What's gonna happen to the Trump class battleship now?
>>65633038Dead in the water.The budget should be dedicated to building Brilliant Pebbles system, as how it's being done. And rightfully so.https://www.executivegov.com/articles/space-force-golden-dome-orbital-interceptorBattleship is a total waste of budget and nothing more than a MIGA cult mass jerking.
>>65633038Oh that’s dead. It’s possible DDG(X) gets pushed above the ~14.5k tons it had been targeting, as there is a case for a larger surface combatant to replace the Ticos, but that’s the closest this could ever come to existing. Frankly I’m more worried that a lot of important programs will stall out or get cancelled in the coming funding environment. One of the main Democrats on the defense committees has already come out against trillion dollar top lines since the election, and I don’t see how they square the circle here. Current programs are already reliant on an unlikely to pass reconciliation bill, and I don’t see how the Navy manages to fit DDG(X) and F/A-XX into a Biden era budget alongside existing programs and munition replenishment
Why would you even need a big ship for dispersed, AI-driven systems?Some stealthy autonomous suicide-submarine is going to work just fine off of smaller vessels.
>>65633070>Some stealthy autonomous suicide-submarine Uh, a torpedo?
>>65633090Nah. Stuff like the suicide sea drones used in Ukraine, only under the water.But I suppose making the vehicles submersible might raise their cost enough for it to just be better to use torpedoes off of them instead.
>>65633038Nothing. It'll be quietly shelved and join the long list of embarassing USN procurement failures.
>>65633038They should build a rubber dinghy, attach a flare gun as the "main gun" and name is USS Trump. Ensure that the dinghy is in service so that the name USS Trump can't be used for any other vessel. Sail the dinghy every 1st April.
as with all other USN projects, it'll either die in development or they'll make 1-3 and then kill it.
Transitioning into the Clinton (Hillary) Class battlecruisers.
Aww, but my ultra dreadnought..
>>65633038Probably nothing. At most the Democrats will make a show of force of cancelling it and/or change the name.
>>65633038Continue on because the USN wants a capital surface combatant with deep magazines to escort carriers.
>>6563306814,000 tons for the DDG(X) was already unworkably low, and the USN was coming up with plans to extend it by thousands of tons before it was even designed. What they actually need is a ship in the 25k-35k ton range, but they didn't think they could get approval for a ship with that large of a nominal size, so they assumed they'd have to weasel it in later. With the "battleship," they saw the opportunity to take advantage of a senile boomer to get the ship they actually need built and showed off a design at the upper end of what they could make full use of.My guess is that we won't see the "Trump-class" "battleship" canceled outright, but we'll probably see it scaled down to 25k tons and conventionally powered.
>>65633038It becomes the Obama-class Peacekeeping Cruiser.
>>65633331But the DDG(X) was supposed to a destroyer, not a cruiser, which more urgently needed.
>>65633337Stop thinking about those words like they actually mean anything. A ship is called what the navy in question believes their legislature will pay for. DDG(X) grew out of Ticonderoga replacement studies. It is intended to fulfill the role of the current cruisers. It will be bigger than the current cruisers. It is called a destroyer because it is politically expedient. Germany is building a ship larger than 10k tons with armament at least equal to a Burke. They are calling it a frigate. Why? Because they believe that they can get money for a frigate. Trump’s battleship wouldn’t have been a terribly controversial program if he’d called it a cruiser and not named it after himself. Good branding is crucial in a democratic system.
>>65633346I'm telling you the navy will probably come up with an actual destroyer once they're done figuring out how to design the force taking into account the inevitably of somewhat lower (manned) ship counts.
>>65633331>14,000 tons for the DDG(X) was already unworkably low...Wow, it's almost like Navy had been considering this kind of ship for years before Trump announced it, just like with the Space Force and all the associated gnashing of teeth 8 years ago.
>>65633346This is all correct, but the trump BBS is retarded. Gods we need DDGX so badly.And just buy the fucking italian frigate, and do NOTHING, but fit a spy6 on it. I want the crews to have to learn fucking italian, just fucking buy them.
>>65633038>>65633038Its dead and im glad it is since they didnt put 8 inch guns on it. Not even a single mount.
