File: Prahovo serbia danube ww2(...).jpg (80 KB, 768x546)

80 KB JPG

>>65410315
The impression I got from all the discussions: there are two problems.
1) as you say there is indeed not enough money to go around. Everyone understands that carriers and subs give the best ROI [return on investment], so only that gets what it needs.
2) there's a lack of clear or intrepid leadership in the naval design departments. Nobody is putting their foot down and declaring something is good enough. They chased perfection and never caught it. Endless revision and debate.
The Legend class, which gets excoriated here for being insufficient, is someone finally declaring a "good enough" to get hulls in the water.

It does make me curious as to how the perfection-chasers are going to be reined in from endless tampering with Legend, in the meantime.

>>65410315
>Is it Congress, and why wouldn't Congress just do more or less what the navy suggests?
Because they're senile boomers, it's not that complicated. Also because while US military funding is enormous, it's not unlimited, and the Air Force keeps slurping up all of the funding to spend on fighter planes they don't need and don't use.

>>65410625
>muh air force
kek
Nah m8, the whole procurement process is corrupt, the air force is just better at hiding it.

The goal is not 'get new ship for navy', it's 'get re-elected', 'get on board of directors of defense contractor', 'get consultant job at contractor' and 'don't get caught'

>>65410625
>they're senile boomers
the average Congressperson was born after 1965

>>65410315
the US Navy and Congress both are full of people who think they are smarter than everyone else

>>65410633
That's the thing though, they're not good at hiding it. The Air Force just gets money thrown at them anyway because air power is synonymous with American military strength in the public mind, regardless of whether that's actually true. The American layperson has no conception of why sea power is necessary or even desirable.

>>65410661
Boomer is a state of mind. There's still a disproportionate number of literal Baby Boomers in Congress, though.

>>65410315
For any major industry that takes a decade to train up a work force you need to keep placing orders to keep everyone employed or they will leave and you'll have to start again from scratch.
The Navy / congress fucked up by not building small ships for a long time and the skill was lost.
All you can do is accept you are going to be making trash for awhile as everyone learns to ship and keep orders going even if it's just one ship a year so you never need to start from scratch again.

This is becoming a problem for a lot of industries as manufacturing is offshored, most of the west can't do large metal castings these days because asia has been doing them for the last 20 years.

>>65410760
>not building small ships for a long time
This never happened, by the way.

>>65410668
>Boomer is a state of mind
That's a ridiculous notion that strips the concept of any real meaning

>>65410769
The site you're posting on is the birthplace of the 30 year old boomer meme.

File: ohpfrig.jpg (136 KB, 860x613)

136 KB JPG

every time the USN starts working on a small ship the navy gets their budget based on whatever's hot at the time and that leads to extremely bad ideas. prioritizing GWOT and ignoring serious capability needs because they're expensive and less likely to be useful in most wars like the lack of focus on ASW from the surface fleet has led to a lot of poor ship designs that have nowhere to go. what the navy needs is a frigate to support larger destroyers for ASW capabilities but also take over less demanding roles in other areas and since none of the ships they're making can do that they're stuck with high manpower burkes
>>65410760
also, this is another big issue, they can't commit so it keeps getting more expensive so they refuse to commit. the navy's budget can't maintain and expand the way they need to. fundamentally, they shouldve spent money 20 years ago on an Oliver Hazard Perry replacement but iraq took that away.

>>65410315
The Peace Dividend in the 1990s fucked shit up majorly, but it wasn't visible at the time, because truly disastrous decisions need about 8 years for their effects to manifest.
Then came the lost decade of the 2000s, with the counterproductive detour of GWOT.
Post-2010, the combined effect of the above two fuckfests hit hard, and we're still reeling from that.

>>65410315
It's a stealthy missile truck, what's not to love?

>>65410633
>>65410625
Air is superior to navy.
Sorry you had to hear it from me.
Ground beats air.
Air beats water.
Water can enhance ground.

>>65410315
I dunno man, just blame Trump or Kegsbreath.

>>65410324
>Nobody is putting their foot down
That is all on Congress. They have an oversight committee for this purpose.

>>65411184
The problem is that perfectionism has nothing to do with it, so there's nothing to put their foot down on.

>>65410315
>Relative peacetime for 80+ years
>No near-peer opponent since WW2
>Bean Counters don't want to fund the military

People often forget that a large part of the reason we had to confederate in the first place is because nobody wanted to fund a navy or an army and have the costs of it come down on them, they wanted it to be the purview of another state. We had to form a Congress in order to force the creation of a Continental Army, and a fleet to fight the Barbary Pirates, among other things. That greedy, self-interested behavior has not changed just because we've jumped forwards a couple of centuries since then.

