Will it be the USAF's greatest achievement, or will it be a glorified balloon popper?
>>65635206>greatest achievement>boeing
>>65635206>BoeingIt's going to amazing at killing its own pilots and random bystanders a few miles away from the airfield, not so good at killing enemy aircraft.
>>65635206People talk about how the "Trump class" "battleship" is a waste of money, but this program is going to cost at much as a dozen of them and will never be used for anything.
>>65635355unironically every dime should be going into the FA-XX to totally replace the F-18 1:1 and the new MQ-25 and high altitude powerful radar either a drone or balloon
Explain why american air force never use planes but navy does?
>>65635647The Navy doesn't have fixed infrastructure that cheap shaheed or FPV from multiple miles out can hit. You dont even have to hit the air planes in hardened hangers just the fuel, maintainince, or barracks. US nuclear carriers are getting more valuable not less. Fixed non defendable targets at airfields are becoming obsolete. Any plain clothes insurgent or special forces need to get within 20km of a airfield to disable it now...
>>65635206Ok, so are those canards actually just fixed in place to fullfill some arcane aerodynamic reason, or are they going to be flexible control surfaces?
>>65636095Its gonna be a twin engine Boeing X-36 with the rear wing will be a gull shape like the Boeing bird of prey
>>65636095Upswept canards that mirror the wings its pretty obvious, moveable or not is to be determined likely as it was originally for the FA-XX as that contract was first and carrier landings need more plane control
>>65635206I want to know what interim engine they are using till the early 2030s when adaptive cycle engines come online. I wonder if they will be F119 or if the airplane will be HUGE and twin F135 engines
>>65635527100% thisAir force should be 100% bombers, tankers, strategic air lift and so on.Navy should be in the driver seat of all things fighter. If the air force really needs a fighter it can just buy the navy fighter and get a 249,95 discount because they don't need the tailhook or whatever.
>>65635206so when will we actually see this pos?
>>65637247They already tried that in Vietnam and it was a disaster.
>>65635355You're genuinely retarded.I'd take 200 F-47s over a dozen Trump-class ships any day.The trump class is so absurdly unsuited for actual strategic value to the USN that just saying the F-47 is worthless while praising the trump class makes me assume you have ZERO clue what the fuck you're even talking about or arguing for.
>>65637247>Navy should be in the driver seat of all things fighterEspecially in a land war, right?
>>65636181But I though they copied the canards from that chinese plane :^)
>>65635206Finally, the world's fist 6th gen air superiority fighter jet.
>>65637420Vietnam was a disaster because USAF pilots weren't properly trained not because they were using navy birds.also that's not even true the USAF had different variants of the F-4 from the navy.
>>65638189impressive!
>>65638523Sorry chinaman, but the US is the one who decides when the next gen of fighter jets comes out, not your 4th gens with a bodykit.
>>65638120Highest iq plebbit spacer
>>65638614cope, gweilo
>>656386511989 tiananmen square massacre.
>>65638156>looks at world mapNot relevant to the US>>65637420Ah yes, the F-4 Phantom II, known for the fact that only the USN was able to operate it effectively.
Big deal. Fighters are irrelevant and they should be focusing resources on bombers, attackers and transports.
>>65635206It depends on if I like the letter next to the president's name or not whenever it enters service.
>>65638120>An air superiority fighter that will never shoot anything down has more strategic value than an air defense cruiserRetard.
>>65643840When that air defense cruiser is barely any more capable in that specific role than the existing Flight III burkes? 100%Especially when it's currently looking to cost $15-20B for the first one, and $10B+ for subsequent ships, AND if it's going to have the ability to keep pace with a CVN it'll also need to be nuclear powered which would 100% fuck with the current SSN/SSBN/CVN reactor core industrial pipeline that is ALREADY having years of delays under the current demands.Adding in a dozen cruiser/battleship hulls worth of nuclear reactors is absurdly expensive and WILL result in delays to the rest of the nuclear fleet.So yes, considering burkes offer 80-90% of the capability at $3B and don't require nuclear reactors, they're a complete and utter nonsensical waste of money compared to the F-47 which at least has strategic deterrence value.
>>65643840Since this shithole is decidedly anti-Russia let me remind you that the closest equivalent to a 35k-ton nuclear-powered "battleship" is the Kirov-class. Still want to support the orange pedophile's vanity project?
>>65635210>>65635341You tartlets realize that boing’s St. Louis division makes the F/A-18 and F-15 right?
>>65643853How exactly is a Burke supposed to perform air defense without depleting its limited interceptor magazines?>>65643864The Kirov class doesn't do any of the things the things it does. They're only similar in displacement and nothing else.