>>65633038>battleship>no guns
>>65633346>Trump’s battleship wouldn’t have been a terribly controversial program if he’d called it a cruiser and not named it after himself.The Navy named it, but yes you are correct that the vast majority of people who are arguing against it are only doing so because it is named after Trump.
>>65633398It's a BBG, not a BB.
>>65633387Best I can do is another wasted 10 years modifying an existing design to the point it's just an entirely new vessels and the cancelling the program to start over
500 burkes
>>65633038Fucked in the Ass, lmao.
>>65633337We have the Arleigh Burke Flight III, which is still the most capable destroyer in the world. We do need a proper replacement for it, since it's far past overstuffed and there's absolutely no headroom for a Flight IV. Meanwhile, in less than three years, the USN will be operating NO cruisers whatsoever. What does that tell you about which ships the USN most urgently needs?
>>65633454Understood, firing up the shipyards.
>>65633113can you even call it a failure on the USN part considering the entire thing came from the president and his fellow retards, seems more like out of touch leadership asking for something stupid they had to give the illusion of going along with
>>65633376Yes, exactly. They were already planning how to sneak a ship of similar capabilities to the "battleship" in under the DDG(X) program, they were just given the opportunity to pitch a ship at the larger end of the useful range instead of trying to come up with ways to get Congress to approve a >20k ton "destroyer."
>>65633494That shit reminds me when the bong navy had to sneak their light carriers past parliament, by writing them up as "antisubmarine cruisers".
>>65633500*of when
>>65633489Saar we cannot find the shipyards.
>>65633486>the most capable destroyer in the worldProofs?
>>65633486>still the most capable destroyer in the worldType-55 would like to have a word with you, anon.
>>65633447>It's a BBG, not a BB.>BBGMore like BB Gay, lmao.
>>65633537>>65633540>Angry chinkshill noisesA ship's capabilities are not measured solely by its VLS count.
>>65633548>solely by its VLS count.Correct, type-55 is bigger, heavier, newer, and more capable than the burke.
>>65633551It's also protected by chink knockoff S-300s, which means it's just an artificial reef in waiting.
>>65633554>knockoff S-300sThat knockoff S-300 is enough to keep the USAF on their toes, lmao.
>>65633560We already saw the extent of their usefulness in Venezuela and Iran. China should be buying Iran's long range IR missiles, not selling their junk to anyone.
>>65633862>long range IR missilesAhh... I still remember that. "Sorry we don't know that F-35 supossed to be stealthy" lmao.
>>65633038was never getting built even if he did win the midterms, retarded pipedream to placate dumbass boomer that thinks the name "battleship" sounds cool.
>>65633551>newerand still less technologically advanced, how fucking embarrassing chinkshill.
>>65633867if you call "point blank range" long range, sure, the F35 flew directly overhead and the missile operator got very lucky that it did, IR guidance is useless beyond a few km distance, especially on the ground.
>>65633897>still less technologically advancedHoly shit, you are high on trump copium it seems. China newest fire control modul in type-55 is on par or even better than their western counterpart. Plus china capabilities to built almost all of its part in house mean no more outsourcing to different country which means it can be produced faster at bigger batch.
>>65633901>the F35 flew directly overhead and the missile operator got very lucky that it did,So the missile operator that is very lucky or the pilot that is retarded?? The plane is definitely perfectly stealthy with no flaw that can be exploited whatsowever.
It drops the rail gun and armored belt, reverting back to the CG(X) that the Navy always wanted. I will be curious to see if they try to keep it nuclear powered or revert to conventional.
>>65633907Bullshit, them saying it is and it being are two different things and you slanty eyed insect know that very well.
>>65633491>can you even call it a failure on the USN part considering the entire thing came from the presidentIt's amazing how TDS makes people willingly ignorant. BBGN was born out of the USN wanting a ship bigger than DDGX so they didn't have to have subclassess with different weaponry.
>>65633907>the 055 is more advanced than a Burke because I am comparing it with a nineties vintage Burke that hasn't been modernized
>>65633912Over under on this anon thinking the railgun is for shore bombardment?
>>65633910IR signature reduction technology is not nearly at the same level as RCS reduction technology, although the adaptive cycle engine technology in next-gen fighters is greatly improved in that respect. I don't see how this is supposed to help the Type 055 since its air defenses are primarily radar guided missiles that have proven wholly ineffective against American air power.
