remove the private board fiduciary requirement to make a profit vice build a cost effective and capable ship as the primary objective. See my other comment and link for an explanation.
1- Physical risk -- we might not be able to build the ships at all;
2- Duration risk -- we can build the ships but by the time they join the fleet the PLAN is doing regular drills off San Diego;
3- Budget risk -- we can build the ships but only at the cost of something very good.
4- Above all, political risk -- we get a couple of years into the construction process and a hypothetical new administration cancels the project. (And by naming the class after himself DJT has painted a big political target on it.)
I agree the naming optics weren't good. That's a target rich environment on many matters right now. But that is how everyone is approaching their pet rocks these days...name it after the guy and he'll say yes.
You are offering a 'too little too late' scenario, I believe. While I don't see the PLAN exercising off SD even if we do nothing (not their political intent -- exercising off Guam is)... I do see the need to decide what our Navy's mission is in peacetime (well, not declared or hot war). Is our core mission to smack the Houthis or a southern neighbors when it suits us or establish that firewall between our new interests (see new NSS) and the other global powers. We are no longer capable of being the Swiss Army Knife Navy... not enough ships and budget. Time to pick and choose. The NSS has left our allies in our wake, and if that is the sustained future -- a reality without complimentary support (allies) then time to build what we need, not what we want. Once we sail this path, even if we choose to reverse course, it will take much longer to get back.
Excellent comment. I suspect that the image DJT has in his head is the Great White Fleet cruising Westpac. And I wonder how the PLAN will respond to this announcement.
> naming optics weren't good. That's a target rich environment on many matters right now.
Kek.
Uh. Yeah.
> But that is how everyone is approaching their pet rocks these days...name it after the guy and he'll say yes.
Um. No.
My guess is that the point of the "naming optics" is to get the topic out where your average doomscrolling thumb-typing SkinnerBox carbon unit is even aware of it.
Do you have any idea how most people have a galaxy-sized black hole in their experience/minds/awareness where naval/maritime matters are concerned?
I'm already seeing discourse on the topic--stupid, as to be expected, but ya gotta start somewhere--that we'd never have seen X months ago, or years ago. As a result, more people can offer opinions/perspectives who have experience with the sector, however modest. And if not speaking up yet, teed up to do so going forward maybe.
I actually overheard someone talking about "fry gates" in a cafe YESTERDAY EVENING. She (I guessed) was large, and inked, and aposemetically colored, and very mad about Bad Orange Man and the War Machines Of Death, etc.
Her loud and bulky animus broke into my field of attention--primarily from a sense of situational awareness. How startling to suspect that...by golly, she was talking about...naval/maritime policy? Kinda sorta more or less. In the brief spate of overhearing, I didn't get a clue as to where she'd gotten connected with the topic. Not likely here, nor gCaptain, etc. Double keke. I have no idea where her type get their "facts" from these days. But it sure was a quick response frame. And SOMEBODY got inside her infoscape, and put the topic there.
TDS, whoever is engineering it, can be a very useful laser pointer for drawing catly attention in desired directions.
And of course Cmdr's point about the "DEFIANT" was spot on, something I chuckled aloud at, seeing the first blatt on the topic.
Agreed. But their leadership isn't steering any better. If they cared they would be down in Gulfport with a stack of missile armed containers on a fast supply boat they just cleaned up and assigned a crew to. then walk from there over to USMI and show us a composite USV with LO and those same missile boxes concealed within. (A for instance)
We have been told, with reasonable footnotes, that in the case of Somali welfare fraud in Minnesota ALONE, some $9 bn was heisted.
Click-hit data suggests that's 4.5 B-12 stealth bombers.
Or ten Constellation-class frigates. (7.3 according to the CBO.)
One state, one organized subpopulation. One set of frauds.
Bill, I mention this because of your observation about economics. I see a bigger issue: leadership.
My state--Washington--has two perma-installed US Senators, both in their late 60s, neither of whom have had anything resembling a real job in their entire lives. The idea of them voting on plans and appropriations for anything of importance--like major infrastructure and logistics projects/restoration/forecasting--is one of my most gnawing awake-at-three-a.m. thoughts.
When Patty Murray was maneuvered into the WA state lege via redistricting, in the mid-'90s (launched in the late '80s) drive to turn WA politics blue forever, she replaced a guy named Bill Kiskaddon. Fascinating man. Marine vet, BS/MS EE, Boeing engineer, master's in social work, and Savoyard. The last Republican to be elected to that district's representation.
Patty Murray got a bachelor's in gym at a state university, then worked briefly as a preschool teacher. Then the "mommy in tennis shoes" was advanced systematically to the major position she has held for 32 years now.
Maria Cantwell ever had only one job--a few years (three iirc) as some C-suite marketing droid for Real Networks, emplaced there by Rob Glaser, former Microsofty, turbo-Dem, and founder of the "Trump is Putin" Web site.
Her. Only. Ever. Job. Then she was shunted into politics, representing Microsoft's district, then to the US Senate seat previously held by Slade Gorton. She's occupied that for going on 26 years. She's on both the "public works" and "fisheries and merchant marine" committees of the Senate. She knows nothing about either but what others have told her, and told her to think.
So my rant-point, Bill, is that there is a fundamental deliberately engineered weakness of leadership where addressing all these major challenges is concerned. This leadership thinks nothing of--and would defend--$9 bn in Somali welfare fraud in ONE urban area. We can bet that countless billions are wasted locally/regionally here in Pugetopolis on similar schemes...while real-world/productive/concrete needs scream for attention.
Washington state had ONE yard able to do the work and put in a bid on state ferry modernization...and lost it to a foreign yard, as our shizzwit waterboy Governor reassured everyone that the cheaper foreign bid couldn't possibly wind up with overruns later, and besides, what they learn in the FIRST contracts will CREATE EFFICIENCIES for the later ones! (Uh...couldn't that be argued for the domestic yard as well? Couldn't the "more expensive" price tag be balanced by, say, the local jobs created, and their effects on local economies?)
Meantime the capacity to do this work domestically/regionally dries up, and there is zero accountability for bad decisions.
Forgive me if these observations on local/regional politics are torquing. It's just so hard to see this long-standing maritime region, in this quintessentially maritime republic, be led by people whose entire resume consists of being muppets. The idea of "nationalizing" yards, putting them further under the control of said muppets, makes my marrow shiver.
The entire defense industrial complex must be US state property answering to the Chief of Staff of a US General Staff and civilian-managed for private profit as long as state goals -- defined by The US General Staff -- are met. The properties themselves, of the defense corporations, must belong to The USG under DOW stewardship.
No more bright idea fairies from CA, WA, OH, IL, NY, MO, TX, AL & Georgia originating -- and retired GOs and ADMs promoting -- re-polished, over-priced (but privately profitable) junk to DOW minions who haven't thought through what they really need and can't anyway because they lack enough math do strategy.
Private profit alone cannot -- and very obviously does not, does not even want to -- support national sovereignty. Our financializers have taught us this lesson in the clearest possible tones and images: rampant national personal and national disunity, cum despair, financializers themselves strung out on cocaine and their victims on fentanyl.
Thank you for your educated, cultured realism on US military conditions. They stink and must be made well. The obdurate habit of considering the US Armed Services as separate entities competing for dollars could be deemed a bitter monument to professional military irresponsibility, not to mention civilian ignorance. Only more so is obsession with "US predominance," "exceptionalism," phantasms if ever there were some.
Our US national goal is unity through such conditions as, orderly borders, diplomatic courtesy, homeland defense & coordination with India and Russia of international stability.
Having been raised by shipbuilders who viewed the space program as just another maritime endeavor (the desert being space instead of bluewater)...I'd say that "going to the moon" was orders of magnitude simpler than rebuilding the Republic's fleet.
