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.
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.
ReplyDeleteAll these fantastic weapons are realizing by China. That is a problem.
ReplyDelete