New Battleships

[Astro14]

Merry Christmas everyone!

Late to the thread. In my job I work with many of the organizations involved in Navy R&D, resourcing, ship design, fleet operations, etc. A few thoughts:

There is no design or specification for this ship whatsoever. Concepts of a plan at best. Several of the weapons systems listed on that "technical specifications' graphic are between non-existent and not actually operational. Maybe they will in the future. Not in 2.5 years.

DDG(X) is the actual next large surface combatant. It's already in the works and is to both replace the Ticonderoga class and follow on from DDG-51 Flight III. Expected first deliveries are 5+ years out. Suffice to say a ship of non-existent design will not be out before it.

Comments throughout the thread suggesting that Navy force structure and doctrine development is towards a greater number of lower-cost platforms is correct. A vessel such as this does not fit. As described this would be a $10B+ vessel. The frigate program managed to get botched but other systems such as LUSV are moving along. Read about Cooperative Engagement Capability and imagine how that all works.

So yeah, call me a skeptic, for a number of reasons.

jeff

I am a skeptic, as well, but not because the ship isn’t on the drawing board, but instead because you can buy a couple of the latest Arleigh Burke class for what this would cost - and make no mistake, procurement isn’t always about what is best, or what fits the mission, it is often about what is politically viable.

And as long as we have a vocal, but uninformed, portion of the electorate that will object to new technology, politicians will listen, no matter how foolish that decision may be. The fiasco of LCS ( a surface warfare fantasy that got ruined by the “good idea fairy” and requirements creep) is still fresh.

So, older, less capable ships may continue to be built because they are an easier “sell”, but the future is in ships with a new power distribution architecture to enable the fitting of new weapons as they are developed. This proposal includes exactly that.

This feels a great deal like 1939 - when the Navy knew what was on the horizon - but the American people were decidedly isolationist - the Navy struggled to get new ships built for the fight that they knew was coming.

And just like then, there are factions in the Navy that argue over what is the best option for war at sea. Back then it was battleships v. carriers v. submarines… and today?

Not much different.

More smaller ships? Fewer larger ships? New architecture? Proven tech v. new tech? Subs? Surface ships? Carriers?

 

[OilStained]

“We want you, we want you, we want you as a new recruit.”

 

[greenjp]

I am a skeptic, as well, but not because the ship isn’t on the drawing board, but instead because you can buy a couple of the latest Arleigh Burke class for what this would cost - and make no mistake, procurement isn’t always about what is best, or what fits the mission, it is often about what is politically viable.

And as long as we have a vocal, but uninformed, portion of the electorate that will object to new technology, politicians will listen, no matter how foolish that decision may be. The fiasco of LCS ( a surface warfare fantasy that got ruined by the “good idea fairy” and requirements creep) is still fresh.

So, older, less capable ships may continue to be built because they are an easier “sell”, but the future is in ships with a new power distribution architecture to enable the fitting of new weapons as they are developed. This proposal includes exactly that.

This feels a great deal like 1939 - when the Navy knew what was on the horizon - but the American people were decidedly isolationist - the Navy struggled to get new ships built for the fight that they knew was coming.

And just like then, there are factions in the Navy that argue over what is the best option for war at sea. Back then it was battleships v. carriers v. submarines… and today?

Not much different.

More smaller ships? Fewer larger ships? New architecture? Proven tech v. new tech? Subs? Surface ships? Carriers?

Indeed there is always a conflict between progress/cost and risk, right? DDG-1000 and Seawolf on one side, DDG-51 Flight III and Virginia on the other. My disagreement with you on this one (and I have the utmost respect for your service, knowledge, and experience in these discussions ) is that IMO this doesn't actually represent anything "new" relative to DDG(X) other than hyperbolic claims about its size and capacity, and without getting too political such unsupported grandiosity seems to be the norm in the current environment. DDG(X) is already shaping up to be 30-40% larger in displacement than Arleigh Burke...