Maybe (dimly possibly) acquainting the masses with the entire concept of how, and why, this is a maritime nation, and what that means, and all, has to be a next step.
I laughed out loud at the "Trump branding." Saw it as a masterful way to get the TDS types talking about maritime policy. Maybe. Or at least try to introduce it into more general discourse.
Weeeeeeel, Russia have a lot of nuclear fuel (our and European, that those fools gave us as "waste", and even paid us to store it... before realizing, that Rosatom guys perfected repocession technology and could extract fuel-grade materials from spent rods) for... right price)
HEU for NNP is produced in the US. Almost all fuel for commercial reactors is imported. Certain members of Congress would love to push NNP to to LEU or HALEU, which would immediately kill the remaining domestic fuel enrichment industry.
There aren't enough facilities in USA that could build nuclear-powered warships. Going nuclear would meant cutting into industrial potential required either for carriers or submarines. Which is what USN won't do.
Historical data shows that a nuclear powered ship costs 50% LESS over its lifetime compared to a comparable conventional powered ship. Both USS Ford and USS Columbia have power plants that will not need refueling. The problem is that the entire fuel cost is up-front. That makes it more expensive today, but cheaper for the next 50 years. Congresscritters are usually not too interested in reducing how much money their replacements will have to spend. We'd be able to afford a substantially larger navy, and for less money, if congress had been buying only nuclear powered ships for the last 60 years. So the stupidity of the last 60 years will result in stupidity for the next 60.
I don’t know. Back in the mid-80s, Virginia class cruisers had 100 more sailors in Engineering department than the Ticonderoga class cruisers and Kidd class destroyers that had comparable combat capability.
The Virginia class cruisers were retired before their first refueling, so we don't really know what their actual lifetime costs would have been. I looked up some analyses about the Virginia cruisers. They were considered to be more expensive to operate than the Ticonderogaes, but the real issue was they couldn't support the SPY-1 RADAR, which was a major leap forward in offensive and defensive capability. Modern ships are being designed to require fewer crew because of higher automation. For example both the Columbia and Virginia class submarines automate a lot of things that had to be manually performed in their predecessors, reducing crew count. And guess what is being said about the Ticonderogaes today? They're too expensive to operate. But USS Enterprise, CVN-65 had an annual operating cost less than half of USS America and USS John F. Kennedy (which were essentially oil-burning versions of the Enterprise). These are essentially the only ships that we can do such a comparison on. Nuke subs are sooooo much more capable than diesel subs that any comparison between them would be laughable, like comparing a Model T to pretty much any current car.
No oil burner has comparable combat capability to a nuke boat. While they may have comparable offensive and defensive weapons, as well as sensors, a major part of combat power is mobility. A modern nuke boat (like Ford or Columbia) can go full speed for it's entire life at sea (weather and maintenance schedules of equipment permitting) because no matter what power the reactors are outputting, the fuel degrades at the same rate. At 30 knots, a Ticonderoga class cruiser runs out of fuel in 3,300 miles. At 20 knots, it can go 6,000 miles. Because our fleet oilers max out at 20 knots our carriers often have to refuel their escorts after a high speed run because they're low on fuel, and the oilers (if not found and sunk) will take a couple of days to catch up. This has a major negative impact on the effectiveness of the US Navy. Speed helps ships to avoid detection by satellites (satellites orbits are predictable, you just maneuver to stay over their horizon). If you don't have to worry about range, and you're at least as fast as your enemy's conventionally powered ships, you can choose when and where to engage. The mobility advantages of a nuke ship simply cannot be overcome by an oil burner.
“A modern nuke boat (like Ford or Columbia) can go full speed for it's entire life at sea (weather and maintenance schedules of equipment permitting) because no matter what power the reactors are outputting, the fuel degrades at the same rate.” You are right that the annual costs are less for fuel, but that is offset in acquisition cost and manpower cost.
I agree that the nuke cruisers were retired early because the navy wanted to focus on aegis systems.
Ticonderoga cruisers cost more now beciase they’re old now, and can’t be upgraded with updated radars like we have on flight III DDGs.
Um, yes, that statement is true. Both the Ford and Columbia are designed to never need refueling. The limit for maximum speed duration isn't fuel, it's wear and tear on things like the steam turbines, cooling pumps, etc., and that limit is measured in years. For instance, a shaft may have a requirement to withstand the equivalent of 100,000 hours at full speed before failure. But the vessel isn't expected to be at full power its entire life. It spends time in port for maintenance, crew R&R, etc. There will be a formula (different for each class of ship) for shaft life usage based on actual power settings. So if that formula is linear, an hour at 50% power only adds 30 minutes of shaft life usage. The government contract will have specified the expected usage of the vessel in terms of how many hours at sea, and at what speeds, for the life of the vessel so that it can be designed to meet the expected needs. For example, Navy airplanes like the F-14 were designed to withstand a certain number of catapulted takeoffs and arrested landings (4,000, IIRC), and this limit being reached was a major factor in the F-14 being retired.
Manpower in the Columbia is lower than the ships it will replace (Ohio SSBNs), because, as I said, there's a higher degree of automation. For example, trimming the boat is controlled by software instead of manually. So instead of someone having to manually calculate how much water needs to be in which trim tanks to keep the boat level after it does something like ejecting trash, or firing a torpedo, or changing depth, then manually opening and closing valves and turning pumps on and off to move water around to level the boat or obtain the desired buoyancy, it's all done via software. Virginia class SSNs also require fewer crew than Los Angeles class submarines for the same reason. Ford has been advertised as also requiring fewer crew than the Nimitz class, although I don't know if that is total crew or crew per ton (larger ships tend to need larger crew just because there's more surface to mop and repaint - the fight against rust never ends).
As far as costs of acquisition and annual operating costs, the difference in average annual operating costs between the Enterprise and either the Kennedy or America was greater than Enterprise's original construction cost (according to the Brave search engine's AI responses). Oil can get very expensive, especially when you're burning more than a gallon for every foot of travel. I expect that this is a square function relative to displacement, so smaller vessels may be substantially cheaper to move per ton via oil, so the difference in fuel costs per year could be lower in terms of percentage difference. Oil burning ships also require that fleet oilers be produced, so that ships can be refueled while at sea. Nuke ships don't need that, so there'd be an entire class of replenishment ships that wouldn't be needed. Nuke boats being less expensive to operate is why the DoD directed the Department of the Navy to stop including the fueling costs of nuke ships in the initial construction costs when doing comparisons between nuke ships and oil burners (this was done around 15 years ago). Oil prices are volatile, whereas uranium isn't (comparatively). You have to look at the entire system when making such a comparison, and the DoD has done that and the conclusion was an all nuke blue water navy would be cheaper. The problem in the past has been that Congress wouldn't fund it, and part of the reason for that was the first fueling of a nuke ship was included in the construction cost. This made nuke boats appear to be 25% more expensive to build, even though they are 50% cheaper in total over their life (these aren't my numbers, they're DoD numbers, as reported in the press when the DoD made the cost calculation change mentioned above). And as I said in my original post, Congresscritters aren't interested in saving money after their current term.
CDR Sal, great job of providing perspective on "what the hell is a battleship today, anyway?". The short time I worked on the DDX in MS, that was always a discussion around the coffee bar. As an aviator, kind of lost on me. Agree on the nuclear powerplant, but...also feel like this is a smoke screen for something else. Never been a fan of having a president of the nation who is also in the World Wrestling Hall of Fame, but have learned to like the results. Somone wiser than me said "Don't take Trump literally, but DO take him seriously. And remember, he's a lot of things, but he is definitely NOT stupid." Where would we build this? Could we even without a major buildout of our capacity? OBTW, I'd be very cautious of any work hired out to S. Korean ship building, things are getting quite shaky there.
