Will DDG(X) be good, or another Zumwalt style disaster?
>>65640247>Will DDG(X) beNo
>>65640247Cancelled for Burke Block IV.
It will go the way of the Cancellation-class
>>65640247Zumwalt aren't a disaster, they're prototypes.
>>65640247Anon how out of date are you? DDG(X) was replaced with BBGN.
>>65640412That was corrected, DDG(X) is still funded and on the books.
>>65640247First off, this: >>65640412. Secondly, if the BBGN is canceled for DDG(X), it will be a massive fiasco. DDG(X) was already shaping up to be massively expensive and not big enough for the Navy's needs. You don't talk about a multi-kiloton hull plug for a ship whose size you're happy with, and the fact that this talk is coming out in the conceptual phase is a massive red flag.
>>65640414lol, dem house says not on my watch
>>65640247Why can't the US makes good destroyer other than the burkes?? Even the chink managed to make 2 (two) destroyer classes. Type-052 and Type-055.
>>65640247what's the idea behind the penis on the keel?
>>65641520>what's the idea behind the penis on the keel?Navy seaman.
>>65640421DDG(X) was never actually cancelled and the last word from Congress was that they would continue to appropriate money for it and push it ahead. Basically the exact situation as F/A-XX, the executive branch has very little power here. BBGN is almost certainly dead after the midterms however. That was catching flak from republicans on the defense committees, it is doubtful the democrats appropriate a single dollar for it.
>>65641520Ramming prow. Roasting in bot bread btw.
>>65640259This btw. You can trust me on this. What you want is not a giant battleship to patrol the provinces (the world belongs to the USA). You want a true blue water heavy destroyer with a high weapon payload to weight ratio as your main surface combatant workhorse. 76 Burkes, 3 SSGNs, 20 FFGs = 99 guided missile combatants with a combined payload of 7,500-9,000 missiles. Even with only HALF of those on deployment at any given moment, that is still the largest and most powerful guided missile combatant fleet on Earth. In a 350 ship USN, you can also add about 15 more Burkes if you need to, otherwise just keep upgrading and updating their design and avionics/EW/drive train/weapon systems and munitions etc. With inflation it costs damn near or over $1 billion USD each for each guided missile combatant.
>>65641530>BBGN is almost certainly deadI kinda doubt it. We need a large surface combatant.
>>65641492The dem is the one that wanted the ddgx funded tard
>>65641735USN Missile CombatantsTiconderoga 122 cells, 9900 tons (the true killer)Burke III - 96 cells, 9700 tons (the true efficient workhorse)SSGN - 154 cells, 18750 tonsFFG (possible) - 32 cells, 7300 tons (inefficient)Zummwalt - 80 cells, 16000 tons (fucking useless literally) Mk57 cells are only 3 in wider and 18 in deeper than Mk41, meaning it can ONLY carry 80 Tomahawks.Trump class - 132 cells, 35000 tons (lol, lmao even)The heavy missile ship is a completely useless concept, it's like choosing to build 100 Maus tanks for your forces instead of 1,000 Panzer IVs/Tigers etc. Or like buying a Ford F550 for your daily commute 60 miles round trip and never towing anything with it. Number of missiles above a certain size and quality with a good overall ship weight ratio in comparison is critically more important than having a bigger ship. If you wanted a "missile battleship" to be as efficient as the Burke III you would need it to carry at least 360-500 Mk41 cells.In endless space, when you spend all your budget and resources and personnel building the super heavy fleet ships you get swamped and destroyed in a war, vs actually holding your own if you just built a larger fleet of quality middle size ships (destroyers instead of heavy dreadnaughts).
>>65641761The size is quite obviously futureproofing
>>65641520It's what's known as a bulbous bow. It makes the ship cut through the water better increasing speed and giving better fuel efficiency. They also tend to stick a sonar in there on navy ships.
>>65641770Big ships are not more survivable overall and when you lose one (total loss or damaged out of commission) you take a much bigger hit. The United States Navy itself proved that in WW2. There wasn't even any real capability efficiency to begin with such a giant ship with less firepower than a pimped out Burke anyway, but you will lose if you bet on it over a bunch of pimped out Burkes every time. The middle ground ships like the Burkes are king, they have the highest payload, best overall cost efficiency, best deployment record, same survivability as smaller and bigger ships, smaller more efficient crews, less maintenance and fuel costs. You can field 4 or 5 of Burkes for every BBGN, and have more firepower more missiles, less personnel, less maintenance costs, and even less overall cost. A BBGN would cost $5-10 billion USD today, so you can literally order 3-5 Burkes over each one and have more missiles and patrol area.