So, considering what I know about the state of things (technological, budgetary, CONOPS & OPLANS) it's my opinion that this thing is never going to be built but will consume some valuable resources for the next few years. If something does get built, it'll be in the late 2030s using a jumbo-ized version of the DDG(X) hull to make room for a larger hanger, maybe another gun and some additional VLS cells.

jeff

 

[4wd]

No, this …
https://www.navy.mil/Leadership/Fla.../Search/Article/2236204/admiral-daryl-caudle/

 

[Astro14]

Indeed there is always a conflict between progress/cost and risk, right? DDG-1000 and Seawolf on one side, DDG-51 Flight III and Virginia on the other. My disagreement with you on this one (and I have the utmost respect for your service, knowledge, and experience in these discussions ) is that IMO this doesn't actually represent anything "new" relative to DDG(X) other than hyperbolic claims about its size and capacity, and without getting too political such unsupported grandiosity seems to be the norm in the current environment. DDG(X) is already shaping up to be 30-40% larger in displacement than Arleigh Burke...

So, considering what I know about the state of things (technological, budgetary, CONOPS & OPLANS) it's my opinion that this thing is never going to be built but will consume some valuable resources for the next few years. If something does get built, it'll be in the late 2030s using a jumbo-ized version of the DDG(X) hull to make room for a larger hanger, maybe another gun and some additional VLS cells.

jeff

Jeff - You make a great point. And I do appreciate your opinion.

It’s not that a battleship is “obsolete” - it’s that the word battleship refers to displacement in this case, not obsolescence, and the capabilities of this ship are already present, or planned for the future, in DDG(x).

My point to the group is that the concept here is not intrinsically bad. The Navy needs new ships. The Navy needs new capabilities and new power systems and new weapons that happen to be included in this proposed ship.

Too many people read the word “battleship” - got the wrong idea and ran with that misconception, refusing to read anything about what was proposed or why. Shouting your misconception without substantiation over and over isn’t a conversation, it’s not an argument, it’s just contradiction.

So, it’s not obsolete. It’s not outdated. It’s not a helpless target. It’s not stupid, or pointless, or easy to kill. It’s modern, shares characteristics with ships that are already being designed and built, but it differs in size - and therefor construction cost - and therefor political viability.

Time will tell.

 

[SC Maintenance]

This ship - whatever you want to call it - meets all the criteria of a battleship. Going all the way back to the Dreadnaughts, battleships were to be large, heavily armored ships that could provide essentially a artillery platform for both ship/ship and ship/shore engagement. Its twice as long with 5X the displacement of a Cruiser. It is heavily armored in ordinance for both attacking ships and shore targets. I don't know about armor, but it has been pointed out it would have plenty of capability to defend itself - supposedly.

So I haven't seen anything printed here that would contradict the President calling it a Battleship - from the traditional use case of what that name has meant historically at least. Just because it uses more modern weaponry shouldn't change that. The weapons on an Iowa Class were much better, with greater range and hitting power than those on a dreadnaught. The Commander in Chief could could have called it something else, but he didn't.

Irrelevant of what its called I still haven't heard why we need this particular ship. Only that we need more ships.

 

[Jackson_Slugger]

Right. The Battle of Midway illustrated the superiority of air power over sea power. Air Power sunk the Japanese carriers at Midway.

Pearl Harbor did actually, followed by the Battle of the Coral Sea that preceded Midway.

But even at Pearl, the Japanese plan was not necessary to just completely destroy the US fleet in dock, they actually believed they could lure the remains of the US fleet out for a decisive surface engagement. Even most Imperial Japanese Navy admirals still believed in the primacy of the "battleship" over aircraft carriers. I believe the IJN command was not really all that concerned that they hadn't found the US carriers in port -- that were ferrying planes to remote islands like Midway and Wake at the time.

Sadly, the real "primacy" here is not naval aviation, it's missiles and drones advancing years beyond the anticipated epoch sea-change. The PLA Navy "carrier killer" DF-21D and DF-26 will not care if they hit an actual carrier, littoral combat ship, cutter, frigate, or pseudo-battleship...