Okay, let's get serious. This ship is basically a DDG(X) destroyer functionality, fit into a bigger hull. Sans the railgun, all this weapons and systems are pretty conservative; either already in use, or clost to such. And it was directly stated that this BBG(X) would replace the DDG(X), not complement it.
My take on it? At some point Navy realized that they simply can't fit all the DDG(X) planned functionality into 13.000 ton hull. Increasing the displacement would cause a lot of raised eyebrows in Congress.
So Navy decided to go the opposite way - and use POTUS love to all things grandiose and bombastic to push for clearly oversized ship, that "incidentally" have a DDG(X) destroyer functionality and role. At some moment in future, they would likely "reluctantly" agree to downscale - so the ship that would actually be ordered, would be 15.000-20.000 ton missile cruiser, likely losing its railgun (or maybe not; the Japanese experiments might produce viable solution).
Its simpler to ask government for a battleship and then "reluctantly" agree to settle with "just a cruiser", than trying to persuade government to build cruiser instead of destroyer.
The 5" is in a sweet spot for main guns. It packs a considerable punch, and is small enough the crew can praise the Lord and pass the ammunition for a longer period with out fatigue setting in.
That would be the best idea. I don't think people understand those 80 cells carry a far heavier load than a ship with 128 Mk 41. And it can have the CPS, deck guns, and at least 2 CIWS. If thye could lengthen the hull by one mk 57 length on each end that gets 96 cells and probably enough room for fore and aft 5" and add 2 more CIWS on the bow. You could use the 36.5MW PMMs developed but not placed in the flight 1 ships. Up to 40MW MT30s and 4 MW RR4500s and have almost 10 more MW of power.
The Flight 3 hull is stretched to the limits; no potential for improvement. No hypersonic missiles could be added, no new weapon systems could be installed. No power reserves for lasers or microwave cannons. In short, the Flight 3 would be obsolete by mid XXI century.
Okay, that makes some sense, but building a combatant that appears to require its own escorts (I haven’t seen the word sonar used in the descriptions of the Defiant class) to operate safely in a war zone is a problem.
Well, they might finally got some kind of anti-torpedo defense working. For example, reverse-engineer the old Soviet RBU-12000 automatic anti-torpedo depth-charge system (with its decoy shells, floating mines and guided dive projectiles).
In Questioning the Carrier, the author offered a pretty compelling image along these lines. History makes clear what kind of mayhem subs can unleash; more SSNs and SSGNs the better... provided we can fill the pipeline. Had a few acquaintances back in the day that sported dolphins; there's some next level skills there.
I was kinda hoping that the “big” announcement was going to be PF. I’ll wait till tomorrow to listen to all the NAVSEA proponent comments about how the NSC design will not support the 100 weapons systems needed to make it a frigate…
Thanks for the in brief. While a 1000 Q's are already spinning in my addled brain, here a few right off the top of my head:
- I agree, this doesn't work without nuclear to establish the AUX power for weps. What kind/how big of a gas turbine plant needs to be installed to generate the excess electrical needs.
- Are we thinking SAG's again from the Lehman era? And how does that disperse the fleet from concentrated attack that most critics of CV(N)BG's concern themselves with.
- The Navy is already struggling to man high end billets. This ship will have an overabundance of high end enlisted ratings.
- I think you are underestimating the price. So why BBG and not CVL? Or a modification of the old Soviet/Russian CVG that had VSTOL, SSM, SAM, etc
- This think won't float for 15 years, minimum like CVNs... even shutting down a build project (FORDS?) will require retooling.
- Where's the shipyards? What building program gets shutdown to this -- to speak nothing of the need for the new Frigate. If we can't get one right, why 2? Here's a link to great shipyard discussion and lack of magazine capacity in today's Navy
Bill, consider Dilandu’s point above. It is a classic Navy tactic. Need five widgets? Ask for 7 and they send you 4. (If you asked for the five you needed, they’d have sent 2.)
I can fit 12 ER-MLRS rounds in a 20 foot TEU now Aside from the absurd idea of an 18 inch gun, their objective for the railgun is 110nm. We could have that capability on a 35 m boat right now.
Why is it absurd? It’s been done before. Nothing would make it easier for the Marines to land than having such support. Nothing says I love you like a 2,500 pound shell.
People on twz are literally posting this same point. It is a valid comparison to this proposal. Let’s tie up a battallion to toss a round toward Paris every once in awhile. Not dissimilar.
A railroad carrying an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) refers to a mobile missile system where ICBMs are deployed on trains, enhancing their survivability by making them harder to target in a first strike. The concept has been explored by several nations, with notable examples including the Soviet RT-23 Molodets, the United States Peacekeeper Rail Garrison, and Russia's ongoing BZhRK Barguzin project.
Assuming it has hypersonics, it will be the longest-*ranged* combatant in the line of battle, far longer strike range than carrier air groups, so, a battleship. The mission is to sail around the *Eastern* Pacific and lob hypersonics at the East China Sea.
Arsenal ship was a different concept - basically a floating missile arsenal, with minimal crew and no sensors or fire control crews of its own, fully relying on control from proper warships.
I made this comment to defend the idea on a YouTube video that was very critical of it. I'll leave it here because I think it represents the likeliest chance this program has of success and mainstream acceptance:
"I think I could provide an argument as to why this idea may be a step in the right direction. First, allow me to point out that if all of these Trump class ships are built, there will be 25 of them in total. Now let me point out that there were 27 Ticonderoga class ships built in total. This is not a coincidence. During the early 1970's, under the leadership of Admiral Zumwalt, the navy sought to bring about a 'high-low' mix in capabilities. What this would entail would be a smaller number of very capable, fast, and large nuclear powered cruisers that would be the apex of naval surface warfare, and a much larger numbers of destroyers and frigates. Ultimately, the nuclear cruisers were to expensive to be built in sufficient numbers and the Ticonderoga class was developed to fill the gap and be the "high" of the high-low mix. This 'Trump class' of ship is really just the revival of this high-low mix doctrine which was tacitly abandoned in the 2010s due to political finagling and the lack of a replacement for the Ticonderoga class, which is causing all sorts of problems for the navy btw.
This brings me to the actual 'battleship' proposal, it's not actually a battleship, it's an overly-large guided missile cruiser. It will have a similar number of VLS cells as a Ticonderoga, or a Type 052 class destroyer, or even the EXACT same number of VLS cells as a KD(X) destroyer. The only difference between the proposed battleship and these ships is that these ships are all 12,000 tons, whereas the proposed USS Defiance will be >35K tons. It's completely overkill, this extra space is going to be used to house, X1 railgun, X2 5in guns, X12 CPS (hypersonic) missiles, and a large short-medium range defensive armament. Much of this is redundant, an incredible amount of electrical energy and space will be used to install defenses to defend this very large ship, which needs to be large to power the defenses.
I would not be surprised if the play from the navy here, is to show a study to POTUS in 3 months time that simply says, "You see Mr. President, if we build a ship that's just 20-25K tons we can have 80% of the capability for 40% of the cost", or something like that. The numbers don't have to be real, they just have to convince the guy. I think Trump would be perfectly happy to say that America is getting a great deal with his 'pocket battleships', they're just gonna have to put the idea in his head inception style. If this happens, the navy will get something that it desperately needs (a guided missile cruiser to replace the Ticonderogas and brings more to the fight than Arleigh Burkes) that they were never going to get otherwise. Sure it will have happened in a roundabout way, and the ships may be a little bigger than they would need to be, but I suppose that's more space for future upgrades.