>>65641782Ok?Part of the success of the Burke class was its ability to take on new systems due to extra capacity of the initial design.
>>65641761Don't talk shit about the Zumwalts like that.The stupid things were never designed to be missle-farms, hence the restricted capacity. If you were to build one from scratch to be packed with VLS you'd fit a lot more than 80 on it. They're big ships.And while the Mk57 isn't a huge cell, it's bigger than the Mk41 so you could make some considerably more powerful missiles to fill them up with. Quadpacked super ESSM's and such.
DDG(X) is simply not big enough. Building it would be a waste of money, it's not what the Navy needs.BBGN-1 is significantly larger than is strictly necessary, but that size gives it space to properly replace the Ticonderoga and Blue Ridge classes at a significantly lower cost than designing separate ships for those roles.
>>65640414>DDG(X) is still funded and on the booksNo it isn't.
>>65642057The last word on DDG(X) was that SASC will be directing the Navy to continue with the program in the FY2027 budget. It’s not going away, especially with the makeup of the incoming Congress.
>>65641761Allow me to correct you.>USN Missile Combatants>Ticonderoga 122 Mk41 cells, 9000 tons (no SM-6 and only 8 cells that can hold ESSM)>Burke III - 96 Mk41 cells, 9000 tons>Ohio SSGN - 154 cells, 18750 tons (Tomahawks only)>Constellation - 32 Mk41 cells, 7000 tons>Zumwalt - 80 Mk57 cells, 12 LMVLS cells, 16000 tons (SM-2, SM-6 and Tomahawk only)>Trump - 192 Mk41 cells, 12 LMVLS cells, 35000(?) tonsThis is not accounting the upcoming frigate program or other weapons and electronic systems.
>wanting ships with lots of vls>when the us has neither the magazine depth nor the production capacity to supply themWe need railguns, missle spam is economically and strategically a dead end
>>65642072>missle spam is economically and strategically a dead endStrait status?
>>65642069No anon you don't get to state unsourced rumors as fact.
>>65642089https://news.usni.org/2026/06/18/sasc-wants-navy-to-develop-new-ddgx-destroyer-in-tandem-with-trump-battleship
>>65642084Open for months, unless you are an Iranian ship that is.
>>65642090The draft bills are public, quote the Senate bill directing the USN to work on DDG(X).
>>65642091>Open for months, unless you are an Iranian ship that is.Lmao, hows the midterm migger??
>>65642095Oh its a brown thirdie seething.
>>65642093https://news.usni.org/2026/06/18/report-accompanying-the-senate-armed-services-committees-draft-of-fy27-ndaaThis was with a Republican majority. You will not see a dime for a battleship when the House has over 250 Democrats and the Senate at least 54.
>>65642101That isn't the draft NDAA.
>>65642098>brown thirdie seethingSure pal, nuce projection you have here. Watching you migger seething and upset all over the net was amusing as fuck.
>>65642084https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/gulf-oil-flows-dip-october-post-iran-war-high-data-shows-2026-11-03/Can you find something else to spam you retarded shitskin? Supply is no longer a problem. It's the rate and refinery bottleneck.
>>65642108>It's the rate and refinery bottleneck.Guess who destrying refineries left, right, and cetre?
>>65642104>I'm not mad, you are!Sure thing my brown friend.
>>65642111Ukraine.
>>65642103https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119s4784rs/pdf/BILLS-119s4784rs.pdfHere is SASC zeroing out procurement funding for BBG(X) in their FY2027 draft, explained in the report linked >>65642101 as being a move in support of continued work on DDG(X)
>>65642072When you run out of missiles onboard, but the Chinese keep throwing more from their fucking cruisers, you'll sing another tune.
>>65642168>their fucking cruisersThe ones that get sunk by unmanned submarines?
Daily reminder there exists one actual ship design company in the US with NAVSEA and HII and BIW also doing design work. That's it.>>65640259this. >>65640414a bunch of ships were funded lol. doesn't mean it's not going to be a disaster.>>65641813isn't the main idea behind the mk57 that it's peripheral, aka more survivability instead of a cluster or explosives and rocket propellant? Putting the cells on the outside of the ship was one of the few things the zumwalt did right. unless there have been developments for unrep rearming, but I think they even got rid of the mk41 cranes.But at the end of the day we need a ship that can be built like a toyota assembly line.>>65642168That scenario is is exactly why VLS count isn't the end all be all. There will always be more outerceptors than interceptors. and a railgun or a DEW is the only elegant solution, with the DEW slightly edging out the railgun if nobody bothers to wrap their missiles in foil or armor them. But I don't think the accuracy can be achieved with american manufacturing and assembly skills. We're talking essentially about a motion system with a highly repeatable precision that also needs to go along with all seastates and such.