>>65633952>I don't see how this is supposed to help the Type 055 since its air defenses are primarily radar guided missilesAnon, the chinks are anything but stupid. They learn that american so called stealth fighter can be detected by IR missile and thus nothing stoping them from placing/replacing some of Type-055 radar guided missile module with IR guided missile modul. Remember one of the main point that chink likes to brag abaout type-056 is their modularity which make this scenario plausible.
>>65633997>thus nothing stoping them from placing/replacing some of Type-055 radar guided missile module with IR guided missile modulOkay, may we see it?And let's say that the chinks do admit that American broad spectrum stealth and EW make their most advanced air defenses useless and switch over to primarily IR, with all of the limitations attached to that method. How would that make the Type 055 more capable than a Burke, which can target Chinese J-20s and J-35s from hundreds of miles away, if it's limited to IR systems with detection ranges of only a couple dozen miles?
>>65633331You just made all that up.
>>65633938No it wasn't, that's why the original announcement was laughably undeveloped. In reality, the Navy wants cobsuderably smaller ships than the Trump class, as this is what actually increases fleet size and magazine capacity. They understand that, so do you, and you are just a liar hoping people will believe propaganda.
>>65634054it is infinitely cheaper to start with a "too big" ship and leave it empty than to redesign a ship 10 years into production to add more VLS/power generation/lasers/whatever
>>65634058No it isn't, a VERY conservative estimate is you can build 4 DDG(X) for one Trump. This is how fleet magazine capacity actually works.Again, you know all this, and are just lying.
>>65634061lol ok buddyIt's going to be 4 billion+ a ship for the DDGx
>>65634064It could be $6B and you'd still get 2x the magazine capacity per dollar than the cheapest Trump class ship.
>>65634067how is magazine capacity relevant when our stockpiles are empty after a week of war?
>>65634054No, the Navy wanted a ship considerably *larger* than DDG(X), which is obvious because they've been talking about the Destroyer Payload Module while the ship was still very early in the conceptual stage. They want to make up the volume with much smaller ships like the LCS, however Congress is set on the idea of an escort frigate. They tried to reconcile their needs with Congress's desires with the Constellation class, but that rapidly turned into a ship of destroyer size and cost because that's what's required to perform the escort role in the modern era. So the Navy canceled that program because it didn't fill their need for a low cost, high volume ship, and immediately went back to attempting to procure an LCS-like ship with FF(X). Unfortunately the FF(X) will never be as good or as cost effective as the LCS since it was designed to fill the USCG's needs rather than the USN's, but it's close enough and a more politically tenable option.
>>65633038Dead. No new navy toys for the forseeable future. Second thing that'll be dead is the new frigate program/selection.
>>65634277>Politicians will continue to prevent the only branch of the military that does anything useful from getting access to the tools it needs to perform its dutiesSounds about right, unfortunately.
>What's gonna happen to the Trump class battleship now?Same thing which would always gonna happen, i.e. not gonna happen
>>65633337The Arleigh Burke is fine for continued destroyer roles, most of its shortcomings come from trying to push it into having to fill in for larger ship classes that no longer exist in the USN inventory.
>>65633346>Trump’s battleship wouldn’t have been a terribly controversial program ifNah, it was retarded by design. It would only have made sense if nuclear powered, which instantly fucks over your ability to produce them without fucking over aircraft carrier production.
>>65634277>>65634417What can a frigate do that can't be accomplished by an F-35? The ugly truth is that all direct fire surface combatants, not just BBs have been outmodded by air power especially under the drone age and really only continue to exist due to inertia. Sheffield being sunk by thirdies should had been a second Yamato moment.
>>65634450>What can a frigate do that can't be accomplished by an F-35?Hold the coast. You still need surface vessels for patrolling and interaction with shipping, and you need a big surface vessel with lots of amenities for endurance to do those things a thousand miles away from the closest port.The Legend class or whatever the FF(X) is being called coming off underarmed is an admission that if a frigate finds itself in a serious combat scenario it's boned, but it does the job of prodding at smugglers and fags in speedboats as well as something more ideally-designed would.