So there you have it. My big prediction for this whole project is that everyone is going to mock it for easy political points. Then after a series of revisions it will deliver something useful that frankly should’ve happened earlier, but didn’t for the sake of those political points. For reference; see Space Force."
Edit: Sal Mercagliano brought up something important in today’s episode of ‘What’s Going on With Shipping?’. If you want this ship to be the centerpiece of a strike group the same way the Iowa class was used in the 1980s, you need to have a very large ship in order to refuel and restock your escorts and extend their staying power. Staying power and energy is in fact the main benefits of a ship of this size.
It seems to be a flight of pure fantasy to me. Even if there were actually plans somewhere where are we going to build this? Instead of what other ship(s) that we really, really need that are currently being built?
Maybe this serves as some impetus to the moribund system to actually come up with a real plan.
Likely instead of LHD's, San-Antonio type. The existing fleet is viewed as sufficient, and with changing geopolitical situation, warships clearly have a priority over amphibious ships (if your fleet can't establish control over area, there is no point in having amphibious ship ready).
As a systems guy I wonder what the function is and what target set? If we had 8 frigates with each having 16 tubes and a helo and a 5" gun, isn't there more magazine, antisub, anti air and helos in the fight?
Frigates could not carry as capable sensors as larger warships could. Modern, high-powered radars are both HEAVY (and need to be placed high, causing a lot of stability issues for small ships) and energy-demanding. A frigate would have serious problems trying to fit the destroyer-grade radar.
There's a reason why I argue for a "mini-Burke" frigate. Modern sensors take up a lot of weight and area. So does plenty of fuel, food, and (comfortable) crew space.
Well, the Constellation-type evolved into this, essentially. Problem was, that it wasn't exactly what Navy wanted - a 1/3 of Burke's functionality for 1/2 of cost.
That's why putting too much functionality in the smaller ships is rarely efficient. Frigate should not be "mini-destroyer"; it should be a cheap mass escort/patrol unit, designed to hunt submarines and protect convoys.
Well we've all heard the "we need an updated OHP". OHP had 2 helicopters, 76.2mm gun, Phalanx AND Mk13 launcher with 36 SM-1s and 4 Harpoon. My mini-Burke idea was upgrade to 5" gun and 40 VLS with SM-6 and ESSM, for upgraded AAW and ASuW. Use the extra size required by Strike Length cells to stuff more fuel in her
One ("Pyotr Veliky") in service, one ("Admiral Nakhimov") is finishing trials after lengthy and costly refit. Still got more missile cells than "Defiant", by the way)
1 in practice...Pyotr Veliky is on the cusp of being retired, there are no funds for its rebuild and upgrade, especially given how much Admiral Nakhimov cost.
Fully nuclear powered, their oil-fired boilers were installed only to placate old admirals, who were mistrustful toward nuclear propulsion and insisted on having a backup "in case those fancy new atom-smashers would fail".
Reported to be capable of only 20 or so knots on the nuclear power plant alone. 30+ knots when using both oil/nuke. So no, not "fully nuclear powered" unless you consider 20 knots an adequate speed for such a vessel.
You should not believe all "reports" you could find. Some of them are plainly stupid, based on assumptions and presistent myths. Kirov-class oil boilers - there were just two of them, they can't DOUBLE the power required even in theory! - were ONLY for redundancy. Oh, and for coming into foreign ports that did not allow ships under nuclear power sometimes (reactor fully shut, and boilers used to move ship).
Building the infrastructure will be hard enough. But it will be essential to clear the decks of anyone involved in the last several ship building boondoggles. We'll have to find an Elon type to get this done and have it actually work in less than 20 years and without a 5X markup. Call me skeptical.
Infrastructure may be expensive but it shouldn't be hard. Dig, pour concrete, erect steel... we've done that for a couple of centuries now we should have a handle on it.
Elsewhere I (only half jokingly) suggested we get the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office to run the frigate program. They have a decent track record on several classified efforts and the B21. Maybe have them to this instead.
Considering the current state of our shipyards, this is equivalent to JFK's "the moon by the end of the decade" announcement. ""We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." Building a BB (?) will be hard.
Not exactly. You have Ingalss shipyards, which are building San-Antonio amphibious ships. Which are roughly in the same size category (not exactly the same, but close enough). They already suggested a missile cruiser based on San-Antonio hull in past. If the construction of amphibious ships would be reduced (which is highly likely, since warships are more of priority now), the same facilities could handle cruisers/battleships.
We are basically building a Mega-DDG-51 on steroids that is in fact a BMD ship. It should be a SPY-7 ship.
Should have a larger radar if we are building a ship that big. I'm not sure what gives SPY-7 an edge?
Study the radar. The SPY-6 and SPY-7 are bother AESA radar types, but the SPY-7 is not called the Long-Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR) for no reason at all, and that radar family comes in different sizes/formats too just like SPY-6. From an ESM/ECM point of view . . . having different radar in the same formation provides complexity to the adversary Electronic Warfare equation.
As I have said for the last decade and longer . . . every U.S. Surface Combatant, logistics ship, and vessel at sea should have a Non-Rotating 3D AESA radar at the appropriate size, provides fire control and other facility, and fills the place the the AN/SPS-10 used to fill which was on almost every ship.
Lockheed Martin has not shown us a minimal SPY-7 yet, but they do have multiple ship classes they are supporting with sensors.
The SPY-7 is not just an ICBM tracker in Alaska.
Your comparison is made better with an LHA. BIW was to build LPDs as they had built ships that large previously. BIW as configured cannot build this ship right now. Not sure how they got the design contract other than the fact this is another splash money to the MIC for kickbacks effort.
thanks Matt. I agree with you. But the difference between this and the Moon project is America built a brand-new infrastructure to get to the moon in a time we could do that in our budget. And the physical land space was there to do it. This effort will take new shipyard(s) that presents many physical and economic challenges that I am not sure our current economic model ($38T debt & counting) and political landscape can sustain. I think the first step is to partially nationalize the (3) primary Navy shipyards. The partially nationalize is the term I would use (to remove the private board fiduciary requirement to make a profit vice build a cost effective and capable ship as the primary objective. See my other comment and link for an explanation.
To break it down a bit, this project has:
1- Physical risk -- we might not be able to build the ships at all;
2- Duration risk -- we can build the ships but by the time they join the fleet the PLAN is doing regular drills off San Diego;
3- Budget risk -- we can build the ships but only at the cost of something very good.
4- Above all, political risk -- we get a couple of years into the construction process and a hypothetical new administration cancels the project. (And by naming the class after himself DJT has painted a big political target on it.)
I agree the naming optics weren't good. That's a target rich environment on many matters right now. But that is how everyone is approaching their pet rocks these days...name it after the guy and he'll say yes.
You are offering a 'too little too late' scenario, I believe. While I don't see the PLAN exercising off SD even if we do nothing (not their political intent -- exercising off Guam is)... I do see the need to decide what our Navy's mission is in peacetime (well, not declared or hot war). Is our core mission to smack the Houthis or a southern neighbors when it suits us or establish that firewall between our new interests (see new NSS) and the other global powers. We are no longer capable of being the Swiss Army Knife Navy... not enough ships and budget. Time to pick and choose. The NSS has left our allies in our wake, and if that is the sustained future -- a reality without complimentary support (allies) then time to build what we need, not what we want. Once we sail this path, even if we choose to reverse course, it will take much longer to get back.
Excellent comment. I suspect that the image DJT has in his head is the Great White Fleet cruising Westpac. And I wonder how the PLAN will respond to this announcement.
> naming optics weren't good. That's a target rich environment on many matters right now.
Kek.
Uh. Yeah.