The actual workers need to be paid constantly the entire time to maintain a standard of construction or design, their bills don't magically stop during peacetime, so if you defund something because you don't think it should need to have money spent on it, those people have to leave and find other jobs or retire and begin to draw a pension, depending on their circumstances. That causes large institutional gaps that are difficult to fill.

>>65410324
That “someone who put their foot down” just got fired a few months back.

>>65410324
If the Legend class had been selected for LCS 20 some years ago there would be 40 of them quietly in service doing their thing and not garnering much attention.

>>65411485
Except that it wouldn't have been selected because it's more expensive and doesn't do any of the things the Navy needs. Which is exactly why it's so baffling that we're buying them now, after all of the bugs with the LCSes have finally been worked out.

>>65411490
It does exactly what the USN needs, freeing up Burkes from lesser tasks to do Burke things.

>LCS bugs are worked out

The underlying issues are still there, its only that the USN has figured out how to live with them. And they never would have happened in the first place had the USN chosen the Legend class.

>>65410315
The Peace Dividend.
During the Cold War, there were boards and teams of DoD procurement specialists who managed large programs. No, they weren't perfect--there were plenty of failed programs--but they generally knew how to run a procurement program.
Those guys got almost entirely laid off (RiF'd) after the Cold War ended. All of the institutional knowledge regarding how to properly manage a procurement program got tossed out the door. Then, most of the contractors got forced to merge with each other and cut headcount in order to survive. More institutional knowledge gone. And, the services shrank, too.
The result was that there was hardly anybody left who knew how to manage procurement programs. The DoD staff was gone, the services didn't really know how to do it, so most of the work got pushed onto the contractors, who a) didn't know how to do it either, and b) tended to view their new role as a blank check for .ppt promises that never really worked out.

i'm a brainlet but i have a hard time understanding the point of surface combatants nowadays
carriers are necessary to deliver air power
subs can kill anything anywhere
surface combatants are necessary to protect carriers but then otherwise what's the point

>>65411554
Carriers are expensive and require an expensive CSG to babysit them because they're expensive. Sometimes you just need a Burke to go sail off the coast of Somalia to remind the pirates that they'll get shot if they touch the funny money boats.

>>65411557
isn't a burke like super overkill for that
a coast guard cutter with an autocannon is capable of blowing up any somalian pirate

>>65410315
they have a habit of starting over all the time it seems.

>>65411562
You need a bigger ship to have the stores to easily deploy on long distances, and while a cutter with an autocannon is enough for literal pirates in speedboats, modern threats like the fun times in the Red Sea have shown that you need to have a ship that's capable of providing an ADN network or it'll be threatened by, and unable to stop from threatening shipping, low cost cruise missiles and AShMs. By the point you've got enough VLS, radar, and other systems to actually do that, you end up with a ship that is expensive enough that you want to give it some land/sea strike capabilities and ASW as well so it's useful in a hot war to once again protect shipping and logistical trains that are required to let the carriers do their thing.

>>65411569
yeah, i understand the need for surface combatants operating in conjunction with a carrier group, but that scenario seems like a really specific situation for a lone surface combatant
like it has to be non-threatening enough to not warrant a carrier group, but still has to deal with all those things?

>>65410315
Basically the Zumwalt was the naval equivalent of the Pentagon listening to Mike Sparks and bringing the M113 back into service.

>>65411532
>It does exactly what the USN needs, freeing up Burkes from lesser tasks to do Burke things.
The LCSes could already do that while being cheaper and requiring fewer crew. The Legend class cannot cover the capabilities of the LCS without significant redesign. That money would be better spend on a modernization program for either LCS class.

>The underlying issues are still there, its only that the USN has figured out how to live with them. And they never would have happened in the first place had the USN chosen the Legend class.
No, they're actually fixed. The Independence class has had its hull reinforced and no longer starts to show cracking after extended periods of cruising at high speeds in rough seas, and the Freedom class has had its combining gear bearings redesigned and no longer destroys its transmission when trying to go faster than 16 knots. Meanwhile, the Legend class is still the same piece of shit that the Navy turned down before, it's not compatible with any of the LCS mission packages, is so expensive to operate that the Coast Guard is struggling to keep them running, and its only party trick is having a ridiculous amount of endurance that the Navy doesn't need.

>>65410668
>The Air Force just gets money thrown at them anyway because air power is synonymous with American military strength in the public mind
The air force is getting money because it is believed to be the best tool against China. They want to launch them from ground bases not sinkable carriers.

