The Trump class is replacing the DDG(X), which itself is replacing the Burke's. It's estimated that there will be 20-25 Trump classes. So the 74 Burke's will be replaced by the 20~ Trumps. Which means the majority surface combatants will decrease by over a third. The FF(X) will not have VLS/Sonar/Aegis meaning that they are unable to supplement a vastly reduced USN fighting force. I would understand if the Navy was pushing through the Constellations, a mini-burke which the USN desperately needs, but with their replacement by the FF(X) they will heavily reduce the combat potential. Is the idea that these 20~ Trump classes will do every combat role alone?
>>64684151>12th trumpship thread
>>64684151>The Trump class is replacing the DDG(X), which itself is replacing the Burke's. It's estimated that there will be 20-25 Trump classes. So the 74 Burke's will be replaced by the 20~ TrumpsFew sentences in and already dead wrong. DDG(X) was replacing the Tico. Trump is on paper a turbo fat ddgx. However chance are it'll hit fat camp before being built anyway. The stats sheet is just a guideline.
>>64684154It's more FF(X) than Trump. Trump class makes sense with the addition of Constellations. But with FF(X) and Trump, I don't see the strategic picture.
>>64684163>The DDG(X) or Next-Generation Guided-Missile Destroyer program of the United States Navy aims to develop a class of surface combatants to succeed 22 Flight II Ticonderoga-class cruisers and 28 Flight I/II Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.It's to replace both.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDG(X)
>>64684166>28 Flight I/II Arleigh BurkeRight, and now ddgx is no more and burke is full steam ahead with flight III. Those early flight I and II burkes are old as dirt anyway and will get replaced by another burke
>>64684174Exactly, they were replacing Burke's and Ticos with DDG(X) which was supposed to replace the lot of them over time as the class rolled out. The issue with this in my eyes is the sharp reduction in hulls this would create. Now I thought the FFG(X) would fill that gap for these larger, more capable ships but instead it there will only be Trump class ships and nothing else to supplement them.
>>64684185There's currently 20 more burkes in the queue and navy can order more.
>>64684193But the navy doesn't want more, it wants a replacement. It's maxed out size wise and the budget isn't infinite, nor is the amount of sailors. When the Trump class is in full swing it will be replacing the Burke's, not supplementing them. That's the entire point of the DDG(X) now Trump class, for fewer but more high end ships, to replace existing destroyers with them backed up by mini-Burke's.
>>64684204No? Navy wants more hulls in the water to reach the lofty goal of 380 something ships fleet + unmanned drone shipsThere will be a separate burke replacement in the range of 9000-10000 tons. Just because the ddgx would replace some burke doesn't mean the entire line is replaced by it. That's retarded
>>64684215>No? Navy wants more hullsNo, if it wanted more hulls then the DDG(X)/Trump class would have never been proposed as they, due to their size and costs, will do us their productive capacity and their manpower of fewer more high end systems. And the DDG(X) was always planned to replace the Burke's.>The Navy is committed to a smooth and successful transition from DDG 51 to DDG(X) starting around FY 2030.16 The transition will preserve the critical shipbuilding and supplier industrial base by executing a collaborative design process with current DDG 51 shipyards and transitioning to a proven limited competition model between these shipyards at the right point in ship construction.17https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL32109.pdfThe navy wants capability, not meaningless numbers otherwise they've spam out useless corvettes instead of building towards larger ships.
>>64684151>The Trump class is replacing the DDG(X)It isn't.Here's what's going to happen:- Ticos will be retired, so the USN will have no more cruisers.- Older Burkes will be retired, and be replaced with Flight III Burkes- The "Trump Class" will never be build.- The USN will build unarmed national security cutters and strap 4-8 VLS in a container on it- The USN will retire the Nimitz class and slowly replace it with Fords, dropping from 12 to 8 carriers.So the future USN will have:- 8 Fords instead of 12 Nimitz- ~50-60 Burke Flight III- NSC with 4-8 containerized VLS- subsNo Cruisers, no real Frigates, nothing. No new modern destroyer.
>>64684245I'm Holio from Gay Province and I am demoralized by this.
>>64684245god damn, China is losing to THIS?
>>64684306how is he wrong?
>>64684151where are my MAGA cultists at?
>>64684338the USN is mandated by the congress to operate 11 carriers. Unless there's a major shift in political will there, 8 carriers is a chink pipe dream
>>64684245Any other fake and gay predictions, nigger?
It's not too late to stop all of this bullshit and go back to building LSCs ($300m cheaper per hull than the FFX) and Zumwalts ($800m more expensive per hull than a Burke, $2b per hull cheaper than the DDGX/Trump).
>>64684306>>64684331>>64684338>>64684403>>64684513I am summarizing what US Navy Admirals are moaning about and what credible US defence analysts are moaning about as well.If you don't like it, vote for better politicians.The USN already got an exemption to drop to 10 carriers recently because they did before Ford was put into service, there was already a gap.Congress can mandate what they want, the USN already predicts carrier build pace is way too slow to maintain the current fleet.
>>64684245Meanwhile in realityThe Trump class does happen with the caveat that there's very little chance it ends up with >500 crew. The Burkes and Tico's are right around 300 which is fine because they are old but the Ford shed 1k crew off the Nimitz (Air wings about the same i think) and it probably won't have anywhere near as many guns as the pic shows.