> But that is how everyone is approaching their pet rocks these days...name it after the guy and he'll say yes.
Um. No.
My guess is that the point of the "naming optics" is to get the topic out where your average doomscrolling thumb-typing SkinnerBox carbon unit is even aware of it.
Do you have any idea how most people have a galaxy-sized black hole in their experience/minds/awareness where naval/maritime matters are concerned?
I'm already seeing discourse on the topic--stupid, as to be expected, but ya gotta start somewhere--that we'd never have seen X months ago, or years ago. As a result, more people can offer opinions/perspectives who have experience with the sector, however modest. And if not speaking up yet, teed up to do so going forward maybe.
I actually overheard someone talking about "fry gates" in a cafe YESTERDAY EVENING. She (I guessed) was large, and inked, and aposemetically colored, and very mad about Bad Orange Man and the War Machines Of Death, etc.
Her loud and bulky animus broke into my field of attention--primarily from a sense of situational awareness. How startling to suspect that...by golly, she was talking about...naval/maritime policy? Kinda sorta more or less. In the brief spate of overhearing, I didn't get a clue as to where she'd gotten connected with the topic. Not likely here, nor gCaptain, etc. Double keke. I have no idea where her type get their "facts" from these days. But it sure was a quick response frame. And SOMEBODY got inside her infoscape, and put the topic there.
TDS, whoever is engineering it, can be a very useful laser pointer for drawing catly attention in desired directions.
And of course Cmdr's point about the "DEFIANT" was spot on, something I chuckled aloud at, seeing the first blatt on the topic.
"4- Above all, political risk -- we get a couple of years into the construction process and a hypothetical new administration cancels the project."
^ Not one penny. It is going to get cancelled before it is finished.
> we can build the ships but by the time they join the fleet the PLAN is doing regular drills off San Diego;
Do nothing, stick with the POR, and that happens anyway.
Agreed. But their leadership isn't steering any better. If they cared they would be down in Gulfport with a stack of missile armed containers on a fast supply boat they just cleaned up and assigned a crew to. then walk from there over to USMI and show us a composite USV with LO and those same missile boxes concealed within. (A for instance)
To put it differently, not building the BBG's has a different and not necessarily better risk profile.
We have been told, with reasonable footnotes, that in the case of Somali welfare fraud in Minnesota ALONE, some $9 bn was heisted.
Click-hit data suggests that's 4.5 B-12 stealth bombers.
Or ten Constellation-class frigates. (7.3 according to the CBO.)
One state, one organized subpopulation. One set of frauds.
Bill, I mention this because of your observation about economics. I see a bigger issue: leadership.
My state--Washington--has two perma-installed US Senators, both in their late 60s, neither of whom have had anything resembling a real job in their entire lives. The idea of them voting on plans and appropriations for anything of importance--like major infrastructure and logistics projects/restoration/forecasting--is one of my most gnawing awake-at-three-a.m. thoughts.
When Patty Murray was maneuvered into the WA state lege via redistricting, in the mid-'90s (launched in the late '80s) drive to turn WA politics blue forever, she replaced a guy named Bill Kiskaddon. Fascinating man. Marine vet, BS/MS EE, Boeing engineer, master's in social work, and Savoyard. The last Republican to be elected to that district's representation.
Patty Murray got a bachelor's in gym at a state university, then worked briefly as a preschool teacher. Then the "mommy in tennis shoes" was advanced systematically to the major position she has held for 32 years now.
Maria Cantwell ever had only one job--a few years (three iirc) as some C-suite marketing droid for Real Networks, emplaced there by Rob Glaser, former Microsofty, turbo-Dem, and founder of the "Trump is Putin" Web site.
Her. Only. Ever. Job. Then she was shunted into politics, representing Microsoft's district, then to the US Senate seat previously held by Slade Gorton. She's occupied that for going on 26 years. She's on both the "public works" and "fisheries and merchant marine" committees of the Senate. She knows nothing about either but what others have told her, and told her to think.
So my rant-point, Bill, is that there is a fundamental deliberately engineered weakness of leadership where addressing all these major challenges is concerned. This leadership thinks nothing of--and would defend--$9 bn in Somali welfare fraud in ONE urban area. We can bet that countless billions are wasted locally/regionally here in Pugetopolis on similar schemes...while real-world/productive/concrete needs scream for attention.
Washington state had ONE yard able to do the work and put in a bid on state ferry modernization...and lost it to a foreign yard, as our shizzwit waterboy Governor reassured everyone that the cheaper foreign bid couldn't possibly wind up with overruns later, and besides, what they learn in the FIRST contracts will CREATE EFFICIENCIES for the later ones! (Uh...couldn't that be argued for the domestic yard as well? Couldn't the "more expensive" price tag be balanced by, say, the local jobs created, and their effects on local economies?)
Meantime the capacity to do this work domestically/regionally dries up, and there is zero accountability for bad decisions.
Forgive me if these observations on local/regional politics are torquing. It's just so hard to see this long-standing maritime region, in this quintessentially maritime republic, be led by people whose entire resume consists of being muppets. The idea of "nationalizing" yards, putting them further under the control of said muppets, makes my marrow shiver.
Thanks for reading this long rant.
The entire defense industrial complex must be US state property answering to the Chief of Staff of a US General Staff and civilian-managed for private profit as long as state goals -- defined by The US General Staff -- are met. The properties themselves, of the defense corporations, must belong to The USG under DOW stewardship.
No more bright idea fairies from CA, WA, OH, IL, NY, MO, TX, AL & Georgia originating -- and retired GOs and ADMs promoting -- re-polished, over-priced (but privately profitable) junk to DOW minions who haven't thought through what they really need and can't anyway because they lack enough math do strategy.
Private profit alone cannot -- and very obviously does not, does not even want to -- support national sovereignty. Our financializers have taught us this lesson in the clearest possible tones and images: rampant national personal and national disunity, cum despair, financializers themselves strung out on cocaine and their victims on fentanyl.
Thank you for your educated, cultured realism on US military conditions. They stink and must be made well. The obdurate habit of considering the US Armed Services as separate entities competing for dollars could be deemed a bitter monument to professional military irresponsibility, not to mention civilian ignorance. Only more so is obsession with "US predominance," "exceptionalism," phantasms if ever there were some.
Our US national goal is unity through such conditions as, orderly borders, diplomatic courtesy, homeland defense & coordination with India and Russia of international stability.
Having been raised by shipbuilders who viewed the space program as just another maritime endeavor (the desert being space instead of bluewater)...I'd say that "going to the moon" was orders of magnitude simpler than rebuilding the Republic's fleet.
Maybe (dimly possibly) acquainting the masses with the entire concept of how, and why, this is a maritime nation, and what that means, and all, has to be a next step.
I laughed out loud at the "Trump branding." Saw it as a masterful way to get the TDS types talking about maritime policy. Maybe. Or at least try to introduce it into more general discourse.
I don’t understand why this wasn’t 20% more displacement and nuclear. Cost only? Or more?
By the realistic timeline of construction, we'll have that problem solved.
Unobtainium Obtained?
Piketon is supposed to be spinning up more production.
Good to Go!
Weeeeeeel, Russia have a lot of nuclear fuel (our and European, that those fools gave us as "waste", and even paid us to store it... before realizing, that Rosatom guys perfected repocession technology and could extract fuel-grade materials from spent rods) for... right price)
HEU for NNP is produced in the US. Almost all fuel for commercial reactors is imported. Certain members of Congress would love to push NNP to to LEU or HALEU, which would immediately kill the remaining domestic fuel enrichment industry.
They make it in Piketon OH. Just not enough so we do import some.
And Piketon is supposed to be increasing production.