>>65643875You're right, the Kirov is actually more useful (on paper, but the Trump-class only exists on paper) because it isn't weirdly undergunned despite the intention being a big dick ego projection, and its armaments also aren't highly experimental or just downright don't exist like the railguns.
>>65643875>How exactly is a Burke supposed to perform air defense without depleting its limited interceptor magazines?At MOST a trump class has 200 VLS cells.About double what flight III burke hasAt ONLY ~3.5-8x the cost.It's putting your eggs in one basket when the navy KNOWS distributed lethality makes far more sense. More platforms with more sensors spread further apart with fewer missiles on each ship is better than a single ship with 200 missles.A dozen trump class ships is like $200B, for that same amount of money you could have 50 Flight III burkes and none of them require a nuclear reactor.The math just doesn't work in favor of the trump class and it never will.
>>65643885>the Kirov is actually more useful (on paperThis is a lie.>downright don't exist like the railguns.You are uninformed.>>65643886The point of the "Trump class" is to *not* use the VLS cells for everything. That is exactly what makes it useful. It would be useless if it was just an engine and 500 VLS cells.
>>65643898We operating on pedantry because you don't have an actual counter now? Yeah, the railguns technically exist, just far from the power desired for the Retard-class, and while the Kirovs are little more than status symbols at least they exist in this physical plane and not in the wet dreams of Epstein's best bud.
>>65643898So what exactly does it provide that neither a Flight III burke or DDG(X) can and why does it warrant it's expected $15-25B price tag per hull?What could it POSSIBLY offer that makes it acceptable to add a decade+ delay to SSN/SSBN/CVN production to fit in this new class of ship? Your first claim was that it was better at air defense, which objectively isn't true when you're spending $15-25B for a single ship that is "worth" two $3B ships in firepower. That's a losing math equation. So what in your opinion warrants that extra $9-16B in expenditure for roughly the same number of missiles, and LESS radar coverage (since with two flight III burkes you can seperate them physically for a massive radar range)?
>>65643905>just far from the power desiredYou are uninformed.>>65643907>So what exactly does it provide that neither a Flight III burke or DDG(X) can and why does it warrant it's expected $15-25B price tag per hull?It can intercept incoming missiles, drones, and artillery without relying on limited stocks of missiles that can't be replenished at sea.
>>65643913DDG(X) can do the same thing.Nothing about the laser systems require nuclear power DDG(X) was already planning to have 2x 300-600kW CIWS systems and the railgun systems being theorized for BBG(X) aren't mature enough or even intended for that role as they're 5" in size and more intended for anti-surface and land attack, not anti-drone warfare.Not to mention DDG(X) could also fit a railgun if you REALLY felt it was valuable, again, without a nuclear reactor.
>>65643913This lesson needs to be jackhammered into the minds of every retard on this board but repeating something over and over doesn't make it true, and sucking off what would've been the biggest waste in the USN's recent history doesn't make it a good idea. Oh and those lasers you're also sucking off? They put them amidships so their arcs are severely constrained.
>>65643913>>65643918>>65643926Also, lasers, even if they work really well, are never going to be the first option, their limited range (can't go beyond the horizon, and atmospheric scattering effects) will always keep them as a CIWS last resort platform, not your primary defense against incoming threats. The primary defense is always going to end up being longer range munitions, like missiles, even if it's "just" against a $100,000 drone and that interceptor costs 10-20x as much and a laser shot costs $5.The simple fact you have to wait until the threat is within close range simply isn't worth the risk.
>>65643918First, you're shifting the goalposts from a $3B Burke to a >$6B DDG(X). Secondly, the DDG(X) is already obsolete. Adding a several thousand ton hull plug to a ship is not something you do if you're satisfied with its size. The fact that the Navy is talking about doing that for a ship that hasn't even been designed yet is proof that the program is fundamentally flawed and needs to be completely reimagined.>>65643926>repeating something over and over doesn't make it trueIt's true regardless of what I say. Here, have a picture of the Navy's 32 MJ railgun. I'll let you look up the power desired for the "Trump-class" railgun. Go ahead, I'll wait.
>>65643948If the DDG(X) is "already" obsolete, how the fuck is the Trump-class any different? It's basically DDG(X) but with railguns that don't exist, slightly larger radar arrays and a nuclear reactor.That's not future proofed you stupid prick, that's just a massive waste of resources with nearly identical strategic capability.And yes, I think it's totally fair to bring up a $3B ship, a $4.5-8B ship, when comparing them to an estimated $18-24B ship when they're all offering VERY similar capability at the end of the day with DDG(X) and the Trump-class being nearly identical outside of the hull scale and nuclear reactor.