>>65411580
CSGs are too expensive and small in number for constant defensive operations, both in the context of peacetime deployments where the USN has to patrol the globe and ensure shipping flows, and in the context of a hot war where CSGs are going to be busy wrecking shit while you need surface combatants for protecting the flow of supplies to the CSGs so they don't have to go too far off station to resupply and slow down the op-tempo of ruining whoever's day.

The best way to explain it would be to think of the CSGs as the fist, while the large surface combatant fleet is the armor that allows the fists to do their job of being aggressive instead of being busy trying to catch the other guy's sword.

>>65410941
That there are 3 of them

>>65411590
Weren't you the one claiming that the US would have every base closer to China than Hawaii destroyed in the first 24 hours of a war, chinkshill?

>>65411592
as a retard it just seems like it's asking a lot from a navy that has to be built and maintained with finite resources
it just seems that being able to clobber the other guy in hot war is of supreme importance and everything else is of secondary importance
but that's probably why i'm a brainlet and ask dumb questions

>>65411588
The Freedom is still a piece of shit

>>65411622
It's still better than the Legend, even if it's vastly inferior to the Independence.

>>65411614
I mean, you just have to look at the shitshow going on with Iran to see the importance of being able to maintain a low cost protection of shipping which would neuter Iran's one point of leverage, while all the offensive fury in the world doesn't solve it, unless you're willing to tank the PR hit of causing a humanitarian crisis by leveling Iran down to Syria's level of failed state.

It is a lot to ask, which is why the USN is fucking it up to some extent, but if you only prioritize hot war capabilities, you're left with ships that are useless 99% of the time at best since the closest the USN has come to an actual hot war was probably Praying Mantis on Iran's navy a long time ago, and then the current fun and games. Meanwhile, protecting shipping is an ongoing and eternal mission that the USN has to do a hell of a lot of, even if most of it is more routine and not as publicized as the past year or so that Iran has decided to make it a global problem between the Houthis and then shutting down the Straight themselves.

I’d argue we’ve reached a point where we need to change force structure significantly, but we’ve not. Manned ships that are small and cheap no longer work, increases in the ability to hold ships at risk globally has just made them death traps. Attempts to fix this just turn them into large surface combatants. On top of this, large surface combatants now require so much power and run so many systems that hulls under 15k tons now very quickly look like you’re trying to shove ten pounds of shit into a five pound bag. I think the solution that will be settled on will be to build large surface combatants that are somewhere in the 20-25k ton range, while the work of smaller ships should be offloaded to to various sizes of USVs that either operate independently or as a battle group protecting the much more important and expensive manned ships. The whole golden fleet thing is a move in that sort of direction, but I think the major issues are that the Trump ships are too large and expensive while looking inefficient for their displacement, while the cutters they’re buying would be death traps of questionable usefulness. I think we need to bet bigger on MUSVs quicker than we are currently, and settle on a next generation large surface combatant larger than DDG(X) but smaller than what Trump wants built.

>>65411632
i guess the question then is it even possible to maintain low cost protection of shipping everywhere against anybody more sophisticated than somalians
i just don't see how the shitshow in iran would be solvable regardless of what navy we theoretically could have built

>>65410315
Congress

>>65410949
Air Force should be deleted as a branch.

>>65411649
The previous post is very correct, with the way to reduce costs by distributing capabilities to USV which allow them to be in a higher risk positions and stay on station at substantially lower costs then a manned ship. While the political side of the shitshow can't be fixed by anything the USN does, being able to park a constellation of USVs which can be rotated in an out to provide unending magazine depth and sensor coverage would significantly neuter Iran's ability to threaten shipping without putting expensive hulls, and politically more damaging USN sailor's lives, at risk; similar to how MQ-9s getting shot down by Iran isn't even really note worthy because they're designed to be attritable. If the USN can do presence patrols with a single mothership and a handful of USVs, that's not a big change but being able to park the USVs in the gray zone and not have every loss be a catastrophic political hit would be a big change for when the USN has to do more then remind people they exist.

The USN is working and investing heavily into USVs, so they're not ignorant of the possibilities, we're just at an uncomfortable transition point where offensive capabilities have outgrown defensive ones at the moment, despite innovations like the APKWS and other low cost precision munitions that are capable of defeating threats in a cost effective manner.

