All right, settle down.
We’re not going to build “Trump Battleships”.
Come on, now. You should know by now that you have to take
everything Trump says with a battleship size grain of salt. He routinely puts
forth ideas that are not meant to be serious and/or never come close to
fruition. Remember Canada as the 51st state, buying Greenland, replacing EMALS
with steam catapults, etc.? Sometimes he
makes these statements as part of negotiating ploys and sometimes just for
amusement value. I note the article indicates he wants to have the ships
operational in 2.5 yrs! We barely built BBs in 2.5 -3 years even during WWII.
The Navy can't even build a LCS or frigate in 2.5 yrs let alone a BB.
The schematic of the vessel is pure fantasy and shows
non-existent equipment (lasers, rail gun).
Even calling the drawing a battleship is ridiculous. A supposed battleship with 28 VLS, one major
gun (rail gun), and 12 strike missiles is a joke. That barely qualifies as a destroyer.
Do you recall what happened just a couple days before Trump
announced his battleship? That’s right,
China announced a supposed large UAV mothership that could launch a hundred
tiny UAVs.[1] Then, a couple days later,
out of nowhere, Trump announces a battleship.
Anyone see a connection, here? Do
you think Trump may have just been trying to one up China and grab the public
relations spotlight back?
This is an amusing story but it ain't gonna happen. Just
treat it as fun! Think of it as a
Christmas present of humor.
______________________________
It's pretty interesting the amount of coverage and reality it's supposedly representing. The official Navy website already has a dedicated page for the "Defiant class", and the BBG is mentioned under the Golden Fleet section as well.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I don't see this happening, but at the same time, folks went to lots of trouble to legitimize this monster- even specifying that it'll be built by Hanwha in Philly. Having an announcement with the C-in-C, SecDef, SecNav, and CNO... That says that someone is taking it seriously. Yes its probably pretty unrealistic, but having to retract all the statements and posts on official sites will be a bit embarrassing, so I imagine someone thought ahead about that.
Hanwa gets the frigate. The BB design contract is between G&C, HII, and BIW.
DeleteI laughed aloud when reading the specs; the Battleship terminology is only used to impress the general public. But the hull size checks out and technically only the timescale is (completely) unrealistic:
ReplyDeleteThe graphic has a typo, it's meant to say 128x Mk41. A sensible number, though more always welcome.
CPS will be well over $10M a shot & reserved for very specific targets, so a dozen is not unexpected.
600MW lasers seem over-the-top for antidrone defence so maybe they'll be used in a traditional CIWS role too (scaling up to this output is not especially complex). The Japanese already have a 100kW test platform aboard their Asuka and the British equivalent's in-service date is late-2027, so this is mature enough tech to be in a ~2032 Trump Class.
The 32MJ railgun has been around for a long time - maybe they've made progress on barrel longevity during the past 10 years - but this seems the least likely inclusion.
The graphic the President used to unveil this new super weapon as a PR spotlight to one up China has a glaring typo? Wow does not inspire confidence
DeleteRegardless, perhaps we can just buy the Kirov class battlecruiser from Russia and rename them DJT Class - they have 170+ cells and are nuclear powered. Solves multiple aims - we get the Trump class BBG and make buddy buddy with Russians as is the new doctrine of the US. The Russians apparently have good 'hypersonic' missiles (They worked in Ukraine sort of I think - Kinzhal) so we can add to our arsenal. /s
"it's meant to say 128x Mk41"
DeleteI didn't even pick up on that. Good catch. It would make a lot more sense, wouldn't it?
Yes, logical plus Mk41 only comes in multiples of 8 cells.
DeleteMy own typos: I did of course mean 600kW lasers, and meant to write CPS will LIKELY be over $10M: it's evidently larger than even a strike-length Mk41, more like a mini Minuteman.
I think they're missing the boat here... this would be a great place and time to resurrect the MCLWG!!! What good is a "battleship", if it can't lay claim to having the largest guns afloat???
ReplyDelete"this would be a great place and time to resurrect the MCLWG!!!"
DeleteIf you're building a true battleship, no. If you're building a cruiser and are just going to call it a battleship then, yes.
Large caliber guns are only useful with sufficient density (volume of fire) so if you you're going to install an 8" gun, common sense says it has to be at least two triple gun mounts. One (or even two) 8" guns is sort of a case of, what was the point?
The only feature of this concept that says "battleship" is the size. Capability-wise, it's a cruiser. But perhaps this is how the Navy gets a new cruiser(??). Aegis/SPY and 128 cells says "I'm a 2020s Tico", and the extra size/power generation says that maybe someone is taking directed-energy close-in defense, (plus lots of room for legacy systems) seriously. The rail gun and terminology is just fluff. Hypersonics and nuclear-tipped missiles on a surface ship... more expensive pointless fluff.