Just this month. https://www.centrusenergy.com/news/centrus-to-build-new-training-operations-maintenance-hall-in-ohio-to-support-expansion-plans/
There aren't enough facilities in USA that could build nuclear-powered warships. Going nuclear would meant cutting into industrial potential required either for carriers or submarines. Which is what USN won't do.
To paraphrase the old Shoe cartoon: "And I'm also announcing today Donald Trump Nuclear Shipyard. (Formerly Philadelphia Naval Shipyard)"
Yep.
Bringing in the nuclear power people would add many years to the timeline.
Why? We already build nuclear plants for the Fords. Put them into these, and get out of the way.
If it’s that easy, sure.
Having encountered those guys before, I just doubt it would be that easy.
Historical data shows that a nuclear powered ship costs 50% LESS over its lifetime compared to a comparable conventional powered ship. Both USS Ford and USS Columbia have power plants that will not need refueling. The problem is that the entire fuel cost is up-front. That makes it more expensive today, but cheaper for the next 50 years. Congresscritters are usually not too interested in reducing how much money their replacements will have to spend. We'd be able to afford a substantially larger navy, and for less money, if congress had been buying only nuclear powered ships for the last 60 years. So the stupidity of the last 60 years will result in stupidity for the next 60.
I don’t know. Back in the mid-80s, Virginia class cruisers had 100 more sailors in Engineering department than the Ticonderoga class cruisers and Kidd class destroyers that had comparable combat capability.
The Virginia class cruisers were retired before their first refueling, so we don't really know what their actual lifetime costs would have been. I looked up some analyses about the Virginia cruisers. They were considered to be more expensive to operate than the Ticonderogaes, but the real issue was they couldn't support the SPY-1 RADAR, which was a major leap forward in offensive and defensive capability. Modern ships are being designed to require fewer crew because of higher automation. For example both the Columbia and Virginia class submarines automate a lot of things that had to be manually performed in their predecessors, reducing crew count. And guess what is being said about the Ticonderogaes today? They're too expensive to operate. But USS Enterprise, CVN-65 had an annual operating cost less than half of USS America and USS John F. Kennedy (which were essentially oil-burning versions of the Enterprise). These are essentially the only ships that we can do such a comparison on. Nuke subs are sooooo much more capable than diesel subs that any comparison between them would be laughable, like comparing a Model T to pretty much any current car.
No oil burner has comparable combat capability to a nuke boat. While they may have comparable offensive and defensive weapons, as well as sensors, a major part of combat power is mobility. A modern nuke boat (like Ford or Columbia) can go full speed for it's entire life at sea (weather and maintenance schedules of equipment permitting) because no matter what power the reactors are outputting, the fuel degrades at the same rate. At 30 knots, a Ticonderoga class cruiser runs out of fuel in 3,300 miles. At 20 knots, it can go 6,000 miles. Because our fleet oilers max out at 20 knots our carriers often have to refuel their escorts after a high speed run because they're low on fuel, and the oilers (if not found and sunk) will take a couple of days to catch up. This has a major negative impact on the effectiveness of the US Navy. Speed helps ships to avoid detection by satellites (satellites orbits are predictable, you just maneuver to stay over their horizon). If you don't have to worry about range, and you're at least as fast as your enemy's conventionally powered ships, you can choose when and where to engage. The mobility advantages of a nuke ship simply cannot be overcome by an oil burner.
This statement is untrue:
“A modern nuke boat (like Ford or Columbia) can go full speed for it's entire life at sea (weather and maintenance schedules of equipment permitting) because no matter what power the reactors are outputting, the fuel degrades at the same rate.” You are right that the annual costs are less for fuel, but that is offset in acquisition cost and manpower cost.
I agree that the nuke cruisers were retired early because the navy wanted to focus on aegis systems.
Ticonderoga cruisers cost more now beciase they’re old now, and can’t be upgraded with updated radars like we have on flight III DDGs.
Um, yes, that statement is true. Both the Ford and Columbia are designed to never need refueling. The limit for maximum speed duration isn't fuel, it's wear and tear on things like the steam turbines, cooling pumps, etc., and that limit is measured in years. For instance, a shaft may have a requirement to withstand the equivalent of 100,000 hours at full speed before failure. But the vessel isn't expected to be at full power its entire life. It spends time in port for maintenance, crew R&R, etc. There will be a formula (different for each class of ship) for shaft life usage based on actual power settings. So if that formula is linear, an hour at 50% power only adds 30 minutes of shaft life usage. The government contract will have specified the expected usage of the vessel in terms of how many hours at sea, and at what speeds, for the life of the vessel so that it can be designed to meet the expected needs. For example, Navy airplanes like the F-14 were designed to withstand a certain number of catapulted takeoffs and arrested landings (4,000, IIRC), and this limit being reached was a major factor in the F-14 being retired.
Manpower in the Columbia is lower than the ships it will replace (Ohio SSBNs), because, as I said, there's a higher degree of automation. For example, trimming the boat is controlled by software instead of manually. So instead of someone having to manually calculate how much water needs to be in which trim tanks to keep the boat level after it does something like ejecting trash, or firing a torpedo, or changing depth, then manually opening and closing valves and turning pumps on and off to move water around to level the boat or obtain the desired buoyancy, it's all done via software. Virginia class SSNs also require fewer crew than Los Angeles class submarines for the same reason. Ford has been advertised as also requiring fewer crew than the Nimitz class, although I don't know if that is total crew or crew per ton (larger ships tend to need larger crew just because there's more surface to mop and repaint - the fight against rust never ends).
As far as costs of acquisition and annual operating costs, the difference in average annual operating costs between the Enterprise and either the Kennedy or America was greater than Enterprise's original construction cost (according to the Brave search engine's AI responses). Oil can get very expensive, especially when you're burning more than a gallon for every foot of travel. I expect that this is a square function relative to displacement, so smaller vessels may be substantially cheaper to move per ton via oil, so the difference in fuel costs per year could be lower in terms of percentage difference. Oil burning ships also require that fleet oilers be produced, so that ships can be refueled while at sea. Nuke ships don't need that, so there'd be an entire class of replenishment ships that wouldn't be needed. Nuke boats being less expensive to operate is why the DoD directed the Department of the Navy to stop including the fueling costs of nuke ships in the initial construction costs when doing comparisons between nuke ships and oil burners (this was done around 15 years ago). Oil prices are volatile, whereas uranium isn't (comparatively). You have to look at the entire system when making such a comparison, and the DoD has done that and the conclusion was an all nuke blue water navy would be cheaper. The problem in the past has been that Congress wouldn't fund it, and part of the reason for that was the first fueling of a nuke ship was included in the construction cost. This made nuke boats appear to be 25% more expensive to build, even though they are 50% cheaper in total over their life (these aren't my numbers, they're DoD numbers, as reported in the press when the DoD made the cost calculation change mentioned above). And as I said in my original post, Congresscritters aren't interested in saving money after their current term.
CDR Sal, great job of providing perspective on "what the hell is a battleship today, anyway?". The short time I worked on the DDX in MS, that was always a discussion around the coffee bar. As an aviator, kind of lost on me. Agree on the nuclear powerplant, but...also feel like this is a smoke screen for something else. Never been a fan of having a president of the nation who is also in the World Wrestling Hall of Fame, but have learned to like the results. Somone wiser than me said "Don't take Trump literally, but DO take him seriously. And remember, he's a lot of things, but he is definitely NOT stupid." Where would we build this? Could we even without a major buildout of our capacity? OBTW, I'd be very cautious of any work hired out to S. Korean ship building, things are getting quite shaky there.
Okay, let's get serious. This ship is basically a DDG(X) destroyer functionality, fit into a bigger hull. Sans the railgun, all this weapons and systems are pretty conservative; either already in use, or clost to such. And it was directly stated that this BBG(X) would replace the DDG(X), not complement it.