>>65411641
>while looking inefficient for their displacement
Why does this keep coming up? Why is a 25k ton ship inherently better than a 35k ton ship with the same systems? I can sort of see using it as a proxy for cost, except that we already have a projected cost for the ships so there's no need to use a proxy, and the reason large ships are so much more expensive than small ships has a lot to do with the fact that larger ships have more and better systems. The Puller class, for example, is simultaneously among the largest and cheapest ships in the Navy.

>>65411672
>Instead of a $3B ship, we'll build ten $300M disposable ships
>Except each one of those ten still has billions of dollars worth of missiles onboard so theyre not actually disposable
>And none of them has a radar large and powerful enough to actually protect itself or the others

>>65411693
It’s 3.5x the displacement of a Ticonderoga, with optimistically about twice the VLS capacity assuming they use the same cells as Zumwalt for hypersonics, all for apparently a greater cost than a Ford. There needs to be some serious cost cutting done somewhere or they are not workable. On top of that, the way they’ve laid out the renders is very inefficient. The 5” guns would be much more effective in a superfiring setup. Lasers are pitched as a major part of the defensive complement but have no coverage fore or aft. The whole thing comes off as poorly thought out, and far too expensive for the numbers they want while ostensibly intending to use mature technologies off the shelf.

>>65411704
>Except each one of those ten still has billions of dollars worth of missiles onboard so theyre not actually disposable

Did you know that if you can put yourself in a more dangerous position, you can use a cheaper missile while also being networked to a real ship carrying real munitions to cover the cases that you can't reach? Wild concept, I understand, much less the near future with laser point defense systems starting to get rolled out which means that you can kill low cost threats for literally a few dollars of fuel if you can risk getting within the range required, which is where distributed and attritable platforms shine

>>65411733
>all for apparently a greater cost than a Ford
See, this is a reasonable complaint.
>It’s 3.5x the displacement of a Ticonderoga, with optimistically about twice the VLS capacity
This one is not. Why shouldn't it be 5x the displacement of a Tico with double the VLS cells? Because that would be more expensive? But you've addressed the cost separately.

>>65411750
Because this is seemingly replacing DDG(X) and that concept seemed much more efficient. IIRC those were going to be 96 vls cells on 14-15k displacement, with some being 64 cell with 12x hypersonics. Cost per hull last I remember was estimated $4-5 billion. The Trump proposal is less efficient than continuing those on both cost and displacement basis, and I think a better ship could be built if the continued DDG(X) design work but allowed for a displacement in the 20-25k ton range to alleviate the Navy’s concerns the hull was to small to give all the capability they wanted, while accepting that this would probably bring the cost per ship up $1-2 billion. Cost growth of ~40% isn’t ideal, but would still be 2-3x cheaper than estimates I’ve seen for the Trumps while offering better capability per dollar

>>65411787
>IIRC those were going to be 96 vls cells on 14-15k displacement
Why is that better? We're not talking about cost here.

>>65411850
Because they weren’t going to cost $18-23 billion each, if we estimate they would come in at $4.5 billion you would get 4-5 for every proposed battleship and the battleship as specified today does not come close to matching the capability of that many DDG(X)s. Its loses out on both capability/cost and capability/displacement, which to me suggests an evolved/enlarged DDG(X) design is a much better proposition.

>>65411733
>It’s 3.5x the displacement of a Ticonderoga, with optimistically about twice the VLS capacity assuming they use the same cells as Zumwalt for hypersonics

You are making the common mistake of thinking VLS capacity is what drives tonnage.

>all for apparently a greater cost than a Ford.

The CBO report you are referring to says that Trumps will be $18 billion and Fords will be $22 billion.

>On top of that, the way they’ve laid out the renders is very inefficient. The 5” guns would be much more effective in a superfiring setup. Lasers are pitched as a major part of the defensive complement but have no coverage fore or aft.

The 5" gun placement is to support depression over the sides and there is no place you could put the lasers that would give you full coverage.

>>65411883
>if we estimate they would come in at $4.5 billion

Burkes are expected to cost $5 billion in the timeframe that DDG(X) was going to be built, you are being incredibly naive if you think DDG(X) was only going to cost $4.5 billion.

>>65411883
Why do you keep bringing up cost when we're talking about VLS cells per displacement?

>>65411918
I’m comparing it to the most recent ship that firs roughly the role they want, a large surface combatant with full flag accommodations. There’s plenty of things driving the cost growth, but quite a bit of it seems to be questionably useful bloat.

That report quotes the first as $23.4 billion and hopes it could eventually get down to $18 billion eventually. But every time we hear about what these things would cost the estimate explodes, as I recall the estimate was $17 billion for the first not all that long ago.