>>65643948Now I want you to look up the rate of fire of that same railgun and comprehend that "power" doesn't just mean sheer pew pew.
>>65643948>Trump-class is better because it has 200 VLS cells>DDG(X) is obsolete because it has a modular hull section that can allow it to have 200+ VLS cellslollmao evenAt least keep some logical consistency to your argument.
>>65643953>but with railguns that don't existWe just went over this, anon.>>65643957I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have access to classified information that includes the maximum ROF of the EMLRG and the planned ROF for the railgun on the "Trump class." Go ahead and leak it here. You're anonymous, it's safe.
>>65643963I never once listed VLS cells as an advantage of the "Trump class" because I'm not a fucking retard.
>>65643968>We just went over this, anon.No we didn't.You showed an earlier railgun that was cancelled.That in no way proves they have a railgun READY to go for the Trump-class.Or even if they DID, that it wouldn't be capable of getting installed in DDG(X) at 1/4 of the cost per hull.
>>65643971Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggghhhhhhhht>How exactly is a Burke supposed to perform air defense without depleting its limited interceptor magazines?You know you can stop replying at any time right? No need to keep digging.
>>65643972>they don't existThey do exist, here's one.>okay, they exist but they're not readyThe Navy thinks they're ready, that's why they want to buy them.>Obviously they're not ready because they're not in service yetThey won't be in service until the Navy is allowed to build ships provisioned for them, like the "Trump class.">>65643977How would having slightly larger interceptor magazines prevent them from being depleted when they can't be replenished at sea?
>>65643997How does a railgun that has never demonstrated a successful intercept of ANYTHING be "ready" for a $24B destroyer? Zumwalt (and DDG(X)) both were designed with the power systems to handle future 30-40MJ railguns, there is ZERO reason they need a nuclear reactor equipped hull besides trump thinks it's cool, which is a HORRIBLE fucking reason to disrupt the rest of the nuclear reactor core infrastructure pipeline for. If you want a 30MJ+ railgun, test it on Zumwalt, they're currently being sent for retrofits, now is EXACTLY the right time to do testing if you ACTUALLY are ready for it.
>>65643997>How would having slightly larger interceptor magazines prevent them from being depleted when they can't be replenished at sea?So you really think they're firing a 5" 32MJ railgun to intercept missiles?Like really?You know they've never even tried to do that in testing...right? And now you're claiming they're so confident in something they've never tried, they're committing 10's of billions to it?
>>65644004>How does a railgun that has never demonstrated a successful intercept of ANYTHING be "ready" for a $24B destroyer?The railgun just has to launch a projectile at the desired velocity, and it has done that. The guided projectile that will actually intercept incoming missiles has demonstrated successful interceptions.>there is ZERO reason they need a nuclear reactor equipped hull besides trump thinks it's coolTrump and the Navy apparently agree since the original proposal wasn't nuclear powered. I agree as well. I don't see what this has to do with the argument at hand.>If you want a 30MJ+ railgun, test it on Zumwalt, they're currently being sent for retrofitsIt would be hard to do now that they have missile tubes and battery banks in the location where the guns were.
>>65644008>You know they've never even tried to do that in testing...right?You are uninformed. BAE's HVP has demonstrated the ability to intercept missiles as well as the ability to be launched from a railgun.
>>65644015>>65644011You're talking about something that has NEVER been tested.HVP has never been tested from a railgun to intercept an airborne target, it was ONLY ever tested for ground attack, which is far simpler.You're also basically just hand waving away years of development and assuming it has already happened when we know from budget documents it hasn't.To get HVP to that capability would likely require a decade+ of testing.Also if you DO want to use a railgun for missile intercepts, the japanese concept makes far more sense, 40mm projectile at 5-20MJ with a MUCH higher rate of fire and much lower barrel wear.The 127mm 32MJ program was always intended for ground attack, trying to shoehorn it into a missile interceptor is just stupid when it's simply not the right size for the role to begin with.
>>65644026HVP successfully intercepted a cruise missile surrogate over half a decade ago.
>>65644011>there is ZERO reason they need a nuclear reactor equipped hull besides trump thinks it's cool>Trump and the Navy apparently agree since the original proposal wasn't nuclear powered. I agree as well. I don't see what this has to do with the argument at hand.Well the navy disagrees now> The ships will be nuclear-powered. On 11 May 2026, Acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao said three of the battleships, designated BBGNs to reflect their nuclear power, would be built in fiscal 2027 to 2031.>If you want a 30MJ+ railgun, test it on Zumwalt, they're currently being sent for retrofits>It would be hard to do now that they have missile tubes and battery banks in the location where the guns were.Also, no they don't. They do one ONE of 3 ships, the other 2 haven't gone through with the upgrades yet.>>65644028Yes, a CONVENTIONALLY fired HVP projectile, not one fired from a railgun, they're basically two totally seperate things. You don't fire the SAME HVP from both conventional weapons and a railgun.