DeleteBut back to the 8in gun- If we deleted the vaporware from the bridge forward, and put a triple, or perhaps two twin mounts there, that's a reasonable amount of usable firepower for a ship at the center of a SAG, although it's a bit light for being NGFS-useful... plus you'd not want this monster doing close inshore work. Of course two triples would be best...
But at some point, we've fallen down the multi-purpose rabbit hole again, and should just build gun and missile ships separately.
Now, you say "what's the point", but I have to gently disagree. Yes, it'll cost money to bring the 8in back, but considering the shell weights vs the mounts size and weight compared to the 5in... I think it's worth doing, even if a ship only has a couple.
( of course, we need to start using it everywhere we can, maybe even replacing the 5in across the board, so that we don't have a whole parts and ammo supply chain for a handful of guns ala Zumwalt)
Notional Modern Battleship Concept: USS Donald J. Trump (BB1)
ReplyDeleteExploring a speculative ~108,000-ton nuclear-powered battleship (Neo-Montana class, leveraging Ford-class hull tech) to address NGFS gaps for Marines and provide robust surface firepower.
Key Specs:
Guns: 4x triple 16"/70 smoothbore; smart shells (AP, HE, guided, ramjet) for 150–250 nm range, low-cost/high-volume fire immune to EW.
Missiles: 192 Mk 57 VLS (ESSM, SM-6/3, Tomahawk, LRASM, hypersonics).
Protection: 18" composite belt, 9" decks, torpedo bulges for high survivability.
Propulsion: Dual A1B reactors; 33+ kts, unlimited range.
Extras: Drone/UUV wing, Aegis-X, automation (~1,800 crew).
Est. Cost: ~$20B.
Rationale: Sustained, affordable NGFS vs. fortified shores/drone swarms; complements missile-heavy fleet with kinetic punch.
Pure fan concept—real build faces budget/doctrine hurdles (e.g., Zumwalt lessons). Thoughts: Do big guns still have a role, or stick to more DDGs/frigates? Feedback welcome!
You're in the general ballpark of a good concept. A few points, though:
Delete-Smart shells are absolutely not needed, as we've discussed at length on the blog. We have many other ways of providing medium range strike. A BB's guns need to stick to short range devastation and AFFORDABLE ammo. You even said this, yourself: "affordable NGFS"
-I might rearrange the armor protection given the somewhat different terminal approach profiles of missiles versus guns.
-I would absolutely not use nuclear reactors due to the possibility of a relatively small amount of damage causing a radiation leak that "kills" the entire ship.
"Do big guns still have a role"
Absolutely. Perhaps now more than ever! Read through the archives on the subject.
Is there value in semi-active homing shells? In other posts, you propose (accurately, I imagine) various reasons why modern warships might only engage each other at short range, within LOS. At that range, designators mounted on masts on the warship could paint a target with a laser or radar beam, and use scaled-up Copperhead for ship to ship combat, achieving more reliable hits at extreme gun range. Am I mistaken? If so, what am I missing?
DeleteI see the aversion to smart shells for BVR engagement. If there is nothing to designate, price of the shell balloons and it acts like an ineffective missile. But a laser guided shell, when the engagement is occurring within lasing range of the warship, seems cost effective. Copperhead is vastly more costly than dumb 155mm, but it seems plausible to me that it could result in a 95% or higher reduction in shells per hit on a warship sized targets. There is also the time factor: more shells before a hit means the enemy has more time to do something. Even if laser guided shells are more expensive in terms of kills per shot, they are cheaper than losing your ship.
Regarding risk of nuclear reactors, my gut instinct is that it isn't that bad.
One, I am not a nuclear expert, but it takes a long time for radiation to kill someone. Standing next to the exposed core at Chernobyl was fatal only after hours or days--missiles are fatal immediately. If the reactor leaks, that's called a casualty, and it happens in war.
Two, battleships DID have a fatal weakness. Damage to the magazine could kill the warship in a single blow, theoretically. I assume there were many safeguards in place to make sure the magazine wasn't damaged, and if it was, it would not cook off catastrophically, and that's why I only remember HMS Hood and not two dozen other events. My point is that such safety measures could certainly be applied to a nuclear reactor, as well, and as I said above--a nuclear reactor is, at its core, unable to kill the ship as quickly as a magazine detonation.
It reminds me of your position on armor, honestly. Just because armor won't stop a Kh-22 directly doesn't mean it does nothing. Just because a reactor might leak... With nuclear propulsion, a battleship can lean on its deep magazine to stay away from support for longer, and can still maneuver at high speeds despite supercarrier-level displacement. Important for sneaking a fleet into Chinese waters, or important during a gun battle. I guess.