I would question why you would need depression to that degree, they still have pretty limited firing angles for that sort of close in defense. They’ve also shown it with Mk.38s right over the bridge, I can’t help but feel they’d be better served with a laser there.
>>65411923
I’m going off the last official cost estimate I saw
>>65411927
Because the battleship is not making more efficient use of its displacement, which makes the ability to buy 4-5 ships who make similar use of their displacement for the same cost very relevant. It also doesn’t help that the ships it’s intended to replace were being designed from the start to accept hull extensions that would allow them to accommodate more vls cells, making the comparison worse.

>>65411952
>>Because the battleship is not making more efficient use of its displacement, which makes the ability to buy 4-5 ships who make similar use of their displacement for the same cost very relevant.
Cost is not closely associated with displacement. The Lewis B. Puller class ESB displaces nearly as much as a nuclear supercarrier but costs about the same as an LCS. The driving factor behind warship costs is the systems, which is why a 9,000 ton Burke costs more than five 90,000 ton ESBs. For that reason, I think it's silly to assume that a 25,000 ton ship would be significantly cheaper than a 35,000 ton ship equipped with the exact same systems.

You need a modern form of a coastal defense ship to clear the hormuz or to do any sort of amphibious operation

This has been obvious for decades which is where the failed Osprey/EFV programs come from

Anyways, not the Navys fault that everything in the US is 5x as expensive to produce compared to Asia

>>65411964
What systems are added to the battleship vs DDG(X) that have made the cost balloon at least 4x from the last estimate I’ve seen for DDG(X)? How many of them are necessary? The cost savings on a conventionally powered surface combatant in the 20-25k ton range should be massive vs what is estimated for the Trumps. They are completely out of line with the cost of any other modern large surface combatant we have ever built.

>>65411964
The basic hulls of military ships is also incredibly expensive due to insane survivability standards

>>65411972
A lot of that money is for infrastructure and not the ships themselves. It's also a more sane estimate and with another 8 years or something of inflation calculated in.

>>65411964
The pair of nuclear reactors, vaporware railgun, pile of AI datacenters and 4 massive helipads capable of taking Ospreys are likely a major contributor to cost bloat on the BBGN. As is the plan to armour the shit out of the thing which adds cost to a bunch of other systems.

>>65411977
If they want a shipbuilding infrastructure bill they should do it, and not attach it all to a very controversial program congress is really not on board with. Nothing about the price of these are sane, which is why SASC wants to keep DDG(X) funded.

>>65411972
>that have made the cost balloon at least 4x from the last estimate I’ve seen for DDG(X)?

The last cost estimate you saw for DDG(X) was also when a Ford was $10 billion less than CVN-82.

>>65411985
This has given me an awful vision of future warships offsetting costs with a shitcoin and running crypto mining rigs off their nuclear reactors at sea to balance the books.

>>65411993
Last number I saw was $4.4 billion. If we double that you get nearly 3x for the same price as the first Trump, and 2x if they ever manage to get that down to $18 billion.

>>65411952
>I’m comparing it to the most recent ship that firs roughly the role they want,

The point being you are comparing only one of dozens of variables by focusing on a Tico's 122 Mk41 vs a Trump's 192.

>>65411971
Very true. Its shameful really. Demoralizing. To think that my great nation cannot build ships as fast as a larger Asian country. Truly we have begun our decline.

>>65412001
>Last number I saw was $4.4 billion.

The CBO estimating a DDG(X) would cost $4.4 billion is a perfect example of why CBO cost estimates are meaningless.

>>65412013
DDG(X) is a significantly more conservative design that wasn’t reliant on a large number of systems yet to be developed, this saves massively on r&d

>>65412021
Not more conservative than a Burke yet the CBO estimated it having a similar cost.

See a lot of people talking about how a different ship would make Hormuz a breeze. Outline the ship, I'd be interested to see what people think would make it a cakewalk.

I also see several people talking about USV motherships: I hope you've never had a bad word to say about the LCS program then.

>>65411988
It's not so much a way to backdoor a shipyard bill so much as "okay, how do we actually build this thing?"

>>65412077
The LCS program sucking and sucking even harder because Congress couldn't pick which one to buy so pretending like it was going to be easy and cheap to make things work for both them doesn't invalidate the fundamental shift in naval warfare to distributed systems

>>65412021
CBO estimate was 5 Burkes to a battleship at $18 billion. If we take worst case where it is exactly 5:1, not 5.x:1 then the older $4.4 billion is a 22% increase over a worst case $3.6 billion for a Burke, which is in turn a 33% increase over the high bound I recall seeing for most recent Burke orders. When using the old $2.7 billion high bound cost for a Burke it was a 62% increase, which is highly significant. They were not being priced the same.