>>65644026>the japanese concept makes far more sense, 40mm projectile at 5-20MJThe Japanese railgun is 1 MJ of muzzle energy and unguided. It's not even close to this level of capability.>The 127mm 32MJ program was always intended for ground attackFunny thing about that, the Army is actually contributing to HVP development as part of their MDACS program to use 155mm artillery for air defense.>>65644031>They do one ONE of 3 ships, the other 2 haven't gone through with the upgrades yet.They've finished one. Go look at Pascagoula on Google Maps, you can see the current state of the other two.>You don't fire the SAME HVP from both conventional weapons and a railgun.Yes you do, that's the whole point. They use a different sabot depending on what system they're loaded in but the actual projectile is the same.
>>65635206If it's boeing I'm not goeing
>>65644065>The Japanese railgun is 1 MJ of muzzle energy and unguided. It's not even close to this level of capability.The japanese railgun tested so far is a scale concept testbed.The operational goal is 5-20MJ>Funny thing about that, the Army is actually contributing to HVP development as part of their MDACS program to use 155mm artillery for air defense.Again, conventional HVP, not railgun HVP, they're two different things. Learn about it. Eevn if you want to pretend they're the exact same projectile, they've STILL never tested it for airborne intercepts from a railgun, something that would take years to validate meaningfully.And there is basically zero reality where they're identical because you'd end up spending a ton of money making projectiles that can survive a 32MJ railgun just to 90% of the time get fired from a Mk45 deck gun (10-18MJ of powder charge).While it's POSSIBLE, you'll almost certainly end up with two distinct models, one for conventional guns, another for railguns, if they even bother to commit to the railguns, which again, they still haven't. There is currently ZERO major funding for railgun development from the Navy, anything happening right now is General Atomics paying for it.
>>65644065>>65644083Latest SASC budget drafts show them zeroing out the trump-class budget anyway. They're very clearly not going to fund it no matter what trump says.
>>65644095With a Republican majority mind. It was facing major headwinds previously, no way it survives the incoming Democrat majorities.
>>65644102Thankfully most of the BBG(X) funding was going to the broader LSC R&D effort, which is still equally applicable to DDG(X). So there wasn't too much money/time wasted, mostly just on the hydrodynamic hull studies on a 35,000 ton hull and the A1B reactor integration studies as well as the impact studies done. But most of the hard R&D is still just as relevant for DDG(X).
>>65644083>Again, conventional HVP, not railgun HVP, they're two different things. Learn about it.There's only one HVP effector, the railgun "version" just has a square sabot around it.Here, you can inform yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1C4MJP2fBmI>you'd end up spending a ton of money making projectiles that can survive a 32MJ railgun just to 90% of the time get fired from a Mk45 deck gun (10-18MJ of powder charge).Both the 32MJ railgun and Mk.45 sustain roughly 45 gravities of peak acceleration, IIRC.>anything happening right now is General Atomics paying for it.General Atomics has in fact been paying for further railgun development on their own for years, and earlier this year they announced the commercial availability of a range of railguns from 3 MJ to 32 MJ.
>>65637247Oh fuck OFF
>>65644129>roughly 45 gravities45 thousand, sorry.
>>65644120That’s good to know at least. I could see some merit in a new cruiser displacing not more than 20k tons, but I am happy to see we won’t end up watching a modern retelling of the Alaska class fiasco
This universal "bigger is better" mentality when it comes to surface warships needs to die a painful death, 35k tonnes is so absurd the only reason it was planned as such was due to ego rather than practicality.
>>65644178>>65644165Why exactly do you think a 20k ton ship would be better than a 35k ton ship equipped with the same systems? Simply making a ship larger is not expensive at all; the expense is in the systems with which they're equipped. That's how a Puller class ESB can displace 100,000 tons and only cost half a billion dollars.
>>65644195The 35k-ton ship in this instance isn't making good use of that extra 15k tonnage by having the same firepower (perhaps even less) than the 20k-ton ship would. Actually yeah it would definitely have less because if you slapped 2 Ticos together they'd have more dakka at less than 20k tonnage.
