US Navy News and updates

[76mmGuns]

The first two ships will essentially be the same CG NSC painted in hazegray.

Whether the VLS will be included is to be seen/determined. The 4923 design does cater for it. If it does, it will be more than what the LCS offers. (Not in the current renders though, which shows no VLS and a 57mm) If not, it will be no more than what the LCS can do, just on a more reliable hull. Almost the same set of equipment (AN/SPS-77(V)3, SeaRam, NSM, likely similar EW).

The 2028 dateline... sounds more to meet the closing of the Trump administration, much like how they want to time NASA's moon landings to 2028.

Basically a LCS but if the ship itself was tested and worked. It's what the USN should have gotten 25 years ago, for the conops of the time.

In contrast, look at the Indonesian Arrowhead 140 variant being named. Looks quite good. Every navy except the USA is moving forward

Indonesia names KRI Balaputradewa, first of their Arrowhead 140-derived frigates - Navy Lookout

Yesterday, in an unusual evening ceremony, the first Merah Putih-class frigate for the Indonesian Navy was formally named. This vessel is based on Babcock’s Arrowhead 140 product (for which the Type 31 frigate is the reference design) but fitted with mainly Turkish and Italian weapon and sensor...

www.navylookout.com

 

[koxinga]

Despite what the USN might have released about a new BBG design, I tend to think it will never actually get built. The current administration will end in three years and one month. I deem it unlikely that the US could have a brand new design built in that sort of timespan, particularly given how large each vessel is supposed to be (likely limited facilities suitable for building such large vessels). This is also ignoring the likely need for multiple design phases to actually have something created which could be built.

Likely more importantly and even more problematic, would be to secure the funding from Congress necessary to develop a new battleship design and then get it built. It is distinctly possible that control over budgeting could be lost in just over a year from now.

All reasonable points. But how long would it take and how much would it cost for them to realise it is a costly mistake or an very expensive white elephant at the best case?

This Administration doesn't seem to be driven by common sense. This came up (not sure of the authenticity) and it seems design have just started

 

[Todjaeger]

More room = you can install more power. Yes, anecdotes. But then, there's a very real demand to install power-hungry systems on the Trumpy CG right off the bat.
You don't need to throw palms at your face. Just understand what's written.

Even making allowances for translation or use of a secondary/tertiary language, what is apparently being alluded to is different from what was written and posted.

A vessel with a larger volume and higher displacement might have the potential for additional power generation to be installed, but that is not at all the same thing asserting that a larger vessel will have more spare capacity. If two different classes of vessel each have a margin of 20% 'spare' generation capacity, how much actual extra generation capacity the vessels will have is dictated by what the generation capacity of the vessel is, not the displacement of the vessel.

It is also distinctly possible that other design features end up requiring significant space and displacement so that there is not as much left to enable significant extra margins. If too much of a design is dedicated towards fitting turbines and generators, that can negatively impact the range and endurance of the design because there is less space and displacement available for bunkerage and victuals and/or fuel consumption is increased because more turbines and generators will be running/higher fuel burn rate.

Similarly, how 'hungry' a ship's systems are for power does not really relate to how the size and displacement of the vessel. A corvette or frigate with capable shipboard electronics and sensors could easily have higher hotel loads and a greater power budget than a much larger vessel like an AO that has much more limited sensors and possibly no CMS installed at all. In the case of something like an AO most of the potential generation capacity is likely going to be dedicated to actually propelling the vessel whilst laden.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Even making allowances for translation or use of a secondary/tertiary language, what is apparently being alluded to is different from what was written and posted.

A vessel with a larger volume and higher displacement might have the potential for additional power generation to be installed, but that is not at all the same thing asserting that a larger vessel will have more spare capacity. If two different classes of vessel each have a margin of 20% 'spare' generation capacity, how much actual extra generation capacity the vessels will have is dictated by what the generation capacity of the vessel is, not the displacement of the vessel.

It is also distinctly possible that other design features end up requiring significant space and displacement so that there is not as much left to enable significant extra margins. If too much of a design is dedicated towards fitting turbines and generators, that can negatively impact the range and endurance of the design because there is less space and displacement available for bunkerage and victuals and/or fuel consumption is increased because more turbines and generators will be running/higher fuel burn rate.

Similarly, how 'hungry' a ship's systems are for power does not really relate to how the size and displacement of the vessel. A corvette or frigate with capable shipboard electronics and sensors could easily have higher hotel loads and a greater power budget than a much larger vessel like an AO that has much more limited sensors and possibly no CMS installed at all. In the case of something like an AO most of the potential generation capacity is likely going to be dedicated to actually propelling the vessel whilst laden.