>>65412106
My bad, this was for >>65412063

>>65412091
Except for the fact that there hasn't been one, you are presenting a false dichotomy.

File: 1760890289857263.jpg (78 KB, 1917x810)

78 KB JPG

>>65412110
>if you like a concept, you'd better not have complained about a poor execution of it
>accusing others of false dichotomy

>>65410315
cant speak for the industry as a whole because im not smart or knowledgeable enough but i used to work at a shipyard and it fucking sucked, wages were low and people were treated like shit. also working with the navy fucking sucks, and the trades guys were all obese and retarded.

>>65412106
Getting real tired of anons not understanding procurement and thinking the initial construction cost is all you pay.

>>65412113
You didn't address what was said at all.

>>65412119
There are advantages in not needing to pay for fuel but I question that it would be enough to close the cost. If you want to bring up operational issues, there will be significant issues providing nuke techs for the number of ships they want to buy, as we are already very short handed in that regard. The nuclear surface fleet ran into these same issues last time it was tried.

>>65410315
>initially procure a class of 30 ships
>R&D costs spread out across the whole class, with economies of scale factored into production costs
>congress drops it to 3 ships
>cost per ship skyrockets as all the R&D costs are concentrated on those 3 hulls, and no economies of scale
>congress chimps out over the "cost overruns" and cancels the guided rounds that made the dual gun turrets worthwhile
And that's how you end up with an overpriced shitty ship.

>>65412122
And you didn't address mine either, so unless you'd like to walk back your initial passive aggressive opening and it's retarded premise, I guess we're at an impass

>>65412106
$2.7B was the cost of the first Arleigh Burke Flight III in 2019. If you think the cost hasn't changed since then, I've got a bridge to sell you.

>>65411787
>because this is seemingly replacing DDG(X) and that concept seemed much more efficient

One of the fundamental issues here is the poor understanding the average anon has of what droves ship tonnage/costs and what the USN is trying to do with BBGN.

It's about power generation and the systems to handle it at the scale the USN wants.

>>65412077
>Outline the ship, I'd be interested to see what people think would make it a cakewalk.

Imagine a ship that doesn't need to fire a multi million dollar interceptor to deal with Iranian missiles and drones.

>>65412135
The $4.4 billion estimate was in 2024.

>>65412135
Did you not see the part where I said their estimate vs the battleships could have it up to $3.6? I tried to compare numbers from a similar timeframe to determine their estimated cost growth from Burkes, which was 62% from the last order. If you apply that the $3.6 billion for a Burke it comes out to about $5.8 billion, which is still a significantly better deal, as that puts it 3:1 DDG(X):Battleship, which also should roughly equalize crewing requirements, but guarantees a deployable hull at all times.

>>65410324
So what you're saying is: half the problem is peace dividend/GWOT strategic fuckery shortchanging the Navy's naval assets, and half is all the Hyman Rickovers are dead or retired?

>>65412129
>the fundamental shift in naval warfare to distributed systems

>>65410769
>>65410778
Sorry you had to find out the English language works this way. Don't worry, i hate it too, but it's the way of things.

>>65411596
No you retard, watch videos on the wargames. The plan to use the air force from allied bases, that is why the F-47 is a priority over the FA-XX.

>>65412077
An Arleigh Burke's defenses consist of about 50 missiles that each cost several million dollars and can't be reloaded at sea. The BBGN will have 3-5 times as many of those missiles, but more importantly it will also have lasers that can destroy incoming threats for pennies, as well as a railgun capable of intercepting hypersonic missiles, and which is reloadable at sea. So instead of a situation where each ship has 50 missiles and 40 of those need to be reserved for self defense, this is a ship that can devote 150+ missiles to theater air defense. So in that sense it's actually the equivalent of 15+ Burkes.

>>65410625
>air force
God this. The Air Force should be slashed 70%, those fuckers haven't done SHIT since WW2.

>>65412169
>I hope you've never had a bad word to say about the LCS program then.

>>65412238
The only problem the LCS program ever had was the politically-motivated decision to purchase both classes.

>>65410315
I think part of the problem is evidenced by some of the debate in this thread, and in threads like it. Namely, that there hasn't been a real naval war in over 80 years. For a while, new technology could be applied to the lessons learned from WWII and everyone could still see the vision. You replace AAA with SAMs, or dive bombers with AGMs, or sub deck guns with AShMs, but the principle is the same. But we've gotten further and further from that benchmark, and technological progress has not stopped. Now we have people asking what the exponential changes in ELINT/EWAR will do in a war, or whether manned ships even have a role, and if they do whether they should be small and fast or fuckheug and tanky, and nobody knows because the last time two relatively-equal navies fought each other was 1982, and it produced essentially inconclusive data, so we all revert back to WWII plus interpolation from experiences since then.