>>65641502the chinks caught up to 1987 after being stuck in the 60's for 50 years. the americans are still trying to figure out if it's worth progressing past 1997. With the way drone warfare is evolving, it probably isn't worth it.
>>65642130There is no funding for DDG(X) in that draft.
>>65642168>gets sunk by literally any sub in the vicinity and F-35s LRASMsYou tried saars.
People defending the battleship basically think that future proofing and feature creep necessitate a large shiphttps://youtube.com/watch?v=cpgEAef91zMIgnore sensational about the name and classification and focus on debating dispersed lethality or nuclear surface combatant.Both sides have merit and simply building more Arleigh Burkes isnt going to be an option soon.
>>65643723No, directed energy and railgun will necessitate a large power plant, and going nuclear is the only way to have a reasonable amount of endurance. Those requirements lead to a large ship. Having three flavors of DDG(X) to fulfill the same missions as BBGN(X) is a silly comparison because retards focus on vls counts and not what the rest of the ship can do.
>>65643723The pundits in this video have no idea what BBGN's purpose is.
>>65643723Sal used to be decent but the Hormuz thing has really got him acting outside his wheelhouse. Sad.
>>65643723>People defending the battleship basically think that future proofing and feature creep necessitate a large shipAnd they're wrong
>>65643830The power argument to supply DEWs has always struck me as an incredibly dubious justification for nuclear powered ships.To put it into numbers, an Arleigh Burke carries 1.7 million liters of fuel on board, for a total potential energy of about 56 terajoules of energy. Lets assume 5% of that is available for DEWs (10% of the ship's fuel stores at 50% conversion efficiency), which gives 2.8TJ of energy. Lets use 10,000 kW as the expected energy load when firing everything (for comparison, the Trump BB design carries 4x300-600kW lasers plus its 32MJ railgun). It would take about a quarter of a million seconds to go through 10% of the Arleigh's fuel stocks with a 10kW load, or 3 days of continuous fire. If you assume this powers 1 railgun destroying a 2 million dollar tomahawk equivalent AShM every 10 seconds, and 4 lasers each destroying a 100k suicide drone every 10 seconds, that comes out to 432 destroyed AShMs (and 432 expended guided railgun shells) and 1728 destroyed drones, for a total cost of 880 million dollars worth of ordinance, or about a third of the cost of an Arleigh Burke in munitions alone. This is a cartoonish amount of ordinance to lob at a single ship, and it is likely that a ship subjected to this kind of attack would be overwhelmed by simultaneous threats long before it could ever fire its DEWs for that long.If anything, these numbers show that DEWs are somewhat overrated as defensive tools because of the limited rate at which they can destroy ordinance. If a country like China can muster 2,000 drones or 500 AShMs to engage a single ship, it can probably also muster 500 drones or 200 AShMs and launch them within a couple of hours of each other to totally overwhelm DEWs instead of spending 3 goddamn days launching ordinance at a single target in a constant dribble so that the target ship's DEWs can keep up with the number of threats.
>>65644710>If a country like China can muster 2,000 drones or 500 AShMs to engage a single ship, it can probably also muster 500 drones or 200 AShMs and launch them within a couple of hours of each other to totally overwhelm DEWsWhat the fuck are you on about? Without DEWs, that ship would be blown up by 100 of anything since it would run out of missiles to intercept them. You're saying DEWs are overrated because they don't literally make you an invincible anime protagonist? Who is claiming that they do?
It isn't cancelled, the project has funding already and it's more likely to be built than BBG(X)
>>65644710>The power argument to supply DEWs has always struck me as an incredibly dubious justification for nuclear powered ships.You aren't looking at the whole picture. It isn't just power for DEW and railguns, it is power for DEW and railguns and big radars and electronic warfare and and and all at the same time.
>>65645122There is no funding for DDG(X).
>>65645130Why lie?
>>65644710You are vastly underestimating the power required. Lasers and railguns are ~30% wall-plug efficient. The rest of the energy is converted into heat which requires even more power for cooling systems. What you think is easily covered by 10 MW for weapon systems would actually peak out at 40+ MW and that requires substantial power generation, power conditioning, and intermediate energy storage systems. All of those subsystems end up being thousands of tons and won't fit on a destroyer, especially a maxed-out Burke.