 

[Jackson_Slugger]

Addendum: Actually the British Royal Navy showed the primacy of naval and coast aviation over the surface fleet win the Battle of Taranto where they sunk the formidable Italian fleet using ancient Swordfish bi-planes...

 

[Astro14]

Pearl Harbor did actually, followed by the Battle of the Coral Sea that preceded Midway.

But even at Pearl, the Japanese plan was not necessary to just completely destroy the US fleet in dock, they actually believed they could lure the remains of the US fleet out for a decisive surface engagement. Even most Imperial Japanese Navy admirals still believed in the primacy of the "battleship" over aircraft carriers. I believe the IJN command was not really all that concerned that they hadn't found the US carriers in port -- that were ferrying planes to remote islands like Midway and Wake at the time.

Sadly, the real "primacy" here is not naval aviation, it's missiles and drones advancing years beyond the anticipated epoch sea-change. The PLA Navy "carrier killer" DF-21D and DF-26 will not care if they hit an actual carrier, littoral combat ship, cutter, frigate, or pseudo-battleship...

If the DF-21/DF-26 can actually hit them, then yes.

What the Chinese claim their systems can do, and the performance that they can actually deliver, are not always the same. I take them seriously, but I don’t take them at face value. They tend to over exaggerate their capabilities. There are lots of reasons for that, but let’s just leave it at this - China desperately wants to be the, not “a”, but “the” major player on the world stage.

There are many efforts within the US Navy to deny them success in employing that weapon and we are acutely aware of their technology development, fleet construction, and success in training and employment. China is taken very seriously - but let’s not make the mistake that we did with Russia in the 1950s and 1960s - and assume that what they claim is completely accurate.

The Japanese initially thought Pearl Harbor was a great success - because they were able to sink or disable so many battleships - not realizing the threat of the US Submarine force, or the importance of the Carriers, because in the IJN, the battleship was still thought to be the decisive platform for victory in a decisive engagement. They were students of Mahan - and revered the concept of the decisive engagement, like Trafalgar, that would be won with a close in gun battle between capital ships.

As we look to the future - networked surface combatants - from frigate to heavy cruiser (or really, really heavy cruiser, so heavy, that we might just call it a battleship) - with phased array radar, electronic attack, EM spectrum weapons and a surfeit of missiles, including hypersonic offensive weapons and cruise missiles - may be the best combination of defensive and offensive capability in a strike group, taking on threats, and striking targets, that airplanes cannot.

 

[Astro14]

This ship - whatever you want to call it - meets all the criteria of a battleship. Going all the way back to the Dreadnaughts, battleships were to be large, heavily armored ships that could provide essentially a artillery platform for both ship/ship and ship/shore engagement. Its twice as long with 5X the displacement of a Cruiser. It is heavily armored in ordinance for both attacking ships and shore targets. I don't know about armor, but it has been pointed out it would have plenty of capability to defend itself - supposedly.

So I haven't seen anything printed here that would contradict the President calling it a Battleship - from the traditional use case of what that name has meant historically at least. Just because it uses more modern weaponry shouldn't change that. The weapons on an Iowa Class were much better, with greater range and hitting power than those on a dreadnaught. The Commander in Chief could could have called it something else, but he didn't.

Irrelevant of what its called I still haven't heard why we need this particular ship. Only that we need more ships.

The simple reason - and it’s important - is the C4I. We can get just as many “tubes” for missiles (since the MK-41 VLS are all the same across ship type) by building two smaller ships, likely at lower cost than one of a ship of this class.

But the smaller ships, including the DDG(x) doesn’t have the command center for a strike group, or group of ships. Typically, the strike group commander is embarked on the carrier, because it has the space, and C4I systems, for the commander, and his staff, including his warfare commanders. So, DESRON and others would be embarked on the carrier.

If we are going to have independent surface action groups, or a backup to the CVN, for C4I, there needs to be a ship that is equipped to handle that function.