I suspect the theorists break out into two camps: the guys who think the last 80 years are what navies, especially ones like the US Navy, will be doing: lots of support for shore operations, protecting shipping lanes, and occasionally bullying some fourth-rate greenwater navy and its barely seaworthy bathtubs. The other camp is convinced that there will be another peer naval conflict, and is determined for the USN to not be just behind the curve like it was at the opening of WWII, because they don't think we can mobilize our industry to be cranking out the next Essex-class at the same pace we did in WWII. I'm not sure there's really a way to settle that debate, but they are ultimately incompatible visions of the Navy, because they have different primary missions.

>>65412245
That's like saying the Titanic only had a small hole put into it by hitting an iceberg, you're completely ignoring all the downstream problems as a result of that decision such as fact that the modular mission modules came in late, over budget, and underperforming for the ones that they could even make work for some of them, leaving both classes largely incapable of doing anything that is more threatening then interdicting smugglers

>>65412250
The other camp in your telling is extremely retarded, since the US constructed a trillion destroyer escorts and cargo ships for every Essex and the former played a much larger role in winning both theatres than the latter.

>>65412250
We know what future naval conflict will look like: Prosperity Guardian and Epic Fury. The only question is which side of the board we're playing, but it doesn't actually matter that much for ship design when the strategy is the same regardless: stick something in the choke point your opponent can't move, and protect friendly traffic while denying enemy traffic.

The cost estimates in this thread are tiresome. Without referencing a year, they are meaningless.

The CBO estimate for BBGN-1 is flawed because they are always hyper-focused on cost per ton, and BBGN-1 doesn't have a modern analog. They took an inflation-adjusted average of CG-47, DDG-51, and DDG-1000 and subtracted the lead ship NRE to form the basis of their argument, which is $487 million per thousand tons for any large surface combatant. Even assuming it's a reasonable comparison from a functionality standpoint, this is a bad start because two of those ships were built during the Cold War, and DDG-1000 was butchered by Congress long before it was finished.

Their estimate of the lightship weight for BBGN-1 is 28k tons, so their baseline cost (and therefore the follow-on ship cost) should be $13.64 billion. They're not happy with how low that number is, so they start tacking on additional costs, like 12% extra due to the state of shipbuilding, an extra $2.1 billion for the nuclear reactor cost delta, and $5.4 billion for NRE. But really it all boils down to how they treat cost per ton, and it's completely overblown. BBGN-1 is going to have carrier-levels of armor, and that is a significantly cheaper cost per ton. Future Ford-class carriers are in the $250-275 million per thousand ton range. If BBGN-1 is somewhere in between, say $400 million per thousand tons, that shaves billions off the estimate.

I wasn't critical of the CBO estimating these numbers back in January when they had to do a quick turn after the announcement. However, it's August now and they're STILL doing shitty analysis. Have a look if you don't believe me: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2026-08/62550-battleships.pdf

>>65412316
Didn't the Navy publish their own cost estimates that were about 30% lower than CBO's? I'd be more inclined to believe that, although as we've seen with Zumwalt and F-35, people are always happy to lie in order to claim that unpopular programs are too expensive.

>>65410315
What if the Navy created a new ship builder rating? The Navy could take new recruits after boot camp and give them ship building training in A school. They could be contracted out to different companies and shipyards, and could even start up new shipyards or restart closed shipyards. They would still remain in the Navy receiving the same stability in pay, housing, and benefits. Afterwards they could choose when they get out to go work as civilians in the shipyards after having received the training, certifications, and experience.

>>65410661
That also means the average congressman was born before 1965 too, tard

>>65412378
They had an estimate released I believe as part of a budget request, but that was before it was decided the class would be nuclear which opened a very large and very expensive can of worms.

>>65412393
The Navy can't even recruit enough sailors, what makes you think they'd be able to take over recruitment for shipyards as well?

>>65410661
>after 1965
This is a fucking indictment. Only half of your Congressmen are younger than 60. 60 is too old to be an important decision maker. By the age of 60 people lose a whole standard deviation of intelligence on average, unfortunately political influence accrues with age.

>>65412378
The FY27 request had it at $17 billion for the first ship and $12 billion for the third ship.