>>65645134The FY26 DDG(X) funding was reprogrammed into BBGN funding. DDG(X) was discontinued a year ago. DDG(X) wasn't funded in PB27. It's a dead concept until Democrats in Congress force its revival and further fuck up the Navy in the process.
>>65645311Delusional.No one in the navy wants BBG(X) since it's nuclear powered and fucks up 20+ years of nuclear reactor industrial pipeline plans.
>>65641520Bulbous bow. Actually a pretty interesting history I am not qualified to summarize but tldr it creates a second mini wave to haramonize with the ships main wave to cancel it out reducing drag by a surprising amount, especially at specific cruising speeds
>>65645315You can stop pretending you speak for the USN let alone have any idea what you are talking about.
>>65645332Same to you kiddo.You're basically arguing against 30+ years of naval studies on modern distributed lethality, throwing all your eggs in a single unaffordable nuclear basket and claiming it's a good idea because reasons you can't articulate clearly.
>>65645206It wouldn't fit on a Burke, but a Zumwalt already has 70 MW of electrical power generation. There's your 40 MW with an extra 30 MW for propulsion while continuously firing those weapons for days at a time.
>>65645365Grinding to a crawl was acceptable for a railgun land attack mission but not for anti-air. Zumwalt is already 16k tons and has minimal deck space for weapon mounts anyways.
>>65645450>30 MW of propulsion power while firing a shitload of lasers uninterrupted>grinding to a crawlAnon, are you retarded? That's still more than enough to travel at typical speeds.
>>65641492They're not coming to save you.
>>65642084Open to everyone but Iran.
>>65645361You don't even understand what you are arguing for or against, you just know that because BBGN is a big ship you must oppose it.
>>65645495>Zumwalt already has 70 MW of electrical power generationOh no sweetums you read the direct mechanical output of a Zumwalts engines and thought that was pure electrical output.
>>65645805https://www.gevernova.com/electrification/case-study/integrated-electrical-propulsion-system-for-us-navy-ddg-1000-destroyersThe manufacturer claims 78.5 MW of total electrical power.
>>65645776NTA but big ship is bad by default when you have an atrophied industrial base and Navy. Who builds it and where? Which of the handful of oilers and tenders supplies it?
>>65645332Are you being stupid on purpose
>>65646810There are half a dozen shipyards in the US large enough to build it.
>>65646896>half a dozen shipyards in the USnot really
>>65647257There are, actually. Count them.
>>65647257in terms of real output, barely half a shipyard between all of them
>>65647276>>65646896There are only 2 shipyards capable of working on nuclear hulls, and they're already busy as fuck on SSN/SSBN/CVN productionBBG(X) is nuclear powered, you pretending it wont be doesn't change that.
>>65640247I think it'll be good.
>>65647378Pascagoula and eventually Philly will be certified for nuclear-powered shipbuilding. You really have no foresight.
>>65647402both yards are actively being integrated into the nuclear submarine industrial base in supporting non-nuclear structural roles.And if they did want to certify them for nuclear roles it would be a 10-15 year process and cost $5-10B per shipyard.
>>65647428BBGN is a $300 billion program that's supposed to last several decades. The administration wants to increase the industrial base. There would be funding and time for increasing capacity. Obviously, there's short-term bottlenecks, but BBGN will just get pushed to the right if it survives Congress.
>>65647378There are 3 drydocks that are big enough for Nimitz/Ford but only 2 are in use.
DDG(X)/BBGN will survive 2 years of democrat controlled congress because the USN needs a Burke/Tico replacement, the question is what it evolves into as the design is further refined
>>65647378It was supposed to be conventionally powered first, there's no reason why it can't be changed back. There's also no reason why other shipyards can't be nuclear certified, as well. Obviously that will take time, but the pace claimed in the shipbuilding plan is impossible anyway.>>65647428>it would be a 10-15 year process and cost $5-10B per shipyard.And? That's not a lot of money.
>>65647663The 3rd isn't certified for nuclear work>>65647667DDG(X) will survive, BBG(X) won't.>>65647728>It was supposed to be conventionally powered first, there's no reason why it can't be changed backSure there is, fuel economy if you want it to run at 30kts+ to keep up with the carrier strike group.Unless you're going to run WWII style replenishment fleets ragged refueling the things every few days as it burns fuel at an astronomical rate, nuclear power is your only option, which is the entire reason why they changed it to be nuclear powered, it has literally NOTHING to do with the electrical power required for the systems installed, and everything to do with not burning fuel at an unsustainable rate.