>>65644195Why do you think it ended up at 35k tons beyond being the exact pre escalator weight limit for a treaty battleship? As presented it is a horrifically inefficient design
>>65644213You're missing the point. A 35k ton ship with 45% more stuff in it would be substantially more expensive than a 20k ton ship, and that could be an argument against it. A 35k ton ship with exactly the same stuff in it as a 20k ton ship wouldn't really be any more expensive at all, and would have advantages in being able to physically separate redundant systems further from each other, making it harder to disable. So what's the argument against a 35k ton mostly empty ship for roughly the same cost as a 20k ton stuffed to the gills ship?
>>65644234>roughly the same costThere is nothing to suggest this. Cost estimates for the program are absolutely astronomical and as proposed would destroy the schedule for and massively boost the cost of both the Columbia and Ford classes.
>>65644262You're still missing the point. You're saying that a 20k ton cruiser would be better. It's entirely possible that this 20k ton cruiser could include all of the same systems and cost very nearly the same amount. So where's the advantage in just making it smaller?
>>65644352$4.4 billion cost estimate per hull for DDG(X). The same systems intended for that on a hull not more than ~33% larger isn’t going to triple costs. Switching to nuclear, more than doubling displacement, shoving in a bunch of unproven technologies, and trying to rush the thing into procurement less than two years after announcing a design on the other hand absolutely will. The battleship is a dead program and was never a good idea to begin with.
>>65644407DDG(X) will cost a lot more than that; the same report that came up with that number also claimed $2.5B for a Burke but the current cost is actually $3.5B. Assuming a proportional cost increase for the DDG(X) and you're looking at $6.2B even before you consider the massive hull plug needed to make it fulfill the Navy's needs. The "battleship" will not cost 2-3x as much as that simply because it's larger, but because there's 2-3x more stuff inside of it. That stuff is actually important.
>>65644441The battleship won’t cost anything. There will be no battleship.
>>65644474Correct, because politicians are stupid like you.
>>65644911Basically everyone says it's retarded except Trump's sycophants; no one in the navy wants it unless they think it's going to get them promoted if they DO support it. Everyone that just wants tax dollars spent properly wants to continue with DDG(X).
>>65638651you're already doing that for us, chinkshill, no need.
>>65643885no, they're just dogshit and have a sensor package so old that the only thing it's detecting is it's own rust, the kirov's are dogshit in the modern era and would be sunk by any of the tiny shitty european frigates in 10 minutes time.
>>65643968>b-but i fantasized that powerful enough railguns exist!they don't, sorry, you have mental illness.
>>65635718>unable to understand basic air defense >ends with …Brown hands detected
>>65645149Everyone says it's retarded because "everyone" is a bunch of retards who think VLS cells per 1000 tons is a reasonable measure of a ship's usefulness.
Democrats will cancel it because its 47. And that's a good thing. Damnatio memoriae
>>65645222Again, there is nothing about the trump-class over DDG(X) that warrants a 4x+ increase in price.You're just using a nebulous excuse about a future railgun with zero confirmed existence or specifications/capability and saying it can't POSSIBLY be put on a non-nuclear hull for ... reasons, even though the existing railgun efforts were all designed around the Zumwalt and DDG(X) anyway. Just make it make sense, explain logically what the trump class offers that can't be achieved using the DDG(X) hull at 1/4 of the cost.
>>65645222It was always retarded because a 35k ton hull requires nuclear power to move at 30kts+ to stay with a carrier strike group. If you make it conventionally powered, it shaves $10B off the hull price, but then it maxes out at ~15-20kts, too slow to operate alongside a carrier strike group, thus relegating it to a reactive defensive platform, not a forward deployable air defense asset. It's just a bad trade off, $20B price tag to make it fast enough to operate with a carrier, or $10B price tag but make it too slow to deploy alongside the normal surface combat fleet. Instead DDG(X) at 12-15k tons using a narrower hull can hit 30kts+ using conventional powered engines freeing up the nuclear industrial base and saving $10B+ per hull.
>>65643869Made. Decades ago.
>>65645209There's a photograph of one right here: >>65643948. Yes, that's a real, honest-to-god photograph of a 32 MJ railgun taken with a real camera, no AI involved.
>>65645313F/A-18 production ends in spring of 2027. F-15EX production is ongoing, with current production plans leading into the mid 2030s and beyond.
>>65645317Yes, now show it testing at sea in the actual intended role you think it's going to fill (missile intercepts). You're pointing to a cancelled railgun program as proof of an existing future planned capability.
>>65645265>it le doesn't existWhen will you dumbass redditors give up on this pseud bullshit? It exists, there are photos posted in this very thread.>>65645285>a 35k ton hull requires nuclear power to move at 30kts+ to stay with a carrier strike groupThat's obviously untrue, the real battleships had double the displacement and conventional power and went over 30 knots.