>>65634439>It would only have made sense if nuclear poweredWhat makes you think that? The real battleships weren't nuclear.>>65634450Sheffield is not an example of the end of naval power, it's an example of the end of bong naval tradition. An American frigate was hit by the exact same missiles just a handful of years later and returned to port under its own power.
>>65634439Didn't they already change the design to be nuclear?
>>65633070>>65633098>Guys, I have an idea!>What if we tried to build a bunch of tiny, shitty boats to disperse the risk!>And we can leverage new technology to make them better than other people's big ships!Real Jeune École has never been tried. Mahanism will fall any day now.>>65634450Escort civil and military convoys>inb4 a burke could do thatBurkes cost too much and there aren't enough, leading directly to the destroyer fleet being overtasked and undermanned. The deferred maintenance, deferred training, and crew under-performance due to ridiculous OPTEMPO are a direct result of failing to replace the Perry class frigates.
>>65634474>What makes you think that? The amount of crap it has, from an onboard AI data center to the radar suite to fuckin' rail guns makes it not really feasible to produce a fuck ton of power with conventional generators if you want any sort of range, since it would burn through regular fuel instantly.>The real battleships weren't nuclear.They never had all the energy hungry tech of that overdesigned monstrosity. Fuckin' rail guns man.>>65634482Did they? If so, that kinda makes sense from an energy point, but it doesn't solve the issue of production. All the shipyards in the US which can produce nuclear powered ships, that is ALL TWO OF THEM, are backed up with producing aircraft carriers. US has issues with naval production as is, throwing in nuclear power into the mix makes things even more ass in terms of procurement.
>>65633098I keep forgetting how big these things are. Tiny by naval standards, but I keep imagining them being like car size.
>>65634675
>>65634536>since it would burn through regular fuel instantly.The real battleships generated over 150 megawatts of mechanical power and didn't run out of fuel instantly. All of the electrical systems combined, including the railgun and DEWs, will draw a miniscule amount of power compared to the power requirement of moving a capital ship at 30+ knots.>All the shipyards in the US which can produce nuclear powered ships, that is ALL TWO OF THEM, are backed up with producing aircraft carriers.Technically there's only one shipyard in the US that products nuclear powered ships; submarines are boats. While I agree that the USN's shipbuilding plan is somewhere between aspirational and delusional, there's no reason that on a longer timeline, one or more of the other half-dozen American shipyards large enough to accommodate a ship of this size couldn't be nuclear certified.
>>65634105If we actually end up building a bunch of FF(X)s instead of just getting more LCSs I will legitimately lose my shit. The FF(X) is projected to cost something like 50% more than the Independence class even when adjusting for inflation...and that's not even considering that we know the price is going to go up when they actually build one. It is such a piece of crap and it enrages me to think we are throwing valuable Navy dollars away just because McCain had brain damage.
>>656347411. You are retarded to compare engine power with electrical power generation. An Iowa class Battleship generated barely 10 Megawatts of electrical power. 2. You points about>including the railgun>will draw a miniscule amount of powerAre turbo-retarded. My brown friend, that single 32 Mj Railgun draws about 25 megawatts of power alone. That's 2.5 Iowa class Battleships in a single gun. A fuckin' IA datacenter draws around 100 Megawatts alone. >there's no reason that on a longer timeline, one or more of the other half-dozen American shipyards large enough to accommodate a ship of this size couldn't be nuclear certified.You need to invest tens of billions of dollars for a decade to build up naval production capacity, find, hire and train the workforce, improve supply chain and so on, i.e. your improved capacity will go online in 2036 and then you'll be able to start pumping out a few such ships at the same time. By the time you'll build up a set of them it will be 2050+. You need additional ships in the next few years - you've smelled your own farts for over a decade and lost the time to work on this in a realistic manner.
>>65634759Yes, it's very silly, since a lot of that money is going into retrofitting the Legend class with systems that the LCS is already equipped with, and the Legend's hangar is barely able to fit Navy helicopters, but Congress certainly wouldn't approve an LCS restart and Constellation would be an even bigger waste of money. I really don't see what other option they have.