>>65647758>Sure there is, fuel economy if you want it to run at 30kts+ to keep up with the carrier strike group.Most of that strike group is conventionally powered anyway. Unless you think it's important that this ship be able to keep up with a carrier outsprinting its strike group, in which case this is an entirely new capability that can't be filled by DDG(X) or any other potential alternative.
>>65647728BBGN might go back to being conventionally powered but also equipped with an SMR>>65647758>DDG(X) will survive, BBG(X) won't.DDG(X) is already dead
>>65647777>Most of that strike group is conventionally powered anyway.Which limits the speed your CVN can transit at unless it wants/needs to leave its escorts behind.
>>65647812Yes, exactly. So either the "battleship" being conventionally powered is not an issue because it puts it on even footing with the rest of the strike group, or keeping up with a carrier at full sprint is an important requirement, in which case there is no alternative to the "battleship."
>>65647807>BBGN might go back to being conventionally powered but also equipped with an SMRThat seems like the worst of both worlds.
>>65647812>>65647830Those smaller escorts can run at 30kts without the fuel economy penalties the 35k ton BBG(X) would have.
>>65647876A 35,000 ton ship can carry many times more fuel than a 9,000 ton ship.
>>65647883And yet when you need 200,000SHP to hit 30kts you still burn fuel at an astronomically retarded rate, which again, is the entire reason why the navy decided it had to be nuclear powered.
>>65647876A 35k ton BBGN can run at 30+ knots forever, there are no fuel economy penalties.
>>65647929....Anon that's my point.It REQUIRES nuclear power, which has absurdly expensive knock-on effects for the rest of the naval nuclear pipeline. Do you want to delay all other nuclear powered hulls for years while costing 10's of billions in additional spending? Cause that's all BBGN is going to do.
>>65647936>which has absurdly expensive knock-on effects for the rest of the naval nuclear pipelineThis is patently false, the biggest additional cost would be qualifying a second yard for nuclear work if the navy chose to do so (and shipyard work is very politically desired right now).
>>65647944Anon, the reactors are only made in one place, and they're filled for the next 20 years with orders.Throwing in a dozen new hulls into that mix over 20-40 years isn't a minor change, it totally throws a wrench into the production pipeline and surrounding industry.To imply otherwise means you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.You can't just handwave away multi-decade multi-billion or multi-tens-of billions worth of problems because the entire program has a massive price tag.The juice aint worth the squeeze, and anyone who isn't a trump loyalist already knows this.
>>65647922>when you need 200,000SHP to hit 30ktsYou wouldn't, that number is more in line with a Ford class carrier. If you're going to try to talk numbers, bring some that are relevant to the discussion.>the navy decided it had to be nuclear powered.Except they didn't. The Navy proposed a conventionally powered ship, popular opinion was that it should have been nuclear powered, so they changed their proposal to make it nuclear powered. Nuclear power does have lots of advantages, but it's not strictly required to make the thing function.>>65647936>Do you want to delay all other nuclear powered hulls for yearsObviously the timeline for the "battleship" will be extended. There's no way to have them built in a handful of years regardless. That will leave plenty of time to have additional reactors built and additional shipyards nuclear certified without impinging on current production.
>>65643723>and simply building more Arleigh Burkes isnt going to be an option soonIf you think the Iowa boomers were bad, you underestimate the current state of the destroyer mafia. Burke 2100 or bust, baby
>>65647976>Except they didn't. The Navy proposed a conventionally powered ship, popular opinion was that it should have been nuclear powered, so they changed their proposal to make it nuclear powered. Nuclear power does have lots of advantages, but it's not strictly required to make the thing function.So you think it became nuclear powered cause it's neat?We know it doesn't need the power for railguns or lasers, and we know it doesn't need it for the radar, and you CLAIM it isn't needed for fuel efficiency or speed, so what the fuck did they spend all this time/money changing it to a nuclear hull for? At the cost of $10-12B+ per hull in addition to the $8-10B base hull cost.
>>65647993>doesn't need the powerWhat the fuck are you on about? Obviously it needs power. It doesn't matter whether that power comes from marine diesel or nuclear. Nuclear power has advantages, but it does come with significant up front and retirement costs.>At the cost of $10-12B+ per hull in addition to the $8-10B base hull cost.Stop lying. You're intentionally using the higher CBO estimate for the nuclear powered option and the lower USN estimate for the conventionally powered option. CBO estimates that nuclear power will add about 13% to the total program cost compared to conventional power, and save an unknown amount of money in fueling costs afterward.