>>65645325>it isn't currently in service, therefore it doesn't exist, therefore no one would procure itSo how does any new system enter service then, genius? Obviously they have to be procured before they can enter service.
>>65643869>St. LouisAh yes, the fighter that disintegrates when it makes too tight of a turn and the fighter whose most recent batches have been sent back. Both were mistakes in acquisition.
>>65645330Once again, general atomics having a cancelled naval railgun does NOT equal we have a railgun ready to go for BBG(X) that can't be installed on DDG(X) and has magic capabilities we've never tested.You're a moron.Also, when the Navy reactivated the Iowas in the 1980s, their refueling requirements were such an operational burden on carrier strike groups that they were often restricted to cruising at 15–20 knots just to preserve fleet logistics. The only hit 30kts by burning fuel at an astronomical rate that simply isn't sustainable and would slowdown any carrier strike group they're operating with.
>>65645334>So how does any new system enter service then, genius? Obviously they have to be procured before they can enter service.No retard, you do testing for multiple years before you EVER commit to a brand new hull specifically designed around that system.You're literally just repeating the exact same mistake made on Zumwalt with the AGS.
>>65645360The Navy canceled that program because the goal of it was to develop a 64 MJ railgun for shore bombardment. General Atomics continued development independently and now they have a 32 MJ railgun ready to mount on a ship. Meanwhile, BAE has a guided shell that they've demonstrated can be fired from a 32 MJ railgun and demonstrated can intercept missiles. How do you look at all of this information and come to the conclusion that it doesn't exist and can't be done?
>>65645396Has it been tested? What were the results of these tests? What tests were ACTUALLY done? Were any of these tests on naval platforms at sea?It sounds like it's a TRL 4-5 system that General Atomics is shopping around for funding to actually pay for proper sea tests to ever get it certified for a naval hull.All of that SHOULD happen before you decide to procure it for a hull.And again, none of that proves why it can't be put on DDG(X), since the railgun was originally being planned for Zumwalt and/or DDG(X) in the first place, and it was as you mentioned a 60MJ+ objective, so it's clear these hulls can mount a powerful railgun system that you're claiming REQUIRES a nuclear reactor.
>>65645392>No retard, you do testing for multiple years before you EVER commit to a brand new hull specifically designed around that system.Yes, they've done testing with their stationary railgun for a decade and they're continuing to test the HVP that has been in development for years and is finally ready for operational deployment.>You're literally just repeating the exact same mistake made on Zumwalt with the AGS.There was nothing wrong with the AGS, it works fine. The thing that it does may not have been particularly useful, but that's a separate issue entirely. I'm also baffled by your claim that it wasn't tested, here's a picture of exactly that.
>>65645412>if I keep posting ground tests and unrelated testing that means it's perfect for BBG(X) and can't possibly work on DDG(X).Retard alert.
>>65645398>you're claiming REQUIRES a nuclear reactor.Where did I claim that?>>65645416>can't possibly work on DDG(X).Where did I claim that? DDG(X) is a bad idea for other reasons.
>>65645438>Where did I claim that?So then why does BBG(X) have a nuclear reactor?If it's not for the railgun, or the lasers, or for 30kts speed, are we just spending $10B+ per hull and wasting years of nuclear reactor industrial momentum for shits and giggles?>Where did I claim that? DDG(X) is a bad idea for other reasons.Go ahead and explain them. So far you've made no good arguemnts for BBG(X) over DDG(X).