>>65634764>You are retarded to compare engine power with electrical power generationYou are retarded to think there's a difference. Yes, there's substantial losses involved with converting that power to electricity, but there's also substantial benefits to be gained by storing that electricity to use it in more optimal ways, just like a hybrid car. >that single 32 Mj Railgun draws about 25 megawatts of power alone. Only while it's actively firing, which will be a tiny percentage of the time.>That's 2.5 Iowa class Battleships in a single gun. You're comparing to its installed power, which as you've pointed out is miniscule. Comparing to its total power, even accounting for conversion losses, that's less than 1/4 of one. >A fuckin' IA datacenter draws around 100 Megawatts alone.How many FLOPS is that and what makes you think NAVSEA is targeting that level of compute? They're only planning to run inference, not training, and they'll only have a limited number of users to serve.>You need to invest tens of billions of dollars for a decadeThe US government can lose ten billion dollars in the couch cushions, and a decade is not a long time in comparison to the production and service life of a ship. If they started in detailed design work for it today, they could probably have Ingalls or Philly nuclear certified before the first ship is ready to have its reactor installed. There's also a 6 year lead time on naval reactors so it wouldn't help to have it certified much sooner than that anyway.
>>65634797>You are retarded to think there's a difference.It's fuckin' different. We don't live in an ideal world where power transfers 1:1. Nowhere close to that at all.>storing that electricity to use it in more optimal ways, just like a hybrid car. Yeah, let's fuck out fuel tanks by taking even more space with giant batteries. Are you retarded?>Only while it's actively firing, which will be a tiny percentage of the time.Do you plan on turning off half the ship to fire its gun? Maybe do some retarded russia-tier shit (e.g. the Moskva, where turning on radars fucked over the comms lmao) and disable radars to fire the gun?>Comparing to its total powerThere's no such thing as "total power" here, retard. If you somehow convert all of that mechanical power into electricity then your floating shitbox won't be able to actually swim because surprise-surprise it's needed for propulsion.>How many FLOPS is that and what makes you think NAVSEA is targeting that level of compute? They're only planning to run inference, not training, and they'll only have a limited number of users to serve.It's not my fault that they've announced it having an AI datacenter being part of the ship.>The US government can lose ten billion dollars in the couch cushions, and a decade is not a long time in comparison to the production and service life of a ship.And yet a fuck ton of projects were cancel because they were "too expensive".>If they started in detailed design work for it today, they could probably have Ingalls or Philly nuclear certifiedIt's not just the certification, retard. Life isn't a video game, you can't instantly spawn more parts, gear, tooling, people who have the skills and experience and so on. All of that takes years to actually do.>If they started in detailed design work for it today, they could probably have Ingalls or Philly nuclear certifiedI'm not sure how you can understand this and yet have such delusions on other points.
>>65634808It's weird seeing you cope so hard about all the reasons why it should be impossible when that's exactly how the Zumwalt class has worked for the past decade.
>>65634813>Zumwalt class has workedBruh, there's a reason why it was canceled - it's an overpriced barely functional shitbox
>>65634822It's not any more expensive than Burke Flight III, and the only reason it has missing capabilities is because its production was cut short for political reasons.But if you want to try and find some sources about how its power management is fundamentally impossible, be my guest.
>>65634835>It's not any more expensive than Burke Flight IIIBut it's not even half of the ship Burke is, that's the fucking point lol.>and the only reason it has missing capabilities is because its production was cut short for politicalThat was a symptom. The project was a fuck up, it was cancelled to avoid yet another sank cost fallacy bullshit example. >power managementAre you honesty advocating for your mega-ship to be a shitbox which can't both walk and chew at the same time?
>>65634770>but Congress certainly wouldn't approve an LCS restartI don't buy this. People just spout it off like its self-evident but I don't think its the case.That aside, they could just do a clean sheet which is what they really need to do if they want to develop a frigate.
>>65634786>Maryland congressman who is now head of the judiciary committee said he's going to use his power to create a federal gun registry and that's a top priority over affordabilityHoly fuck lmfao. I knew the midterms were going to change nothing and democrat wins would be erased soon enough, but this really sells it.