>>65647974A1B production is nowhere near max capacity and is already higher than need for the Ford class
>>65648012The CBO estimate is also a joke, literally a $ per ton figure.
>>65647993>We know it doesn't need the power for railguns or lasers, and we know it doesn't need it for the radarClinging to the misinderstanding of engine horsepower measured in wattage again I see.
>>65648072And just to prove this point, the Freedom LCS have the same gas turbine pair as a Zumwalt.
>>65648058A1Bs are built to order, production is exactly what's needed for the Ford class. >>65648066Consider it an opportunity for a naval procurement program to come in under budget for once. I think their unit cost estimates are excessive, but the overall program cost is probably reasonable including infrastructure improvements and design and development costs.>>65648072>>65648082I'm not even sure what you're trying to say.
>>65648097>A1Bs are built to order, production is exactly what's needed for the Ford classYou just admitted that A1B production can be accelerated.>I'm not even sure what you're trying to say.This isn't hard to understand,-both ships primary engines are the same pair of GE gas turbines-said gas turbines output is given in both horsepower (imperial) and wattage (metric)-anon is confusing the metric measurement as the electric generation capacity-it if were the case then Freedom LCS could power modest sized cities, which is just a silly assertion
>>65648166>You just admitted that A1B production can be accelerated.What? I've made no claims either way. I pointed out that your claim that A1B reactor production is outpacing carrier production is incorrect, and the conclusion you drew from that claim is invalid. I do think it's likely that A1B production could be increased, but by how much and with how much investment required, I don't know.>>65648166>This isn't hard to understandWhat I don't understand is why you felt the need to bring any of this up. Also, high voltage stationary generators are upwards of 95% efficient, so mechanical power essentially *is* electrical power for a ship that's set up for integrated electric drive. That's how a Zumwalt actually can power a small city, despite using the same turbines as a Freedom.
The USN is incapable of making anything except behind-schedule supercarriers anymore.
>>65648401Yeah, because they get rugpulled every time they're close to getting what they need.
>>65648082And the LCS has a propulsion system that is 1. needlessly complex to feed retarded program requirements and 2. guzzles gas like nobody's business.There is nothing wrong with the LM2500s, and having IEP propulsion is just going with the times. The question is if there's no nuclear propulsion, how big can the ship be to not be overcrowded in 10-20 years and still get enough gas mileage. Further if we go with better automation etc, the crew complement should shrink significantly, which would free up space for command staff and such. Alternatively just give the bells and whistles to a San-Antonio LPD and put the command staff in there. plenty of empty space to do palletized or even permanent power generation shenanigans if you're not carrying marines around.
>>65649448It's funny how you'll talk about how the VLS to displacement ratio is too low and then turn around and talk about how there's no room with a straight face.
>>65648401They are so good at building Burkes that it doesn't even register for anons anymore.
>>65649560I'm not the anon that talked about VLS/displacement ratio. This isn't a 1v1 thread you know.I was just mentioning that there are two distinct issues: 1. room for upgrades down the line and 2. room for command staff so the blue ridge can finally retire (which is why many people want le big ship)And the way I see it there should be room for both, but if there isn't or it ends up being too complicated to essentially have a destroyer run double duty as a command ship then the LPD would give you more than enough room to keep the DDG(X) command staff free. I only mention that because I have zero confidence in the US shipbuilding industry to handle another distinct type next to a DDG(X) program nor do I think the USN will have an upscaled CG(X) thing that meaningfully shares DDG(X) DNA for a trouble-free follow up program.
>>65649561>good at building burkes>looks at ship deliveries
>>65649583DDG(X) hasn't even been designed yet, the "battleship" won't just be a bloated DDG(X), nor will the "battleship" be produced alongside DDG(X). Both are alternative options for the Navy's next large surface combatant, and they're currently in the conceptual phase, nailing down exactly what requirements they'll need to meet to fulfill the Navy's needs. Once that's complete, they'll design a ship to meet those requirements, which will either be large (DDG(X)) or extremely large (BBG-1) depending on which direction Congress wants to go with their money, or whether Trump wants to use the Defense Production Act to force the "battleship" to be built since popularity doesn't really matter for him anymore.In any case, leveraging the San Antonio class for a future command ship design is likely the best option if the "battleship" concept is thrown out, but also likely to be significantly more expensive overall, considering the additional costs involved with converting an existing hull rather than designing support for those systems into a future hull, as well the additional costs of operating more ships.Also this still wouldn't address the loss of the Ticonderoga's capabilities once they're retired in just a couple more years.