The second, and nearly as important, reason, is the power generation, principally in the radar. The amount of EM energy that a phased array can put out, and focus on a target (for either detection, or direct attack), is dependent on the number of elements (so, size), the computing power available, and the straight up power available.

Bigger ships = bigger radar + more power = longer detection range and more effective employment.

Radars in DDGs right now can be used for a variety of purposes, and can be focused to see things like incoming ballistic missiles, but a bigger radar, can see farther, can see more targets, and can handle a more complex threat because the larger processing capability allows tracking and resolution on more complex threats.

Sure, you can network radars and achieve some of that result, but at the edge of detection ranges, or in operating against EM/EA equipped threats (think airplanes or missiles with jamming systems) - the big radar is much more effective.

So, we don’t want to build a fleet of 100% big ships with big, powerful radars and C4I but we do need some ships with big, powerful radars and C4I to serve as the leads in a strike group.

And, we have always needed more frigates. Slightly smaller than a DDG, quite a bit smaller than a DDG(x), frigates fill unique roles, in scouting, visiting smaller ports, chasing submarines, augmenting larger ships and groups, while being cheaper to build and cheaper to operate, than DDGs.

And before somebody gets the wrong idea and tells me that frigates are outdated, because this is a frigate:

And she is, indeed a heavy 44 gun frigate, but we are talking about one of these:

https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/P...8/navy-announces-new-small-surface-combatant/

It will have commonality in systems with existing ships, use existing production facilities and templates, and fix the problems that plagued LCS.

The combat fleet needs submarines, frigates, destroyers, cruisers, carriers, and larger surface combatants. It is time for some new ships - our Ticonderoga class cruisers were designed in 1978, and built through 1994. The newest cruiser in the fleet is over 30 years old, and while they are very capable (remember the satellite shoot down was done by USS Lake Erie) they are old, limited in what they can generate for power, and suffering from fatigue, so a newer ship will have the power systems and future growth that a modern warship needs in a fresh hull that needs a lot less maintenance and a lot less repair.

 

[SC Maintenance]

The simple reason - and it’s important - is the C4I. We can get just as many “tubes” for missiles (since the MK-41 VLS are all the same across ship type) by building two smaller ships, likely at lower cost than one of a ship of this class.

But the smaller ships, including the DDG(x) doesn’t have the command center for a strike group, or group of ships. Typically, the strike group commander is embarked on the carrier, because it has the space, and C4I systems, for the commander, and his staff, including his warfare commanders. So, DESRON and others would be embarked on the carrier.

If we are going to have independent surface action groups, or a backup to the CVN, for C4I, there needs to be a ship that is equipped to handle that function.

The second, and nearly as important, reason, is the power generation, principally in the radar. The amount of EM energy that a phased array can put out, and focus on a target (for either detection, or direct attack), is dependent on the number of elements (so, size), the computing power available, and the straight up power available.

Bigger ships = bigger radar + more power = longer detection range and more effective employment.

Radars in DDGs right now can be used for a variety of purposes, and can be focused to see things like incoming ballistic missiles, but a bigger radar, can see farther, can see more targets, and can handle a more complex threat because the larger processing capability allows tracking and resolution on more complex threats.

Sure, you can network radars and achieve some of that result, but at the edge of detection ranges, or in operating against EM/EA equipped threats (think airplanes or missiles with jamming systems) - the big radar is much more effective.

So, we don’t want to build a fleet of 100% big ships with big, powerful radars and C4I but we do need some ships with big, powerful radars and C4I to serve as the leads in a strike group.

And, we have always needed more frigates. Slightly smaller than a DDG, quite a bit smaller than a DDG(x), frigates fill unique roles, in scouting, visiting smaller ports, chasing submarines, augmenting larger ships and groups, while being cheaper to build and cheaper to operate, than DDGs.

And before somebody gets the wrong idea and tells me that frigates are outdated, because this is a frigate:

View attachment 316772

And she is, indeed a heavy 44 gun frigate, but we are talking about one of these:

View attachment 316773

https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/P...8/navy-announces-new-small-surface-combatant/

It will have commonality in systems with existing ships, use existing production facilities and templates, and fix the problems that plagued LCS.