"designators mounted on masts on the warship could paint a target with a laser"
DeleteThis was actually done during the Mk71 firing tests and proved successful.
"Is there value in semi-active homing shells?"
If you had unlimited budget for ammo and unlimited magazine size then, yes, of course there would be value in a guided shell. The reality of limited ammo budgets and finite size magazines means that every guided round means fewer unguided shells purchased and fewer unguided rounds in the magazine. Which mission is far, far, far more likely, area land bombardment or anti-ship combat? Obviously, it's area bombardment so which shell type do you want for that?
Can a reasonable balance be struck? Can a reasonably priced guided shell be produced and enough guided shells fit in the magazine without displacing too many unguided shells? Maybe. Depends on the specifics of the ship, ammo purchasing budget, and magazine size. For example, a WWII Iowa class BB had around 110 shells per gun. How many would you be willing to give up to have a useful number of guided shells (how many is a useful number?), in that case?
"it takes a long time for radiation to kill someone."
DeleteDepends on the type and dosage but, that aside, it would only take a moment to order the ship abandoned due to the threat of radiation. Do you think the Navy would, in writing, attempt to order men to stay in a radioactive area because they won't die immediately? I don't think so! The ship would be abandoned immediately. Even if the Navy were willing to order sailors to stay and work in a contaminated area/ship, do you think sailors would obey? I doubt it! Even if someone tells me I won't die immediately and orders me into a radioactive area, I'm not going!
"Just because a reactor might leak"
The problem is that a "kill" scenario doesn't require much physical damage. A simple burst pipe with contaminated material would do it. We perform shock tests on ships (well, we used to although the Navy is attempting to avoid that now). Has anyone shock tested a nuclear reactor? I have no idea but that, or far worse, is what will happen in combat.
A mine hit, torpedo hit, missile hit, or even a near miss will violently shock and whipsaw the ship. Pipes and fittings all over the ship will fail. If it's not nuclear, you just fix it and keep going. If it's nuclear and you get a radioactive leak, you're done and the ship is probably abandoned.
"Can a reasonable balance be struck? Can a reasonably priced guided shell be produced and enough guided shells fit in the magazine without displacing too many unguided shells?"
DeleteI mean, I think so. Pretty easily.
To me, the point of semi-active laser or radio homing shells would be how *few* of them you need. Even in WWII, firing on heavily armored warships, they tended to disengage if they took more than a couple hits, right? Jean Bart wasn't knocked out, she just got spooked. Was that an anomaly? Put 10 laser guided shells in the magazine, and only use them if the enemy is within LOS, they haven't dumped smoke everywhere, and they still have missile defenses (or you ran out of strike missiles). That leaves 90% of the magazine for area bombardment, including antiship combat if you can't or won't get a laser on them.
Those 10 shells would still be effective, so long as you weren't going to lose the engagement anyway. If both sides have roughly the same number of ships, 10 hits (or 3, whatever the accuracy is) per gun of yours on each of theirs is going to be effective. Filling the magazine with laser homing shells would obviously sink more of them faster, but what you said. Too expensive. Settle for winning the battle, or at least tilting it early so you can win it with your dumb shells.
"Do you think the Navy would, in writing, attempt to order men to stay in a radioactive area because they won't die immediately?"
I think we aren't talking about the Navy we know. A Navy that builds big-gun BBs again and sends them to conduct combat within LOS of the enemy has different standards. Like you say, these are WARships. People die in war.
"Even if someone tells me I won't die immediately and orders me into a radioactive area, I'm not going!"
You might not, but I bet a different Navy from ours could figure out a way to make most people. Compliance enforcement is a military specialty. Shit, if I was in a hole and someone was shooting at me, I sure as fuck wouldn't want to get out of that hole, but the Army figured out how to override that instinct a long time ago.
Plus, the Soviets at Chernobyl did. And they had way more reason to distrust their superiors, and way less reason to sacrifice for the system.
"Has anyone shock tested a nuclear reactor?"
Probably? The Navy has been operating nuclear warships for seventy years. Surely they tested it, decided it was safe enough to put in our most expensive warships, and took appropriate countermeasures.
"the point of semi-active laser or radio homing shells would be how *few* of them you need."
DeleteIn theory, you're right. In practice, guided shells are nowhere near as infallible as you're making them out to be. Consider air-to-air missiles. In theory, they can't miss. They're radar/heat guided, computer controlled, continuously calculated intercept course and yet experience has shown that A2A missiles have very poor success rates. Consider the record of laser guided bombs. Despite the initial Desert Storm claims of 95%, the subsequent historical records for guided munitions are much less successful. Now, throw in weather effects, defensive multi-spectral obscurants, decoys, EW, etc. and that theoretical one-shot-one-hit assumption goes out the window. If you think you need, say, ten hits to get a sink or mission kill, you'd better have 30-50 shells to ensure the needed hits. Which leads us back to what balance of guided and unguided shells can a ship have?