>>65649716The requirements are done and BBGN is in preliminary design.DDG(X) has been dead as a concept for over a year now.
>>65649716For all intents and purposes the DDG(X) will be the Tico replacement while the Burke's equipped for ABM do the Tico's job as a stopgap in the meantime.I don't think the San-Antonio conversion will be that expensive since it doesn't have a lot of density. It's what makes combatants so expensive to begin with. and the San Antonio already has the fancy fiber optic network and everything on board that's designed to be upgraded.
>>65649784>The requirements are done and BBGN is in preliminary design.Lol BBGN has been rushed as fuck and there is zero chance they're ready to start cutting steel, DDG(X) had been worked on since like 2021, and the navy VERY specifically kept all the research under the broader large surface combatant program, which was being used by BOTH DDG(X) and BBGN, the entire point was to mature technology for EITHER ship depending which they decided to go with, with DDG(X) generally having had MUCH more mature work done due to how long it had been in evaluation already. BBGN work didn't even begin until 2025. There is simply zero way in hell they've even completed a preliminary design of the ship.
>>65650080Notice that your chart shows the San Antonio class being exceptionally labor intensive to produce, on par with a cruiser despite its vastly lower density.
>>65650107my mistake anon that's actually the wrong chart. I thought I had one that described the hours for the first ship design where the LPD was relatively competitive compared to combatants. Which is what I wanted to get into as I thought It would be a sensible benchmark to estimate the conversion costs. I also seem to have misremembered plans for a hospital ship conversion so maybe a purpose build san antonio variant might be better than converting an old flight 1 hull.
>>65650080>>65649448>>65649716San Antonio's are a terrible base for a surface combatant, you are only clinging to it because they are an existing big ship.
>>65650124The San Antonio class has always been a shitshow, just a less politicized one than the LCS or DDG-1000 programs. And yes, Ingalls has been shilling a million different versions of them to fill every possible role under the sun. However, the Navy hasn't bought any of them and for good reason. Like I said, I don't think it's a bad choice for a starting point if the Navy finds it needs a replacement command ship without time or money to develop something specifically for the role, but looking at the San Antonio for something cheap is a mistake.Outfitting a 35k ton cruiser with staterooms and comms equipment is likely cheaper option than buying a destroyer and a bespoke command ship separately, and there's advantages to putting the air warfare commander that's coordinating fleet air defenses right down the hall from the generals planning joint offensive operations. It also means that you're putting all of your command eggs in the best defended and most survivable basket on all the world's oceans, rather than a practically undefended amphib built to a lower survivability standard than a modern warship.
>>65650158No one is talking about using it as a surface combatant, we're talking about potentially using it as a command ship to replace the Blue Ridge in the future.
>>65641530BBGN's funding is predicated on the $1.15 trillion NDAA, which is fucking dead as dead gets. The House version is sitting in the Senate right now and has been frozen since July. The Senate version is killed since Thune can't get the votes to bring cloture. Those bills end with this Congress and the 120th Congress that's coming in is going to tell the DoD to cut their request by hundreds of billions.If anything part of BBGN survives after that, it dies after the 2028 elections. Social Security is going to hit insolvency in the next presidential term while Medicare's insolvency point is 2033. The massive budget hole from the Trump debt binge also needs to be filled. Interest payments are already higher than total defense spending and there's not enough non-discretionary funding to cut otherwise. The DoD's entire budget is about to get raped in the next few years. I'll be impressed if the concept of a two ocean US Navy doesn't get killed.>>65642130S.4784 has been dead since July. The House version (HR 8800) passed by 4 votes back in July and has had zero movement. Republicans trying to push this through reconciliation during the lame duck session after getting blown the fuck out isn't going to happen.
>>65650737Congress isn't spending the $1B on procurement of long lead materials that was requested for the BBG-1 program, but they also haven't barred the Navy from working to develop it. It's possible they just let it go under the radar for a few years and then it gets renamed. Having Trump's name on it is a problem, but building it is not a bad idea and might even end up cheaper than alternatives in the long run. And while Congress are a bunch of retarded boomers, they do love capital ships so this might actually have a better shot at making it all the way through to procurement.