I didn't say it will have more available power. I said that it's a much larger vessel, so could provide that more easily.
It's easier to build more power generation when your existing powerplants are 10%, not 50% of ship volume (not to be read as X ship having 50% and Y having 10%).
I know that if I buy an electric SUV it doesn't necessarily have more range than a smaller car in base variant. But it's safe to assume there's an option to install a larger battery pack.

 

[SammyC]

The Trump battleship kind of reminds me of The Homer.

 

[StingrayOZ]

View attachment 54074

Its a typo. But again. Its a big 40 point font typo in the launch image on a presidential announcement. It would be like saying the Iowa battleships have only 6" main guns. Its a number you would want to get absolutely right.

Possibly excessive.

I don't see why man power should be this high... Even with 2 x 5" and the rail gun, it should be maybe ~100 more than a Burke. I don't see a reason why it would have to get this big. Its crazy big for a surface combatant. Like WW2 cruiser big. Do they have 200 sailors mounting 25x40mm bofors doing anti air or something.

Currently there are 7 Ticos according to Wikipedia. I don't see this as a DDG replacement, even if it spiritually came out of the DDGX program.

The short fall in Ticos is a huge issue for the navy. They didn't want it to happen, congress stuffed things up, they didn't have any more life left in their hulls. They predate the burkes. But navy wanted ~ 18-22 of this type of ship. The fact that 7 of them are all that is left limping around is a sign of naval collapse. Shoe horning the Burkes to take flag and command duties in Flight III is a crappy solution, and burdens an already burdened platform with yet another role. Who looks at a burke and says, shit, we have enough spare space we could fit an admiral and support staff in here!

But Ticos have a crew of ~330. not 850. That closer to the crew required for a Amphib. A ship that is supporting ~1600 marines, so needs, chefs for feeding, plumbing, cleaning, etc, well dock, landing craft sailors, air wings and is 45,000t. The V-22 capability may imply some sort of embarked forces, which is possible. But still, weird.

I'm just a bit confused with this. I don't quiet see how this exactly nails it. I don't see it as a battleship.

We already know burkes current can use up a lot of missiles fighting drones etc, and they are reasonably well armed in that space. I would have hoped, maybe guns were coming back into favour to handle numerous drone threats. On such a ship like this, 2 x 57mm stealth mounts could provide gun layer defence. At ~1/6th the weight of a 5" gun. You could have four of the dam things and two phalanx. The Italians mount a 76mm and a 127mm on a frigate. They have 3 x 76mm on the Trieste. Also such mounts could be repurposed later for laser capabilities when that fully matures.

On the rail gun, also, not sure HVP is the rail guns strength, wear was always a huge issue with that. Like dozens of shot max.

 

[SolarisKenzo]

Is this Trump-class thing even serious?
They couldn't build a frigate based on a design with 20 ships operational in Europe, are they even going to cut the first steel within Trump's term?

 

[Todjaeger]

All reasonable points. But how long would it take and how much would it cost for them to realise it is a costly mistake or an very expensive white elephant at the best case?

This Administration doesn't seem to be driven by common sense. This came up (not sure of the authenticity) and it seems design have just started

TBH the document, if accurate, really reinforces how unlikely the design as showcased so far, will ever actually get built. From what I gathered reading the material, the design phase is expected to take ~six years, which would put design completed at the end of 2031 or start of 2032. That means that any actual build work could not start until the end of not the current Presidential term, but towards the end of the next POTUS's term in office.

Six years where the plan could easily get torpedoed before any actual build work get started because it would need to clear passes not under control of the Executive branch, at a minimum annual defence budget allocations. Then the allotments for an actual build as well as the time needed.

Not to mention the design itself would actually need to be both viable and a good idea. For those that have been on DT for awhile, people might recall some of the past discussions on bringing back battleships and/or building arsenal ships for the USN. A new 'battleship' design as proposed brings many of the issues raised those discussions again

 

[John Fedup]

The Trump class BB and a frigate with no Mk-41 cells. I can hear the laughter in Beijing. The only good news for the USN is neither class will see numbers much above 1.

 

[Todjaeger]

The Trump class BB and a frigate with no Mk-41 cells. I can hear the laughter in Beijing. The only good news for the USN is neither class will see numbers much above 1.

Unfort the FF(X) could indeed enter service, likely with several vessels either built or under construction within the next two to three years. I seriously doubt that even a single BBG will ever start construction since the announcement and information released so far really do not show much critical thinking involved. By the time various elements would have had sufficient time to be developed so that construction could start, I expect calmer, cooling and more contemplative heads will have prevailed sufficiently to keep something ill-considered from being built.