"the Army figured out how to override that instinct a long time ago."
DeleteThere is a world of difference between asking someone to make a dash to another location while under fire and walking into a radioactive area. The soldier may or may not get hit. The exposure is only seconds. A hit is quite possibly not fatal. The soldier wears various types of armor. In contrast, a sailor asked to go into a radioactive area is going to sustain permanent damage, at best, and quite possibly a hideous death. He is GUARANTEED to be "hit". There is no recovery from whatever amount of damage he sustains. A soldier may think he has a chance of heroically dodging or surviving enemy fire but a sailor has zero chance of dodging radiation and we have all been indoctrinated to fear radiation all our lives.
"Surely they tested it, decided it was safe enough"
DeleteSurely EMALS was tested ...
Surely the Zumwalt gun and ammo was tested ...
Surely the LCS and modules were tested before building and commissioning ...
Surely the V-22 is safe and not prone to crashing ...
Surely the ACV is safe for water operations and wouldn't capsize and sink ...
Stop me when I've made my point.
"If you think you need, say, ten hits to get a sink or mission kill, you'd better have 30-50 shells to ensure the needed hits."
DeleteI'm thinking of this in terms of the law of large numbers, probabilities. If one in three or five laser guided shells hit the target, then surely the hit rate for unguided shells is at least one in ten. Is that a bad assumption? (also, to clarify, I'm suggesting 10 guided shells per gun. On a well armed warship, that could be 30-120 shells).
If you have ~20 warships with an average of 4 guns (mostly 1-2 guns, some all-gun cruisers and battleships) and each carries 10/90 guided/unguided mix, then you can achieve 20-25 percent of your expected hits in the first 10% of salvos. A lone ship might score no hits, due to the countermeasures you describe. But if you have a large number of guns, probabilities take over. Each gun won't achieve a mission kill, but the squadron collectively will score a few, or at least get closer than they would have with unguided shells.
But sure, in a 1 on 1 fight, a small inventory of laser guided shells won't win the fight unless you get lucky. So pack a few for the sake of contingency, and because we need to keep the sailors practiced at handling them. And when you go out looking for a boat to kill, pack ALL of them.
"There is no recovery from whatever amount of damage he sustains."
DeleteThis isn't really true. Some evidence suggests that low levels of radiation can be recovered from completely, not even cancer in 50 years (admittedly, a cracked reactor is probably not radiating at a low level). But again, I just think you're underestimating the effect of immediacy. If manning an irradiated battle station will kill you in thirty days, you'll hesitate, until you see the missiles about to kill you in thirty seconds if you don't. And the missiles will kill all your friends, too. Soldier's sacrifice.
"and we have all been indoctrinated to fear radiation all our lives."
The root of the problem.
"Stop me when I've made my point."
I understand your point and generally agree, but those are all post-Cold War systems, right? When did the institutional rot set in? Nautilus sailed in 1954 and Enterprise in 1961, had the Navy already given up proper testing and safety even then?
Just want to point out that we fired 100 thousand dollar Javelins and Hellfires at individual heavy weapons teams in Afghanistan, so that was a price we seem willing to pay to achieve a decisive effect. The unguided 16" shells cost 1400 dollars in 1945, whicch is 26 grand today, btw.
DeleteAt 100 grand, that still gives us 20 shots for the cost of a single Tomahawk, which is now a cool 2 mil.
"due to the countermeasures you describe."
DeleteHere's an interesting aspect to consider. We all assume unerring, unstoppable accuracy from guided weapons. Setting aside the fact that that is historically false, what if the enemy has a countermeasure that is quite effective? In that case, guided shells would not only give no hits, they wouldn't even give the possibility of a hit! In contrast, unguided shells can't be spoofed, jammed, decoyed, or countermeasur'ed and some percentage of hits are GURANTEED. Depending on the effectiveness of the enemy's countermeasures, it is plausible (likely?) that unguided shells would be more effective than guided!
Among other lessons from this thought exercise, it hammers home the need to test our guided weapons against realistic countermeasures which we have not done, at all. The combat experience in Ukraine has reportedly demonstrated that the guided weapons we provided have been significantly less effective and more easily countered than we thought (well, than the military thought - some of us have known about reality for many years).
This is not to say that there is no place for guided weapons in our inventory but it does say that our blind faith in them, and emphasis on them, is badly misplaced.
"Protection: 18" composite belt, 9" decks, torpedo bulges for high survivability."
DeleteI'm not sure what you meant by 'composite belt' but one of the areas that I would like to see the Navy spend its research dollars on is closed cell steel foam as a form of armor. (instead of say, unmanned BS)
The crush resistance of steel foam is at least the level of solid steel and at 1/3 the weight.
