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.
I 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?
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.
Many know this is a joke. However, this ends DDG(X) which is really important for Navy's future. Burkes need a competent successor.
ReplyDeleteThis 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!
DeleteHobestly 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.
Delete