>>65634852>But it's not even half of the ship Burke is, that's the fucking point lol.What exactly can a Burke do that the Zumwalt wouldn't be able to do had it been finished?>That was a symptom. The project was a fuck up, it was cancelled to avoid yet another sank cost fallacy bullshit example.The project was fine, Burke Flight III is the sunk cost fallacy bullshit. Zumwalt was canceled because boomers were upset that shipbuilding was more expensive in 2015 than in 1985, and thought it looked ugly.Feel free to post one of the GAO reports where they complain that the program is over budget and most of the systems are untested, but be aware that I will respond with the GAO report pointing out that Burke Flight III is an even worse idea since it will cost just as much and will not do any of the things the Navy needs.>Are you honesty advocating for your mega-ship to be a shitbox which can't both walk and chew at the same time?How often do you find yourself needing to sprint at your top speed while eating?>>65634991The Navy had to play political fuck-fuck games just to get the program funded in the first place and it caused massive problems. What makes you think that after a decade of dogging on the program, Congress would casually agree to buy 50 more?
>>65634786Kek lolberts fuck themselves again, you love to see it
>>65633038the same thing as all his other empty announcements
>>65634067>>65634061>only looking at VLS cell countThey just can't help but out their dunning kruger.
>>65634439>It would only have made sense if nuclear powered, which instantly fucks over your ability to produce them without fucking over aircraft carrier production.Except it wouldn't because there are more shipyards at Newport that can hold Fords than needed.
>>65634482>Didn't they already change the design to be nuclear?Yes and it only highlights how ignorant the anon is, probably still thinks it was going to have 128 Mk41 too.
>>65635208>NewportAs a native, fuck you; get it right.
>>65635113>What exactly can a Burke do that the Zumwalt wouldn't be able to do had it been finished?3 Zumwalts were built. But to answer your question, have room for growth. Flight III Burkes are maxxed out and don't have the power generation for both SPY-6 and energy intensive weaponry.
>>65635209And here we see the start of the eternal USN spec creep thet kills all surface projects.
>>65635220BBGN was always going to have 192 Mk41cells
Absolutely nothing and if it will be build it will be a good firing practice for the Russians or the Chinese
>>65633447what if it was a BBW
>>65635216Reread the post you're responding to.
Why name a class of ships after yourself though? If anything goes wrong (and with ships it's a 75% chance of things going wrong) you'll just be associated with the failure. Hell if I were president I'd name a ship after my opponent, sort of a white elephant deal.
>>65635325>Why name a class of ships after yourself though?Woman-tier narcissism. A very russian trait btw.
>>65635325He didn't name it after himself. Someone, possibly Phelan, decided that it would be more likely to get his support if they named it after him. Note that the lead ship was never intended to be named the Donald Trump, so regardless of any circumstances basically no one would have called it the "Trump class" after the lead ship was built and he was out of office.
>>65635330If I were president I'd fire the man who named it that.
>>65635356The story seems to be that Hegseth got Phelan fired because he had too much influence with Trump, so apparently naming the class after Trump was a good call for getting his approval.
>>65633038I don't get it man, if you're going to selfwank by ordering a battleship and naming it after yourself, why wouldn't you at least make it look as cool as possible? This looks lame and gay, just like all modern warships.If I were president and in a position to order a vanity project like this I'd ask for a burgerized Yamato. At least that would look rad as fuck to make up for being completely useless in modern combat.
>>65635113>What makes you think that after a decade of dogging on the program, Congress would casually agree to buy 50 more?I think there are numbers between 1 and 100. Wild concept, I know, but I'm something of a radical.
>>65635525The production line has been cold for a couple of years now and 10 or 20 hulls wouldn't fill the Navy's needs. If there's going to be a restart, it's going to need to be a large buy.
>>65635617I don't know why you are talking about LCS when Hanwha is going to be building Americanized Chungnam frigates in Philly.
>>65633038Ticonderogas will continue to age in service. Congress, the Navy and internet autists will continue to argue over a cruiser replacement. No one will actually build a new cruiser.The dumbest thing about this whole fiasco is that they weren't going to make the new boat nuclear.
>>65634417I am just as disappointed as you are.>>65635113To the day I die I will contest that the Zumwalt class ever was what the Navy *needed*. It had parts of what the navy needed: power generation, mk51 survivability, but going with boondoggles like AGS just because some boomer missed the Iowa's clearly was dumb and is what ultimately doomed the project. And that's not counting all the other cool SC-21 ideas that could have been.>>65634759FF(X) is dumb, but so is LCS. Now make the austal frigate out of steel and we're talking. 40 knots isn't needed so neither is the aluminum or the pumpjets. Now you have great seakeeping and all the bells and whistles you need. (But it will never happen)
>>65636140>The dumbest thing about this whole fiasco is that they weren't going to make the new boat nuclear.Anon the N in BBGN did not stand for nigger.