That would make a really nice thick layer with STS on the outside and standard steel backing the inside.
@CNO: "Has anyone shock tested a nuclear reactor?"
DeleteCGN-41 Arkansas was run through shock testing and I make no further comment.
Merry Christmas all!
GAB
"CGN-41 Arkansas was run through shock testing"
DeleteI wonder what they found? I note that we stopped producing nuclear powered surface combatants after that. Coincidence or did they discover that nuclear plants in surface combatants weren't a good idea?
There's a study from within the Navy that basically argues that for a surface ship, with a displacement below 40,000 tons, nuclear is not cost-competitive with fossil fuels, once you account for the costs of the reactor and training nuclear reactor techs, vs the costs of gas turbines and engineering techs. Oil would need to exceed a cost of 150 USD per barrel before it becomes economically viable to run a nuclear escort/large combatant.
DeleteAt a displacement above 40,000 tons, the cost calculus shifts in favor of nuclear power.
The Defiant-class battleship, at around 35-40 thousand tons projected displacement, is to me what would probably be a candidate for a combined nuclear and gas propulsion system, with the nuclear reactor being used to power the main systems and propulsion, and the gas turbines used to spool up power for additional needs (railgun, lasers) - nuclear reactors are good at producing a steady consistent rate of power, but they're not good at ramping up power as needed, which is where the gas turbines come in.
On the other hand, on a ship displacing 40,000 tons, you could probably just put in a half dozen or so gas turbines and call it a day, keeping your training pipeline simpler.
Many know this is a joke. However, this ends DDG(X) which is really important for Navy's future. Burkes need a competent successor.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. If this thing was actually to go ahead it would chew up so much resource it would kill the Burke Block 111 production line, kill the DD(X) stone dead and see the large surface combatant force decline by about 2 vessels a year for the 10 to 20 years it will take to get this thing into the water. The worst kind of fantasy.
DeleteThis is the President of the United States, that used to mean something, respect, authority, safety, integrity. Our national defense is not a joke. He is not playing 3D Chess, he is playing Go Fish. Shame.
ReplyDeleteWe're a long way from Congress putting up any money for this. Then consider how long it would take to design and build. We're talking multiple presendential administrations and many, many congresses. All other considerations aside, it seems highly unlikely that this ship will ever sail.
ReplyDeleteYou got it!
DeleteNext president will end his paper and pen design nonsense.
DeleteMeanwhile, three years precious time and some money will be wasted.
Hobestly it feels like someone went and dusted off the old Strike Cruiser concept and revamped it for the present day.
ReplyDeleteWrt to VLS, it's either a typo and they meant 128 VLS cells, or they meant 28 VLS MODULES. A module is 8 cells, sonthat'd be 224 cells. That's enough cells for an SSGN's missile load plus a DD's combat load of self defense SAMs and TLAMs.
Agree this will never get built or at best(worse?) case it will be another 3 Zummies and that's it....
ReplyDeleteNo, for me, there's something else that bothers me tons more: this is the best design the USN could come up with?!?!?? Come on guys, us regular folks here at CNO, if USN came to us and said:" carte blanche, no money care, just come up with something that looks bad ass, nice weapons set, 30k and some LO" I HONESTLY THINK we could do better!!!! Thats what USN designed?!?! This would have been "innovative" late 80s, most of the 90s?NOT IN 2025 THOUGH!!! This hull design looks average at best, very meh!
For me, this really implies that USN really has no vision of the future and explains somewhat why USN is so much in trouble. POTUS came to them asking for something special battleship and THIS IS THE BEST THEY CAME UP WITH?!?!? Whoever designed this should be fired but its the USN so they probably will be promoted.....this is once in a lifetime opportunity to go crazy and thats the best they could do???
You're quite right. This design image is a combination of obsolete design features and non-existent equipment. It's an embarrassment.
DeleteIt's a Heavy Missile Cruiser with an identity crisis.
ReplyDeleteAnd no, it will never be built unless the Republicans can keep the White House for a decade, although it would be highly amusing if Trump actually tried to have this built in 2.5-3 years.
That won't happen, of course, but would lead Trump to discovering the magically broken world of naval construction, and hopefully replace that bloated, demented mess of a process with something better.
"POTUS came to them asking for something special battleship and THIS IS THE BEST THEY CAME UP WITH?!?!?"
Also, this is very true and very sad.
Many "armchair amateurs" would have done better than the "pros".
This this is almost literally one of the Large Surface Combatant designs from Trump's first term re-branded as a battleship for some reason.
ReplyDeleteAs a Tico-replacement CRUISER, which is what the LSC was, it wasn't a terrible design (it wasn't a 'good' design, but it wasn't the worst thing the Navy ever came up with).