>>65638651天安门,六四,八九民运,小熊维尼,包子,西藏独立,达赖喇嘛,香港加油,法轮功,天灭中共,七零九律师,刘晓波,退党,大纪元,新唐人,自由亚洲,独裁,专政,习近平,习特勒,通商宽衣,加速主义,躺平,韭菜,赵家人,傻逼,肏你妈,操你妈,他妈的,二逼,贱人,滚蛋,王八蛋,出生,畜生,混蛋,绿帽子,打飞机,公共汽车,小三,死全家,你妈死了,叼盘,网评员,五毛,美分,精日,汉奸,卖国贼,支那,强国人,墙国,GFW,防火长城,梯子,翻墙,水表,喝茶,和谐,河蟹,敏感词,被失踪,嫖娼,双规,红二代,割韭菜,人矿,润学,巴拿马文件,巴拿马申明,器官贩卖,活体摘除,新疆棉,强迫劳动,集中营,再教育营,陈秋实,方斌,彭立发,四通桥,白纸革命,烟花革命,乌鲁木齐中路,动态清零,大白,核酸,保定罢工,郑州富士康,河南村镇银行,取款难,烂尾楼,停贷告知书,唐山打人,铁链女,董志民,红黄蓝,杨改兰,雷洋,魏则西,贾敬龙,夏俊峰,薄熙来,周永康,王立军,令计划,郭伯雄,徐才厚,孙政才,赖小民,肖建华,吴小晖,郭文贵,爆料革命,蚂蚁帮,新中国联邦,郝海东,闫丽梦,王丹,吾尔开希,柴玲,封从德,严家其,苏晓康,方励之,刘宾雁,王若望,钦本立,世界经济导报,导报事件,胡耀邦,赵紫阳,鲍彤,严家祺,戴晴,唯色,热比娅,伊力哈木,土赫提,东突,东突厥斯坦,真主党,穆斯林,切糕,切糕党,夺刀大侠,昆明火车站,301事件,韶关事件,广东韶关,维吾尔,藏独,疆独,台独,两个中国,一中一台,中华民国,蔡英文,赖清德,民进党,绿营,台联,时代力量,陈水扁,李登辉,彭明敏,史明,美丽岛,美丽岛事件,二二八,二二八事件,林宅血案,陈文成,江南案,江南,崔天凯,华春莹,赵立坚,耿爽,陆慷,洪磊,秦刚,火箭军,李尚福,魏凤和,李玉超,徐忠波,刘光斌,张振中,战狼,战狼外交,胡锡进,老胡,金灿荣,张维为,陈平,司马南,孔庆东,周小平,花千芳,孤烟暮蝉,上帝之鹰,地平线下面,乌合麒麟,占豪,思想火炬,环球时报,人民日报,央视,新闻联播,翻车,翻车现场,精选评论,评论已关闭,内容不显示,根据相关法律法规,该页无法显示,404,网信办,中央网信办,国家网信办,数字极权,社会信用体系,健康码,行程码,天网,天网工程,雪亮工程,步态识别,人脸识别,大数据,监控,监听,网警,网监,黑客,红客,蓝客,深蓝,蓝军,红军,红客联盟,五毛党,自干五,小粉红,兔友,神友,深海,神蛆,浪人,鼠人,冲浪里,冲浪TV,CLTV,查理TV,太监,防区,一多克,一键三连,敏感,违规,封号,炸号,销号,禁言,小黑屋,喝茶,请喝茶,查水表,送快递,跨省,跨省追捕,王海军,贾敬龙,明经国,胡文海,田明建,建国门事件,白宝山,张君,周克华,杨佳,你不给我一个说法我就给你一个说法,杀人犯,死刑,注射死刑,枪毙,看守所,躲猫猫,喝开水,噩梦死,洗脸死,侧卧死,冲凉死,掘墓死,递纸巾,躲猫猫死,纸面服刑,孙小果,操场埋尸案,邓世平,新晃一中,新晃,彭妙计,张成功,许金龙,陈满,聂树斌,呼格吉勒图,念斌,赵作海,佘祥林,张氏叔侄,张高平,张辉,伍海生,陕西安康,冯建梅,强制引产,大月
>>65645439>So then why does BBG(X) have a nuclear reactor?Obviously not because it's absolutely necessary, since the original proposal was for a conventionally powered ship equipped with all of those systems.Why do you retards insist on repeating the same non sequitors and irrational claims?
>>65645462So it's not necessary, yet all current plans for the BBG(X) class call for nuclear reactors anyway, and you're still defending this?Again, explain logically why BBG(X) makes more sense than DDG(X), and you can't just hand wave away the nuclear reactor because it's a confirmed part of the BBG(X) design.It may have ORIGINALLY been non-nuclear, but that's irrelevant to BBG(X) today. Explain how it warrants the cost.
>>65637247https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/us-air-force-studying-b21-airtoair
>>65645467>and you're still defending this?What am I defending? The "battleship" (large cruiser) can be either nuclear or conventionally powered. I think conventional power makes more sense for a plan that puts the first hull in the water in the next ten years while nuclear power potentially has advantages for a longer timeline. I think the stated plan of having the first hull in the water before Trump leaves office is fanciful at best regardless of the powerplant.>Again, explain logically why BBG(X) makes more sense than DDG(X)DDG(X) is too small. A ship should not be receiving a hull plug in the conceptual stage; that reveals a fundamental problem with the way the program is being handled. The Navy is trying to sneak in a larger ship than they think they can get approval for, rather than just designing the ship they actually need.Obviously BBG-1 is larger than is strictly necessary, but that's not necessarily a problem. DDG(X) would likely cost upwards of $6B even before accounting for the hull plug, and a ship of the minimum size that the Navy actually needs would likely cost even more, so the cost differential to the BBG-1 is likely much smaller than you're imagining. On top of that, the things that are being splurged for in the BBG-1 proposal are things that will allow for the replacement of the very large, very old, and very expensive Blue Ridge class as well as the replacement of capabilities that are being lost imminently with the retirement of the Ticonderoga class, and will allow these capabilities to be better distributed throughout the fleets. So yes, it's a larger ship at greater cost than that's absolutely necessary, but less so than you're imagining, and that cost comes with a potentially even greater increase in strategic value.