>>65635617Do you know how analogies work?
>>65636215There was nothing wrong with the AGS, exactly how useful it might have been is debatable, but it worked fine and did not cost an exorbitant amount of money. It had nothing to do with the Zumwalt's cancelation.
>>65636393I have no idea what analogy you were trying to make. It would not be cost effective to restart a cold production line for a handful of ships. Congress would not agree to funding another full production run.
>>65633068Biden admin was pro submarines at least so subsurface fleet programs will probably be fine. Navy usually survives the budget.
>>65633038The Trump Class was always vaporware that was never gonna be built just like his arch. Trump is clearly obsessed with his legacy since he knows he's dying and wants to leave behind something they can't just overturn with a pen stroke when he's gone.If he wanted to be remembered by the navy he should use his rule by decree to force through the production of a class of frigates.
>>65636618It's a shame you can never have a decent discussion about the BBGN because people with severe TDS always start screeching.
>>65636777BBGN is an intrinsically stupid concept, why put all your eggs in one giant basket when you can just have a bunch of smaller baskets so if one breaks you don't lose as much? Battleships worked because ships had heavy armor and different gun sizes, you couldn't put a 16 inch gun in a cruiser and you couldn't give a cruiser a 14 inch belt. Modern vessels don't rely on armor and your battleships aren't going to be firing missiles too big for a cruiser to handle.Why would you ever build that retarded thing when you could build two Arleigh Burke class destroyers and have much more firepower and two thirds the displacement and a fifth the cost?
>>65633068Is American acquisition planning literally so bad, that they'd've been better off not bothering to acquire anything new after the Burkes, and dragging the Iowas back out of museum?
>>65636790Calling it a battleship combined with a widespread poor understanding of what drives ship tonnage really cooked peoples brains. You aren't getting the power generation, conditioning and storage you need for modern big radars, electronic warfare systems and deep magazined non missile weaponry in a 6k ton frigate.
>>65636812Zumwalts would have been fine if congress had not slash and whined them.
>>65636814>You aren't getting the power generation, conditioning and storage you need for modern big radars, electronic warfare systems and deep magazined non missile weaponry in a 6k ton frigate.Good thing a 6k ton frigate doesn't need those things. The Trump class is like someone said "bombers need better radar and means to defend against enemy fighters" so you combine a B-2, an AWACS, and give it a layout like a fighter with a focus on AMRAAMs as well as bombs. A fleet is made up of specialized ships, a frigate isn't the main detection of a fleet, a carrier isn't a missile boat, and a railgun is a pointless addition made up because Trump's brain is rotting just like his idea of putting snipers up on his arch like it was designed by an 8 year old.
>>65636849Your appeal to absurdity does not change the fact that a 6k ton frigate cannot protect a carrier in the modern battlefield.
>>65636790The "BBGN" *is* a cruiser. And it will carry missiles that a smaller ship like a Burke can't.
>>65636817Literally anything is better than nothing. Seems like they've spent billions, only for nothing in the end.
>>65636896Just delete the fucking useless railgun, call it CGN, add more lasers and build a dozen.
>>65636939What makes you think the railgun is useless?
>>65636934We don't have nothing. We have everything that Congress will sign off on, which is mostly just Burkes and carriers. It's not the Navy's fault that Congress signed off on decades of R&D for the Zumwalts and then refused to pay for more than three actual ships.
>>65636849No, it more like saying >We need an F-15 to mount these new powerful radarsAnd the you come along and say >Good thing MiG-21s don't need big radarsAnd then the MiG-21s get demolished because, as it turns out, powerful radars are important.
>>65637026What radars would the Trump class have that the current fleet is incapable of fitting? This isn't a frigate that might be operating on its own or in a small group of similar ships, it's gonna be part of a large fleet. You don't need every soldier in a squad to have a machinegun, you don't need every plane in your air force to be an AWACS.My argument isn't less advanced tech is better like you seem to be misconstruing it as, it's that a ship doesn't need to do every single role. The Trump class wouldn't render frigates pointless and Frigates aren't pointless because they can't fit the same advanced electronics as a destroyer. The existence of AWACS doesn't render fighters pointless, and the Trump class is like someone tried to combine every role into one super ship like someone deciding to make a stealth fighter/heavy bomber AWACS gunship instead of having fighters, bombers, AWACS planes, and gunships as separate, specialized vehicles.