But it's literally not by legal definition a Battleship (because, yes, law does define what a battleship is in the US - or, at least, is named).
So, this is either a troll or it will be relabeled to Cruiser at some point once the shock value wears off.
Actually, the more I look at the design and try to understand it, the more I come to the conclusion it literally is the Large Surface Combatant, just made larger for the purposes of torpedo defense.
DeleteEssentially, what I think this is is the Navy finally getting (an order for) the Ticonderoga replacements they've been asking for for going on 35 years now. That thing was already predicted to cost $9 billion each, and this Defiant is expected to cost around $10 billion, which is just a billion in extra bulk for defensive purposes.
I hate to say, but don't hate it. It even has a valid ConOps, or at least the closest thing I've seen to a valid ConOps the Navy has produced in decades.
If that ship ever gets built, it will never be below 16 billion each. God willing we will still have a U.S. dollar so we can settle all wagers on this.
DeleteCare to explain why this ship design, which is logically mostly fuel tanks and dry storage for the required endurance (and providing exceptional defense via bulk), would cost more than a Nimitz and almost as much as a Ford?
DeleteIt doesn't have nuclear reactors (which add billions per reactor by themselves and an untold amount more due to risks of building around them), it's a purely conventional hull design (unlike the Zumwalt or the LCS') with basically no unconventional design elements.
Even the future-tech parts are purely secondary to its primary functions and even appear to be hard-point mounted, meaning they can be omitted during construction (which I fully expect to happen) and installed later when the technology matures, all without harming its core mission at all.
The CPSM tubes are fairly simple and straightforward designs that, although new, are not expensive; they're dumbed down SLBM tubes, which we've been building for well over half a century already. The newest, shiniest part of the design is the SPY-6, which is (whatever one may think of it) the new fleet standard and already being produced in what almost even amounts to numbers.
The 30mm Mk44s (that was almost certainly a typo on the graphic, the models do not match the 25mm Mk38) are purportedly viable and cheap anti-drone, anti-munition CIWS when using proximity fuses, as 'proven' in tests by the US Army, and even saw success against small and medium class missile targets (all of which only means as much as ink on paper, given the US Mil's history with testing, but the tests theoretically exist). Given the Navy's recent experience in the Red Sea, it's obvious why they focused on this domain.
So, yeah, basically nothing about this ship is new, revolutionary, or even unconventional. Leaving aside the future-tech, it's all even either thoroughly tested equipment or literally a series of tubes with some wires, which are also already being used on another ship class. There is very little to this design that is experimental, and those elements that are (the aforementioned future-tech) are easily omitted from the design without harming it and can be added back if the technology ever matures. Obviously, yes, there was the recent Constellation-class disaster, but that mostly came from clashing specifications and the ever-present mission creep trying to be shoved in a 'cheap' hull. This design avoids that as a purpose design (even if that purpose and design are both as a cruiser, not a battleship) that isn't even pretending to be cheap in the first place, allowing the designers/builders to go for the 'expensive but works' option right from the get-go and avoid the costs associated with redesigns, rebuilds, and whatnot.
"It even has a valid ConOps, or at least the closest thing I've seen to a valid ConOps the Navy has produced in decades."
DeleteWhere do you see a CONOPS for this?
The way I see this design is that it's essentially the Ticonderoga replacement that the Navy has been pining after for 30-something years now. As a result, the Concept of Operations for this thing, if built, would essentially be the same as the way they used the Ticonderogas early on and midway through their lives. Which, to be clear, is what I am interpret their profile of the thing and other comments to be hinting at. I haven't actually read a published ConOps from the Navy on this thing.
DeleteThe proper terminology is evading me at the moment, and given the day I'm in no position to make any sort of writeup on it, but in short the way I understand it is that these Defiant-class ships would be playing the role as the flagship and primary coordinator of Surface Action Groups, as well as pulling double duty as Surface Fleet Coordinator/Anti-Air Command when running with a Carrier.
SAG operations with this thing, the primary draw of it, would be nearly straight forward (at least as I understand it). A Defiant would be carrying the bulk of land strike munitions, carrying only a limited defensive payload; however, because of its command and control capabilities and its high powered sensor suite, it would essentially be able to use its escorts as mobile SAM batteries and forward deployed sensor arrays. This Defiant would be the command node, or the 'brain' of the fleet queuing targets and directing interceptions, much like the Ticonderoga-class did (or, rather, was expected to do) for non-Burkes in the early days. This would allow older, less capable Burkes to be assigned to these fleets while newer, more theoretically capable Burkes are assigned to fleets where they have to do the 'brain work', so to speak; more effectively utilizing the hulls we already have.
The carrier action group stuff is just an extension of that, but actually carrying primarily defensive payloads. Not what the ship would be best suited for, but it's what we all know the Navy would inevitably end up using it for.