My take on it? At some point Navy realized that they simply can't fit all the DDG(X) planned functionality into 13.000 ton hull. Increasing the displacement would cause a lot of raised eyebrows in Congress.
So Navy decided to go the opposite way - and use POTUS love to all things grandiose and bombastic to push for clearly oversized ship, that "incidentally" have a DDG(X) destroyer functionality and role. At some moment in future, they would likely "reluctantly" agree to downscale - so the ship that would actually be ordered, would be 15.000-20.000 ton missile cruiser, likely losing its railgun (or maybe not; the Japanese experiments might produce viable solution).
Its simpler to ask government for a battleship and then "reluctantly" agree to settle with "just a cruiser", than trying to persuade government to build cruiser instead of destroyer.
Zumwalt hull and propulsion, 2 5" and a few more Mk41 VLS?
Here ya go: https://youtu.be/V6pigjVPdAc
The 5" is in a sweet spot for main guns. It packs a considerable punch, and is small enough the crew can praise the Lord and pass the ammunition for a longer period with out fatigue setting in.
Likely something like enlarged DDG(X) with integrated payload module for hypersonic missiles.
That would be the best idea. I don't think people understand those 80 cells carry a far heavier load than a ship with 128 Mk 41. And it can have the CPS, deck guns, and at least 2 CIWS. If thye could lengthen the hull by one mk 57 length on each end that gets 96 cells and probably enough room for fore and aft 5" and add 2 more CIWS on the bow. You could use the 36.5MW PMMs developed but not placed in the flight 1 ships. Up to 40MW MT30s and 4 MW RR4500s and have almost 10 more MW of power.
Yep, looks like a DDG on steroids. What’s the advantage of building one of these over two flight 3’s? There are some clear downsides.
The Flight 3 hull is stretched to the limits; no potential for improvement. No hypersonic missiles could be added, no new weapon systems could be installed. No power reserves for lasers or microwave cannons. In short, the Flight 3 would be obsolete by mid XXI century.
Okay, that makes some sense, but building a combatant that appears to require its own escorts (I haven’t seen the word sonar used in the descriptions of the Defiant class) to operate safely in a war zone is a problem.
Better question, why this instead of a flt II Zumwalt.
Zumwalt appears cursed by a lot of people. Dr. Alex is an exception; give it a 5" to replace the fore AGS, and more cells to replace the aft one.
As a submariner, I only see a High-Value Target (HVT)...
Well, they might finally got some kind of anti-torpedo defense working. For example, reverse-engineer the old Soviet RBU-12000 automatic anti-torpedo depth-charge system (with its decoy shells, floating mines and guided dive projectiles).
Mk 58.
No capital ship would ever sail unaccompanied.
It will now. The frigates won't keep up or provide much help. And clearly they don't seem to care about the USVs.
Don't let a Mk50 or two from the helis hit you in the ass.
In Questioning the Carrier, the author offered a pretty compelling image along these lines. History makes clear what kind of mayhem subs can unleash; more SSNs and SSGNs the better... provided we can fill the pipeline. Had a few acquaintances back in the day that sported dolphins; there's some next level skills there.
I was kinda hoping that the “big” announcement was going to be PF. I’ll wait till tomorrow to listen to all the NAVSEA proponent comments about how the NSC design will not support the 100 weapons systems needed to make it a frigate…
Thanks for the in brief. While a 1000 Q's are already spinning in my addled brain, here a few right off the top of my head:
- I agree, this doesn't work without nuclear to establish the AUX power for weps. What kind/how big of a gas turbine plant needs to be installed to generate the excess electrical needs.
- Are we thinking SAG's again from the Lehman era? And how does that disperse the fleet from concentrated attack that most critics of CV(N)BG's concern themselves with.
- The Navy is already struggling to man high end billets. This ship will have an overabundance of high end enlisted ratings.
- I think you are underestimating the price. So why BBG and not CVL? Or a modification of the old Soviet/Russian CVG that had VSTOL, SSM, SAM, etc
- This think won't float for 15 years, minimum like CVNs... even shutting down a build project (FORDS?) will require retooling.
- Where's the shipyards? What building program gets shutdown to this -- to speak nothing of the need for the new Frigate. If we can't get one right, why 2? Here's a link to great shipyard discussion and lack of magazine capacity in today's Navy
https://substack.com/home/post/p-182132195
Bill, consider Dilandu’s point above. It is a classic Navy tactic. Need five widgets? Ask for 7 and they send you 4. (If you asked for the five you needed, they’d have sent 2.)
Trump is thinking small.
The new battleships should be nuclear powered with 18” guns.
He should also have included a brand new shipyard and steel mill to build the ships.
Our current shipyards can’t seem to build frigates.
I am not sure if our steel mills can build the plates for the hulls and the tubes for the guns.
Where is Henry Ford, Henry Kaiser, Andrew Carnegie and Hyman Rickover when you really need them?
Be glad you have Elon Musk; such peoples are rare.
Maybe he’s the answer to our maritime problem.
I can fit 12 ER-MLRS rounds in a 20 foot TEU now Aside from the absurd idea of an 18 inch gun, their objective for the railgun is 110nm. We could have that capability on a 35 m boat right now.
Why is it absurd? It’s been done before. Nothing would make it easier for the Marines to land than having such support. Nothing says I love you like a 2,500 pound shell.
All Marines need is a rifle, bayonet and a back pack full of Crayons.
And an occasional rain of 2,500 lb shells LOL
Do we want Marines or not? If so we need amphibs and firepower.
We need Marines!
0311 style!
Then why have we not integrated gmlrs onto ships? The low maintenance solution that exists.
HIMARS has not lived up to expectations.
Then I guess we should bring back railroad based artillery too. Blowing 40 guys up in a turret every fee decades is just the price of business.
Your snarky remarks literally make no sense.
People on twz are literally posting this same point. It is a valid comparison to this proposal. Let’s tie up a battallion to toss a round toward Paris every once in awhile. Not dissimilar.
Ever hear of the railroad car based ICBM?
A railroad carrying an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) refers to a mobile missile system where ICBMs are deployed on trains, enhancing their survivability by making them harder to target in a first strike. The concept has been explored by several nations, with notable examples including the Soviet RT-23 Molodets, the United States Peacekeeper Rail Garrison, and Russia's ongoing BZhRK Barguzin project.
That’s a but different than railroad artillery, but yes. Also Midgetmen by truck. Is anyone currently using such a system?
Unknown, possibly RU and China. NorKs could be using it.
I don't think the ICBM system was a very good idea due to security and danger of Items carried. Imagine a looting gang or a train wreck LOL.
SASS was/is/possibly carried by semi trailer trucks in the long ago on the highways by secured freight.
Assuming it has hypersonics, it will be the longest-*ranged* combatant in the line of battle, far longer strike range than carrier air groups, so, a battleship. The mission is to sail around the *Eastern* Pacific and lob hypersonics at the East China Sea.
If you want to lob missiles into the ECS then a bomber is a better way to do it than a surface ship.
Maybe. But I like redundancy when it comes to firepower.
The design seems light from the arsenal ship ideas. Only 128 VLS and 12 Prompt Strike?
Get rid of railgun, make the ship a little shorter.... that's what would fit comfortably.
Arsenal ship was a different concept - basically a floating missile arsenal, with minimal crew and no sensors or fire control crews of its own, fully relying on control from proper warships.
And why the Mk 41 at all. It's maxed out.
We're probably not going to replace SM-6 and-3 for awhile. Most tubes will probably end up being loaded with those.