>>65412238
The LCS program was not, as you put it, a "fundamental shift in naval warfare to distributed systems".

>>65412452
>I also see several people talking about USV motherships: I hope you've never had a bad word to say about the LCS program then

Anon is positing that the LCS was designed with USV mothership capabilities in mind, which it was as one of it's proposed mission modules iirc, though like many others, it never materalized. He then conflates people who'd like that role to be embraced with requiring them to not complain about the many faults and problems the LCS program and it's resulting ships had.

>>65412467
The MCM module is essentially a USV mothership.

>>65412316
>Have a look if you don't believe me

Holy shit they really did.

>>65412316
>carrier-levels of armor
What level of armor do you mean by this?

>>65412477
Trump claimed last year before the BBGN-1 announcement that he wanted a battleship with six inches of steel armor. Nothing else has been specified publicly. That amount of armor is a far cry from WW2 battleships, but larger ships like modern carriers have thicker hulls and additional layers for underwater areas. It's a better comp than modern destroyers.

>>65412533
And just to be clear, I'm not saying carrier hulls are more than six inches, but they're more than 5/8" inch steel nonsense.

>>65412245
Nah, the entire concept was the issue, the war with Iran is what they were designed for and they had to scurry away. Real frigates were needed.

File: PLANS_Huangshi_(FSG-502)_(...).jpg (496 KB, 1928x593)

496 KB JPG

>>65410324
>The Legend class, which gets excoriated here for being insufficient, is someone finally declaring a "good enough" to get hulls in the water.
The problem is that what's worse than spending too much money on moderate capability is spending any amount of money on no capability.
The Type 056 Corvette has more capability than the FF(X), albeit green water.

When the PLAN is cranking out Type 055's for the same cost as the Coast Guard Legend you really have to ask WTF we're doing.

>>65412091
You fail simple reading comprehension. Thanks for trying but we have nothing to discuss.

>>65412152
>Imagine a ship that doesn't need to fire a multi million dollar interceptor to deal with Iranian missiles and drones.
Would you care to suggest how? Pixie dust perhaps?

>>65412224
Do you see any downsides or drawbacks to your approach?

>>65412578
>muh PLAN
No one gives a shit about your ricepaper burial at sea waiting to happen

Restart Independence, finish the ASW MP, dumpster the Freedom. dumpster the Constellation, dumpster the FF(X)

>>65410315
>ongoing

my nigga this clusterfuck is at least 25 years in the making
bad decisions upon bad decisions and putting idiots at the right positions
add to that the fact that jones act exist and it practically nuked the entirety of the u.s ship building industry and you can undertand why

>>65412963
Ironic how a law intended to protect shipbuilding, seamanship, and general naval knowledge, turned out to do the exact opposite.

>>65412408
touché!

>>65412438
younger people tend to be more liberal - the average Democrat age is 10% younger than the average Republican - which is not always a good thing
>By the age of 60 people lose a whole standard deviation of intelligence on average
intelligence is measured by speed of abstract problem-solving and pattern-recognition. this speed is not always necessary in governance, and is heavily offset by experience. young people - and that includes myself - have experienced fewer crises and tend to panic and make riskier decisions
and younger people have no notion of building a nation for their grandchildren, because they're hardly done raising children

I'm finally old enough to see where my blind spots are, and I wouldn't automatically rule out the 60s-aged class
a hard age cap of 70 is probably good however
maybe even 65

>>65412984
it was never intended to do any of those
it was made at a point that usa felt that their position in the global shipping industry will be dominant
the greeks say BET they left usa and started building their ships in greece
naturally greece started to become the global sea superpower UP UNTILL the 60s
in the 60s china was giving a load of money to greek hands to move to china
naturally they did and the rest is history really
china is now controlling the container part of the industry while the greeks dominate the bulk/lng/oil part of it

>>65410315
they keep going for extremely expensive meme solutions and requirements and then you add the pork barreling, general MIC shenanigans' and declining shipbuilding industry on top of that and you get a very impressive dollar bonfire and no ships

>>65413028
It was deliberately intended to protect the US against cabotage.

>>65412666
>Would you care to suggest how? Pixie dust perhaps?
Lasers and an air defense railgun.

>Do you see any downsides or drawbacks to your approach?
There's drawbacks to any approach, but you wouldn't enter a van into an F1 race because race cars don't have enough storage space. Something that can do the job is always going to be better than something that can't do the job regardless of its other shortcomings.

>>65413061
>please rely even more on foreigners
>please let foreign companies pay below US minimum wage on in United States territory
No. Go to hell.