All of which is to say, literally the same ConOps of the Ticonderoga-class, but doubling down on its role as the centerpiece of a fleet. Especially with the raw increase in fuel and (non-munition) supplies that it would be carrying to resupply its escorts with. Barring actual action, drawing off WW2-era supply numbers (due to this thing's sheer size), it'd be able to keep its action group on station for 2-3 months without resupply - which is an invaluable capability, given the inherent vulnerability of supply ships.
At least, that's just the way I am 'reading the tea leaves', so to speak.
" that's just the way I am 'reading the tea leaves'"
DeleteAnd this is the problem with viewing this, or any, ship. We don't know the Navy's CONOPS. We all speculate on what the CONOPS should be and what it would be if it were up to us but, in the end, we don't know what the Navy is thinking. Given that the Navy has acknowledged not having a formal CONOPS for any ship in the last few decades, it would be shocking if they actually had one for this.
What you're speculating on is perfectly reasonable but almost certainly not what the Navy has in mind, to the extent that they have anything in mind. As we have seen time and again, this concept drawing is a collection of technologies rather than the product of a careful set of operational plans, strategies, and CONOPS.
Most people thought the Constellation frigate would be ASW focused - a reasonable CONOPS basis - but we were wrong. The Navy simply made it a mini-Burke. We were all positive the Navy would make the NSC-frigate an ASW vessel and, once again, we were wrong. The Navy is going to build the NSC with no discernable CONOPS at all.
So, your idea of the CONOPS is quite reasonable but almost certainly not what the Navy thinks, if they think anything. To them, this ship is just a collection of technologies and they'll figure out what to do with it after it's built.
Why will it cost so much.
Delete#1 Inflation. This ship won't be out of design before 2032.
#2 All new ship designs by the USN have traditionally outpaced inflation.
So your start point is 9.5 billion in 2025 dollars if you only use the 9650 ton budget weight of a Flt III Burke divided by the at least 35000 ton BB weight stated in the USNI article. 6 years inflation while the develop the ship brings it over 12 billion. All of that assumes our procurement system is efficient or effective. Lol
The small number of VLS missiles could be due to the fact the Trump battleships are to carry very big missiles. So big and terrifying that China will fall on her knees and surrender once the very mighty and very big missiles are fired! These secret and magical big missiles must be the reason for the (relatively) small number of VLS!!!
ReplyDeleteTo be honest it looks like a US Kirov class cruiser to me.
ReplyDeleteExcept for the hypersonic missiles, what advantage does this "battleships" bring over the SSGN (154 cruise missiles) ? What is the cost compared to a SSGN ? What would be the cost per shot (for 1 volley) ?
ReplyDeleteAnd how long to design and build and test them - compared to building more SSGN ?
Delete"compared to building more SSGN ?"
DeleteBuilding more SSGN implies that we build them now and we don't. We have no active design for an SSGN. We could adapt a Columbia for SSGN but we have not done so and have no such design, as far as I know. So, which would take longer to design and build, a "battleship" or an SSGN? Kind of a toss up.
"what advantage does this "battleships" bring over the SSGN"
DeleteIf such a "battleship" were designed properly, it would offer extended range sensing/surveillance via UAVs, large caliber gun support, and anti-air capability, none of which an SSGN can do. That doesn't make a battleship superior to an SSGN, it just has a few more capabilities. An SSGN remains unsurpassed for pure cruise missile launching while remaining stealthy.
A battleship could at least act as a surface action group leader, the way the Iowas did in the Cold War.
DeleteThose actually working fleet design have been pitching this as a ship to get inside the A2D bubble by being more survivable and complete missile strikes. This ship obviously does not do that unless we are talking the nuclear cruise missile. SSGNs would. The SSGN will just be a Columbia with the launch tubes with smaller VLS launchers loaded in, same as the Ohio SSGNs. Maybe the mods to support SEALS. We could get the first SSGN before we get this BB. 6 year design contract. The BB doesn't start build until 2032. Also keep in mind they are talking about stretched Columbias with additional SLBMs now as the threat environment gets more complex. They are also talking about using the Columbia as the basis for SSNX. Stick to that plan.
DeleteThis ship is ridiculous, it offers very little that you wouldn't get from a pair of Burkes at less cost.
ReplyDeleteAt least when we advocate bringing back the Iowas they come with 9 x 16" guns.
Lutefisk
This blog, and many like it, are full of well-reasoned people who understand, for the most part, the military, the different service branches and the broad overall structures of policy. That the world is VUCA (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, Ambiguous) and the United States uses Ends Ways and Means (or tries to) when tackling issues, especially foreign policy ones.
ReplyDeleteBut to most Americans, if you show them a Perry Class Frigate, they will call it a Battleship.