I made this comment to defend the idea on a YouTube video that was very critical of it. I'll leave it here because I think it represents the likeliest chance this program has of success and mainstream acceptance:
"I think I could provide an argument as to why this idea may be a step in the right direction. First, allow me to point out that if all of these Trump class ships are built, there will be 25 of them in total. Now let me point out that there were 27 Ticonderoga class ships built in total. This is not a coincidence. During the early 1970's, under the leadership of Admiral Zumwalt, the navy sought to bring about a 'high-low' mix in capabilities. What this would entail would be a smaller number of very capable, fast, and large nuclear powered cruisers that would be the apex of naval surface warfare, and a much larger numbers of destroyers and frigates. Ultimately, the nuclear cruisers were to expensive to be built in sufficient numbers and the Ticonderoga class was developed to fill the gap and be the "high" of the high-low mix. This 'Trump class' of ship is really just the revival of this high-low mix doctrine which was tacitly abandoned in the 2010s due to political finagling and the lack of a replacement for the Ticonderoga class, which is causing all sorts of problems for the navy btw.
This brings me to the actual 'battleship' proposal, it's not actually a battleship, it's an overly-large guided missile cruiser. It will have a similar number of VLS cells as a Ticonderoga, or a Type 052 class destroyer, or even the EXACT same number of VLS cells as a KD(X) destroyer. The only difference between the proposed battleship and these ships is that these ships are all 12,000 tons, whereas the proposed USS Defiance will be >35K tons. It's completely overkill, this extra space is going to be used to house, X1 railgun, X2 5in guns, X12 CPS (hypersonic) missiles, and a large short-medium range defensive armament. Much of this is redundant, an incredible amount of electrical energy and space will be used to install defenses to defend this very large ship, which needs to be large to power the defenses.
I would not be surprised if the play from the navy here, is to show a study to POTUS in 3 months time that simply says, "You see Mr. President, if we build a ship that's just 20-25K tons we can have 80% of the capability for 40% of the cost", or something like that. The numbers don't have to be real, they just have to convince the guy. I think Trump would be perfectly happy to say that America is getting a great deal with his 'pocket battleships', they're just gonna have to put the idea in his head inception style. If this happens, the navy will get something that it desperately needs (a guided missile cruiser to replace the Ticonderogas and brings more to the fight than Arleigh Burkes) that they were never going to get otherwise. Sure it will have happened in a roundabout way, and the ships may be a little bigger than they would need to be, but I suppose that's more space for future upgrades.
So there you have it. My big prediction for this whole project is that everyone is going to mock it for easy political points. Then after a series of revisions it will deliver something useful that frankly should’ve happened earlier, but didn’t for the sake of those political points. For reference; see Space Force."
Edit: Sal Mercagliano brought up something important in today’s episode of ‘What’s Going on With Shipping?’. If you want this ship to be the centerpiece of a strike group the same way the Iowa class was used in the 1980s, you need to have a very large ship in order to refuel and restock your escorts and extend their staying power. Staying power and energy is in fact the main benefits of a ship of this size.
Fully agree and correspond with my own thinking.
It is in my opinion, the ideal outcome. Now, if the navy could get its act together on the subject of F/A-XX...
I think that’s an OSD-level problem. And it bothers me immensely, as F/A-XX should be just behind B-21 and ahead of F-47 in priority.
Regardless of the level, it is a Navy problem.
I hate to be *that guy* but...
It seems to be a flight of pure fantasy to me. Even if there were actually plans somewhere where are we going to build this? Instead of what other ship(s) that we really, really need that are currently being built?
Maybe this serves as some impetus to the moribund system to actually come up with a real plan.
Likely instead of LHD's, San-Antonio type. The existing fleet is viewed as sufficient, and with changing geopolitical situation, warships clearly have a priority over amphibious ships (if your fleet can't establish control over area, there is no point in having amphibious ship ready).
To make this ship happen we would need to give up LHAs at minimum.
Good point. Create the demand and the supply will follow.
Excellent analysis CDR Salamander
As a systems guy I wonder what the function is and what target set? If we had 8 frigates with each having 16 tubes and a helo and a 5" gun, isn't there more magazine, antisub, anti air and helos in the fight?
Frigates could not carry as capable sensors as larger warships could. Modern, high-powered radars are both HEAVY (and need to be placed high, causing a lot of stability issues for small ships) and energy-demanding. A frigate would have serious problems trying to fit the destroyer-grade radar.
And yet this proposal uses a flt III radar and SEWIP III.
Good point. Have 2 Burkes and 4 frigates for the same price. Put a radar on a drone and launch and store it from the Burke.
There's a reason why I argue for a "mini-Burke" frigate. Modern sensors take up a lot of weight and area. So does plenty of fuel, food, and (comfortable) crew space.
Well, the Constellation-type evolved into this, essentially. Problem was, that it wasn't exactly what Navy wanted - a 1/3 of Burke's functionality for 1/2 of cost.
"1/3 of Burke's functionality for 1/2 of cost"
That math will always be the case to one degree or another, smaller ships suffer from loss of economy of scale.
That's why putting too much functionality in the smaller ships is rarely efficient. Frigate should not be "mini-destroyer"; it should be a cheap mass escort/patrol unit, designed to hunt submarines and protect convoys.
Protecting convoys entails more than hunting subs, it has to have a capable anti air suite too.
And some close in air defense. Don't put SM3 mission on an escort.
So I can buy 2 burkes or 4 frigates that can escort more cargo.
Well we've all heard the "we need an updated OHP". OHP had 2 helicopters, 76.2mm gun, Phalanx AND Mk13 launcher with 36 SM-1s and 4 Harpoon. My mini-Burke idea was upgrade to 5" gun and 40 VLS with SM-6 and ESSM, for upgraded AAW and ASuW. Use the extra size required by Strike Length cells to stuff more fuel in her
Great ship but not an escort frigate. We need about 40 of the frigates now.
Reminiscent of the once greatly feared Kirov class which was nuclear powered. I guess there's still two in service. Allegedly 28k tons.
One ("Pyotr Veliky") in service, one ("Admiral Nakhimov") is finishing trials after lengthy and costly refit. Still got more missile cells than "Defiant", by the way)
1 in practice...Pyotr Veliky is on the cusp of being retired, there are no funds for its rebuild and upgrade, especially given how much Admiral Nakhimov cost.
"Semi" nuclear powered.
Fully nuclear powered, their oil-fired boilers were installed only to placate old admirals, who were mistrustful toward nuclear propulsion and insisted on having a backup "in case those fancy new atom-smashers would fail".
Reported to be capable of only 20 or so knots on the nuclear power plant alone. 30+ knots when using both oil/nuke. So no, not "fully nuclear powered" unless you consider 20 knots an adequate speed for such a vessel.
You should not believe all "reports" you could find. Some of them are plainly stupid, based on assumptions and presistent myths. Kirov-class oil boilers - there were just two of them, they can't DOUBLE the power required even in theory! - were ONLY for redundancy. Oh, and for coming into foreign ports that did not allow ships under nuclear power sometimes (reactor fully shut, and boilers used to move ship).
Right... but "you" have the skinny on Kirov nuke power only speed, right? Everyone else is wrong. Good to know.
Building the infrastructure will be hard enough. But it will be essential to clear the decks of anyone involved in the last several ship building boondoggles. We'll have to find an Elon type to get this done and have it actually work in less than 20 years and without a 5X markup. Call me skeptical.
Infrastructure may be expensive but it shouldn't be hard. Dig, pour concrete, erect steel... we've done that for a couple of centuries now we should have a handle on it.
Elsewhere I (only half jokingly) suggested we get the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office to run the frigate program. They have a decent track record on several classified efforts and the B21. Maybe have them to this instead.