>>65636896It uses the same Mk 41 VLS cells that the Burke does.
>>65637032>What radars would the Trump class have that the current fleet is incapable of fittingNTA but even the japs are building 14000 ton ships so they can slap a SPY-7(V)1 on them, with their current fleet basically being notBurkes.
>>65636215That's what annoys the absolute fuck out of me. There are genuinely good design backbones available. A stretched Independence class made from steel, with CODLAD propulsion, a 'fixed' Zumwalt class which doesn't waste displacement and internal volume on a glorified autoloaded gun-howitzer; the rough sketches are there, what's mising is willingness.
>>65636939Tell us, do you think the railgun is for shore bombardment?
>>65637033It has at least 12 cells for the bigger CPS missiles.
>>65637032>What radars would the Trump class have that the current fleet is incapable of fitting? Are you aware that the reason you don't see Flight III Burkes with lasers or the muffin top EW suite is because SPY-6 takes all the juice they can spare?
>>65637032>You don't need every soldier in a squad to have a machinegunComplication for the sake of complicating things is how you end up with the clusterfuck that was WWII tank classes. We have the technology to merge several ship designs into something that would outperform everything before them in the vast majority of metrics beyond squeezing them into a creek while likewise simplifying logistics, just not the political will.
>>65636519There was everything wrong with the AGS. Not in the sense that the gun didn't work, but that you built an entire ship around the idea of littoral gunfire support in a permissive environment in the 21st century.That is the original sin of why the Navy favored going with Burke's. Because they rightfully identified ABM and area air defense as the more important challenges. All the other parts of the Zumwalt that had the same concurrency issues as the AGS -and as you point out were more expensive - are things the Navy actually liked: IEP, plenty of electrical power, enough space for large radar panels, eventual integration with SM-2/3/6 and so on.
>>65637241The worse part is that it coincided with the Marines ditching their tanks thinking that the idea would actually amount to something, and now if they want direct gunfire support they expect a Burke to park her fat ass next to the shore to plink her 5-inch gun.
>>65637231>We have the technology to merge several ship designs into something that would outperform everything before them in the vast majority of metrics>Barely more missiles than a Burke>Far more expensive than a Burke>Far heavier than a Burke>More crew than a Burke>But maybe it could carry Radar that the Burkes can't even though that wasn't mentioned in the designIt really isn't comparable to WW2 tank classes
>>65637222Which can't physically be put into a Burke-sized ship why?
>>65637256I dunno, do you think they could add casemates or broadside cells or something to get them to fit?
>>65637283Sickos would tell you to delete the 5 inch gun
>>65637241>Because they rightfully identified ABM and area air defense as the more important challenges.Building ships to counter these things but not support ashore operations is tantamount to admitting the Navy doesn't have a useful role to play in resolving most forseeable 21st century conflicts in a manner conducive to American interests. This is a less severe form of the same problem that the USAF has caused for the country by shelving tasks like CAS and FAC so that it can laser focus on OCA, SEAD and strike. These things might be useful to your service, but they don't give politicians useful tools to end conflicts on terms better than they started for the country. These services are turning themselves into self licking icecreams at a rapid pace, and a lot of people on this board seal clap for it because one gay Youtuber or another said it was cool.
>>65637289>but they don't give politicians useful tools to end conflicts on terms better than they started for the country.Maybe don't start wars for Israel that are completely counter productive to American interests then?
>>65637292You've missed the point, but sure, whatever you say.
>>65637289>word saladThe navy is the only branch with a role to play, even if one doesn't care about national defense and instead parrots some obfuscated "american interest" or sees the military as a tool to save failing policies by introducing force. No other branch can bring all the equipment into position to defend itself and others, bring itself to almost anywhere in the world to be exactly in the right spot to intercept a ballistic missile *AND* get out of dodge at 30 knots if things get dicey. Noone gives a shit or can give an example of a political problem in need of solving that the Zumwalt (or the LCS) can fix.