>>65645490So a ship built from day 1 for modular expansion is worst than a ship that is too large for what it's intended to do from day 1 and again, is nuclear powered.Hand waving the nuclear power as if it's going away invalidates everything else you say.
>>65635355The word Trump is like a trigger for every brainlet to hate it and to be fair he isn't doing anything to help that these days.
>>65638651I wonder if you will become normal again when Xi dies of eating century eggs and the Han finally ditch communism and its associated retardation for real.
>>65643864Just because my penis is the size of a Monster energy can doesn't mean you'll get caffeinated from sucking my dick.
>>65645513Kek, bodied that thirdie.
>>65645498Yes, a ship that is too small to do what it's needed to do even in the conceptual stage needs to be thrown out and reconceived. The BBG-1 is not too large for what it's intended to do; it's intended to do things that aren't strictly necessary. The Navy doesn't strictly require a replacement to the Blue Ridge class at this time, and in a couple of years they could design a separate class of ships to replace them. However, the cost of operating those two ships for years more, each with over a thousand crew, and then designing an entirely new class of command ship later on, may well cost even more than tacking those command facilities onto a dozen "battleships" and only result in two command ships for the entire Navy instead of 12. And where better to have all of your generals and admirals meet to coordinate joint actions than on the best defended ship in the fleet, which can intercept an essentially unlimited number of threats without ever running out of interceptors?
>>65645614Thank god you're not in control of actual naval decisions, you're retarded.
>>65645619>Thank God Congress is filled with superior minds like my own and not like those retards in the Navy that use their equipment every day but still somehow have no clue what they actually needNot really the own you thought it was. Perhaps you'd like to explain why you know better than the Navy what equipment it needs?So far your arguments in this thread have been:>VLS:displacement ratio unimplessiveChinkoid thought pattern completely irrelevant to operational performance.>Railguns and lasers don't existIncorrect, as I've demonstrated.>Nookular badNot a core feature of the design, as it was added later in response to people complaining that it was conventionally powered.>DDG(X) is better because it's cheaper and justasgoodTo the extent that DDG(X) is cheaper, it won't be as good. Deadweight tonnage is practically free, so a cheaper ship means fewer capabilities. Maybe it's that you think those capabilities are unimportant? You think the Navy doesn't need air defenses that are replenishable at sea and cost less than $1M apiece? You think the Navy doesn't need a cruiser once the Ticonderogas are gone in 2029? You think the Navy doesn't need a command ship once the Blue Ridges are gone in 2035?
>>65645725>>65645619If it were up to me, the program would be called CBC-1 rather than BBG-1, as it's clearly not a battleship and the guided missile role, which is found across most of the fleet, is clearly secondary to its command role which will only exist in these ships and to a lesser extent the carriers. They would be conventionally powered at first, but with allowances for a later derivative to be nuclear powered, since as people in this thread have pointed out there's advantages to this ship being able to keep up with a carrier for long sprints. I would immediately begin the process of having another shipyard nuclear certified, probably Philly but maybe Ingalls or NASSCO. I would of course test the complete railgun system on land including the projectile, mount, magazine, power supply, fire control and all other relevant systems, but since all of these systems have been proven individually, I don't foresee any critical problems arising, so this development can happen concurrently with the detailed design work on the ship. I'd set a target date of 2035 for receiving the first ship, to be commissioned perhaps 2038 or 2039. The only change I'd make to the specs is to push for a more powerful radar. Honestly, I dream of a warship with an immensely powerful over the horizon radar that itself can double as an energy weapon as well as performing electronic attack, but I will readily admit that this is an unacceptable level of feature creep, so instead I'll suggest the completion of the originally planned 22-foot SPY-6 variant along with its as yet undelivered X-band component.
I don't get why people complain about size. Welding steel isn't the issue here. The main cost driver is cramming systems into tiny spaces which results in having to take the entire ship apart when upgrading or repairing anything. The main problem is a big heavier ship eats fuel. So that's really the only problem.