>>65647922Ships get more fuel efficient as they get larger. The battleship rushing at maximum speed will burn less fuel than it's tonnage of smaller ships rushing the same speed. The IJN Yamato's engines pushed 72 thousand tons to 27 knots, for the fuel price of 7.5 thousand tons of destroyers going 35 knots. Even if you slapped more engines on the Yamato to make it go 35 knots, it'd be using less fuel than it's tonnage of destroyers.
>>65650163That's the thing about BBGN, being not just a Tuco replacement but a Blue Ridge replacement. The desire for local AI starts to make a lot of sense in the latter context when you realize how important AI was for mission planning during the Iran war.
>>65651477The navy has already publicly stated distributed command is the future, it's why there hasn't been any serious effort to replace the blueridge class, and even if BBGN is 35,000 tons, it still wouldn't make sense to give it theater command staff infrastructure.In reality theater command will be done in Hawaii or Guam using satellites, direct air defense, and air wing command will be handled at the carrier strike group, amphibious ready group, or similar levels. There is honestly very little reason for a blue ridge class style command ship in 2010+.
>>65651733It makes sense to have theater command aboard a capital ship more than ever now. All of our satellites are getting junked as soon as the big one pops off. Comms will be a problem.
>>65651867In that scenario we're fucked anyway, command ships wont do shit for you.There is zero reality where a 3-4 star admiral and their command staff need to be stationed within 500 miles of actual conflict.DMO is literally the last 30+ years of naval doctrine, pretending we need massive capital ships for WWIII is just retardation taken to a new extreme.You're a retard, and you should feel bad for defending this hunk of shit for 40+ posts in this thread.
>>65651875>>65651867Also, modern DMO doctrine already has MOCs on-shore are connected via hardened undersea fiber-optic cables, massive fixed high-power LF/VLF/HF antenna arrays, and high-altitude relay aircraft.They're literally specifically designed to work WITHOUT satellites if needed, and have the infrastructure to actually do something about lack of satellites suddenly becoming a problem.
>>65651733>There is honestly very little reason for a blue ridge class style command ship in 2010+.Why are they slated for retirement by 2040, then? They were already getting long in the tooth a decade ago.
>>65651959Because they're great for diplomatic and humanitarian missions.They're basically unarmed (2x .50 cal and 2x Phalanx CIWS) making them perfect for going to foreign ports without ruffling feathers. Expeditionary Mobile Bases (ESBs) will likely take over the soft diplomatic role since they're unarmed and have tons of space, LHA/LHDs will take over the hard diplomatic role, and EMS spearhead-class ships will likely handle humanitarian roles that don't warrant the larger hospital ships.
>>65651978We've had ESBs for a decade and LHAs for as long as we've had the Blue Ridge, so why is it not retired yet?
>>65651993...Because it's a massive ship that we already paid for, they're cheap to operate, and they fit a niche that other ships CAN cover, but don't currently have to.It makes zero sense to imply a BBGN is a good replacement for the role when the most value they've seen in the last 30 years is non-combat humanitarian/diplomatic missions where a BBGN would never be sent.Actual command has moved to hardened command infrastructure on shore, as i've already said in previous posts.
>>65652003It's nearly 60 years old with 600 crew. Nothing about keeping it running is cheap.
>>65652003Also, we send fucking CVNs on humanitarian missions. If the "battleship" is so crucial that it can't be spared to replace a CVN on a humanitarian mission, then it's worth funding twice over.
>>65652028Operational cost is actually very low considering the size/age.It's about equivalent to a modern Burke at ~$80-100M/year.BBGN estimates are ~$200-300M operating costs and they're being fairly conservative considering everything involved with a nuclear hull tends to inflate faster than non-nuclear hulls. >>65652040It's not "so crucial" it's a waste of money that will never get appropriated thankfully. CVNs are sent on humanitarian missions for largely major disaster relief where their flight decks provide a steady flow of relief supplies from around the world even without local infrastructure, including tens of thousands of gallons of fresh water per day from desalination using the nuclear reactors. BBGN will never be sent because it doesn't have a flight deck, and costs so much fucking money in the first place.
>>65652057It's about equivalent to a modern Burke at ~$80-100M/year.That's a huge amount of money for something that you claim doesn't do anything at all.>BBGN will never be sent because it doesn't have a flight deckAre you actually retarded?
>>65651733>Putting coordination to the responsibility of fragile satellite networks that depend on the belligerent following the words on a piece of paper that pinkie-promisses they won't touch itThat's the opposite of distributed command.
>>65652141See >>65651882