And to many Americans, to whom Naval issues are far removed (and the GWOT did nothing to reinforce a Naval perspective) from their everyday lives, if you tell them we have no battleships…. They most likely react with disbelief, because in their minds they still see the World War Two fleet or more likely, the 600 Ship Fleet of the Reagan buildup. Which, ironically, included Battleships.
So, President Trump does what he is very good at. Speak to the American people in terms they relate to. (Not to the Beltway warriors or to the partisans or to the followers of this blog or the many like it) A new Battleship, the greatest ship ever built, we will do it in two years, etc. And to the great swath of Americans listening, those who have not had anyone in forty years tell them why we need a Navy, it rings a bell and starts them thinking about the Navy.
Even if none of the ships get built, President Trump did what all of us on the blog, and the many like it, have failed to do.
He put the US Navy, and its current state of disrepair and unpreparedness and drastically small numbers, in front of the American people so a discussion can now start.
For that, I applaud him. Like him, dislike him, loath him, love him doesn’t matter. If you are reading this blog, you should be grateful, he is trying to get the subject of the WHY WE NEED A NAVY in front of the American people. And the pundits, and the naysayers and cheerleaders should at the very least appreciate that.
You do realize the details of the ship are secondary. And reason he called it the Trump class is to generate howling over the top ranting and raving about how shallow and stupid he is…. And he smiles while watching a needed discussion about why the US Navy should be preeminent in the world, finally takes place.
Looking 4 NSFS
I think you may be giving credit where none is due.
DeleteI disagree with your assessment that Trump's motivation was to put the discussion of the Navy in front of the public. I believe it was much more likely his way of matching, or surpassing, the Chinese public relations momentum after their UAV mothership announcement. That it might spur awareness of the Navy amongst the population is an unintended bonus.
DeleteThat aside, I enjoyed your comment. It was well written and reasoned within the context of your assumption. It was the kind of contribution I look for from readers.
I don't recognize your username so, please, continue to offer comments on the many topics we address.
"This blog, and many like it"
DeleteMany like it???? There's no blog like this one!
A few months and we'll be hearing how LPD-33 or 34 will become an AEGIS San Antonio w/ MK57s lining the rear of the ship
ReplyDeleteProbably even save some well deck space for drones (eye roll)
The Navy hates buying LPDs & they'd get 80% (that's the new DOD standard, right?) of the proposed Trump Class capability for probably a 3rd the cost
Of course the Navy will never buy enough munitions to fill the VLS so it's mostly an academic discussion
-LP
Keep in mind the 80 Mk 57 cells on Zumwalt can carry 21% more missile weight than 128 Mk 41 strike length cells. We could just get serious about a Flt II Zumwalt changing the combat system.
ReplyDeleteAlready designed for 2 fixed face radar systems.
If we swap in the 36.5PMMs developed but not used originally we reduce weight and gain propulsion power. If we use the current MT30 w 40MW and RR4500 gensets with 4 MW we get almost 10 additional MW of power. Stretch it one Mk 57 VLS length on each end if possible bringing the Mk 57 up to 96 cells and keep the 12 CPS. Lower the helo deck at the stern for a 127mm gun. Place one forward. Make spots for 2 additional CIWS forward for 4 total.
" Mk 57 cells on Zumwalt can carry 21% more missile weight"
DeleteTo the best of my knowledge, we have missiles that require that extra size either in production or development. Do you know of any?
You could immediately start quad packing PAC-3MSE. SM-3 Blk IIB maxes out the Mk-41 as does the future SM-6 with a 21" second stage. It also allows a greater exhaust. No one will develop a missile without a launch system that supports it.
DeleteIn the shipyard of Hudong-Zhonghua there is a chinese cargo # 100m length, with 15 containers each equipped with 4 missiles, 3 radars of which one AESA, and some other containers for self defense armament.
ReplyDeleteI'm hard pressed to think of a more useless military asset than this. In war, no force going allow an enemy ship of any type to get anywhere near them and most certainly not a supposed commercial ship sailing around a war zone, far from known, safe merchant shipping routes.
Deletewith 1000-2500km cruise missile range the cargo has some leeway to avoid enemy patrols
Delete"cruise missile range"
DeleteIf that's the main feature, they don't need to be mounted on a vessel. They can be air launched or launched from land. And, of course, the issue of targeting remains. A million mile missile is useless with horizon range targeting.
People are enamored of this idea of "hiding" missiles on cargo ships but it's an idea with absolutely no validity in war. People seem to think that cargo ships will enjoy some kind of immunity during war. The reality is quite opposite! EVERY cargo ship will be a target.
"has some leeway to avoid enemy patrols"
DeleteSo, in your view, the distance confers some kind of immunity on the cargo ship but no immunity for warships????