The combat fleet needs submarines, frigates, destroyers, cruisers, carriers, and larger surface combatants. It is time for some new ships - our Ticonderoga class cruisers were designed in 1978, and built through 1994. The newest cruiser in the fleet is over 30 years old, and while they are very capable (remember the satellite shoot down was done by USS Lake Erie) they are old, limited in what they can generate for power, and suffering from fatigue, so a newer ship will have the power systems and future growth that a modern warship needs in a fresh hull that needs a lot less maintenance and a lot less repair.

Yes, you have said all of this in general and I truly believe you - not my expertise. But who are we going to fight? Or are we just fighting the last war?

The current projection of power / freedom of navigation is all 1946 Bretton Woods / cold war philosophy. Our country has been voting for the opposite consistently for decades. We gave security guarantees to nations which we then reneged on completely anyway. So clearly this is not the current strategy already.

Second most powerful navy is China apparently. Are we going after them?

Russia was supposed to be 3rd but its hard to believe that in their current state. We have an ally that would happily sink all there ships for us, if we would just send ordinance to do so, but we do not.

4,5,6 and 7 in some order Japan, UK, S. Korea and France - all allies apparently.

 

[4wd]

The simple reason - and it’s important - is the C4I. We can get just as many “tubes” for missiles (since the MK-41 VLS are all the same across ship type) by building two smaller ships, likely at lower cost than one of a ship of this class.

But the smaller ships, including the DDG(x) doesn’t have the command center for a strike group, or group of ships. Typically, the strike group commander is embarked on the carrier, because it has the space, and C4I systems, for the commander, and his staff, including his warfare commanders. So, DESRON and others would be embarked on the carrier.

If we are going to have independent surface action groups, or a backup to the CVN, for C4I, there needs to be a ship that is equipped to handle that function.

The second, and nearly as important, reason, is the power generation, principally in the radar. The amount of EM energy that a phased array can put out, and focus on a target (for either detection, or direct attack), is dependent on the number of elements (so, size), the computing power available, and the straight up power available.

Bigger ships = bigger radar + more power = longer detection range and more effective employment.

Radars in DDGs right now can be used for a variety of purposes, and can be focused to see things like incoming ballistic missiles, but a bigger radar, can see farther, can see more targets, and can handle a more complex threat because the larger processing capability allows tracking and resolution on more complex threats.

Sure, you can network radars and achieve some of that result, but at the edge of detection ranges, or in operating against EM/EA equipped threats (think airplanes or missiles with jamming systems) - the big radar is much more effective.

So, we don’t want to build a fleet of 100% big ships with big, powerful radars and C4I but we do need some ships with big, powerful radars and C4I to serve as the leads in a strike group.

And, we have always needed more frigates. Slightly smaller than a DDG, quite a bit smaller than a DDG(x), frigates fill unique roles, in scouting, visiting smaller ports, chasing submarines, augmenting larger ships and groups, while being cheaper to build and cheaper to operate, than DDGs.

And before somebody gets the wrong idea and tells me that frigates are outdated, because this is a frigate:

View attachment 316772

And she is, indeed a heavy 44 gun frigate, but we are talking about one of these:

View attachment 316773

https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/P...8/navy-announces-new-small-surface-combatant/

It will have commonality in systems with existing ships, use existing production facilities and templates, and fix the problems that plagued LCS.

The combat fleet needs submarines, frigates, destroyers, cruisers, carriers, and larger surface combatants. It is time for some new ships - our Ticonderoga class cruisers were designed in 1978, and built through 1994. The newest cruiser in the fleet is over 30 years old, and while they are very capable (remember the satellite shoot down was done by USS Lake Erie) they are old, limited in what they can generate for power, and suffering from fatigue, so a newer ship will have the power systems and future growth that a modern warship needs in a fresh hull that needs a lot less maintenance and a lot less repair.

They already stated that the “battleship” would be heavily AI based - that alone means extra power generation and space for processing equipment and personnel … Square root that with advanced weapons systems - you need size …
I see several countries grey boats come/go - most are compact ships …

 

[OX1]

Merry Christmas everyone!

Late to the thread. In my job I work with many of the organizations involved in Navy R&D, resourcing, ship design, fleet operations, etc. A few thoughts:

There is no design or specification for this ship whatsoever. Concepts of a plan at best. Several of the weapons systems listed on that "technical specifications' graphic are between non-existent and not actually operational. Maybe they will in the future. Not in 2.5 years.

DDG(X) is the actual next large surface combatant. It's already in the works and is to both replace the Ticonderoga class and follow on from DDG-51 Flight III. Expected first deliveries are 5+ years out. Suffice to say a ship of non-existent design will not be out before it.

Comments throughout the thread suggesting that Navy force structure and doctrine development is towards a greater number of lower-cost platforms is correct. A vessel such as this does not fit. As described this would be a $10B+ vessel. The frigate program managed to get botched but other systems such as LUSV are moving along. Read about Cooperative Engagement Capability and imagine how that all works.

So yeah, call me a skeptic, for a number of reasons.

jeff

Just curious. Many of the articles addressing the new "battleship", claim DDG(X) is now canceled (or will be shortly).
I see this is from just a couple weeks back'

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11679

But

"They also told us that the new “battleship” plan is supplanting the Navy’s DDG(X) next-generation destroyer effort, and will leverage work already done on that design concept."

https://www.twz.com/sea/trump-class-battleship-construction-wont-begin-until-2030s

 

[OilStained]

https://www.twz.com/sea/trump-class-battleship-construction-wont-begin-until-2030s

The TWZ website is sus.

 

[CleanSump]

The general public and stupid media call everything a battleship. Kind of raises my ire a hair. I read an article not to long ago where the author called a destroyer and even an oiler battleships. Uh yeah, ok.

 

[greenjp]

Just curious. Many of the articles addressing the new "battleship", claim DDG(X) is now canceled (or will be shortly).
I see this is from just a couple weeks back'

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11679

But

"They also told us that the new “battleship” plan is supplanting the Navy’s DDG(X) next-generation destroyer effort, and will leverage work already done on that design concept."

https://www.twz.com/sea/trump-class-battleship-construction-wont-begin-until-2030s

Congress and OPNAV N96 might be surprised to hear of DDG(X)'s cancellation . This whole thing was new to NAVSEA as of the announcement so I'd take with a grain of salt any statements by unnamed sources. The reference to contracts to shipbuilders and the PB27 indicate start of those activities no earlier than fiscal year 2027 (next October). Again call me a skeptic that a vetted and funded requirement (DDG(X)) is going to be tossed aside for something that is neither.

jeff

 

[SC Maintenance]

The general public and stupid media call everything a battleship. Kind of raises my ire a hair. I read an article not to long ago where the author called a destroyer and even an oiler battleships. Uh yeah, ok.

Umm - the Commander in Chief did?

In fairness the displacement on the website is battleship range and it’s very heavily armored. So possibly it is in a lot of ways? I am certainly no expert - so I’ll say “ in layman’s terms”.

 

[WeyounDS9]

Not practical one drone one missile one torpedo one mine can take out that ship.

Uhm. No.

 

[football]

Looks like a large cruiser. We got rid of the cruisers, probably for good reason.

I would almost bet money that the next administration cancels this project and that will be the end of it.

 

[OX1]

Congress and OPNAV N96 might be surprised to hear of DDG(X)'s cancellation . This whole thing was new to NAVSEA as of the announcement so I'd take with a grain of salt any statements by unnamed sources. The reference to contracts to shipbuilders and the PB27 indicate start of those activities no earlier than fiscal year 2027 (next October). Again call me a skeptic that a vetted and funded requirement (DDG(X)) is going to be tossed aside for something that is neither.

jeff

Yeah. I'm just looking at the NSC though, as the new FFG, makes me wonder on DDG (X).