US Navy News and updates

FormerDirtDart

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
I've consolidated a number of official U.S. Government publicly released information sources related to the BBG(X)

Official U.S. Navy website: GOLDEN FLEET
(includes all official graphics/illustrations depicting vessel and technical specifications)

Official U.S. Navy Press Release: President Trump Announces New Battleship

Official U.S. Department of Defense release: Trump Announces New Class of Battleship
(Of note: clearly states that this program WILL replace plans to develop DDG[X] )

Congressional Research Service (CRS): Navy Guided Missile Battleship (BBG[X]) Program: Background and Issues for Congress
As usual with CRS products provides a condensed basic background related to the subject, and of course "issues" that need to be addressed going forward.
And for those that are inquisitive the array of links within the report can take you down all sorts of rabbit holes lol
Issues for Congress

In considering whether to approve, reject, or modify the Trump administration's proposal for building BBG(X)s through authorization and appropriations legislation, bill report language, or other oversight activities, Congress may consider several potential issues, including the following:

  • Why has the Trump Administration decided to propose the acquisition of a new class of battleships? What sort of analysis—such as an Analysis of Alternatives (AOA)—informed that decision? Would developing and procuring a 35,000-ton BBG(X) design to complement other existing and planned Navy ships be the most cost-effective course of action? What steps in the DOD acquisition process, if any, were set aside to enable the initiation of the BBG(X) program in December 2025?
  • How would BBG(X)s fit into the Navy's forthcoming Golden Fleet plan? Would BBG(X)s be consistent with the Navy's Distributed Maritime Operations (DMO) concept, which calls for spreading the Navy's sensors and weapons across a wider array of ships and aircraft, so as to avoid "putting too many eggs into one basket"? (For more on DMO, see CRS In Focus IF12599, Defense Primer: Navy Distributed Maritime Operations (DMO) Concept, by Ronald O'Rourke.)
  • What are the Navy's—and the Congressional Budget Office's—estimated procurement costs, including detailed design costs, for the first BBG(X), and for subsequent BBG(X)s? What impact would designing and procuring BBG(X)s have on available funding for other Navy program priorities?
  • Does the Navy intend to replace the DDG(X) program with the BBG(X) program? What would be the net impact on future Navy capabilities and funding requirements of developing and acquiring BBG(X)s instead of DDG(X)s?
  • Will new technologies that the Navy states are to be incorporated into the BBG(X) design, and which require further development—including an electromagnetic railgun and higher-power lasers—be mature enough by the early 2030s to be incorporated into BBG(X)s?
Click to expand...
And for good measure think it's best to include latest (Dec 4, 2025) iteration of :
Congressional Research Service (CRS): Navy DDG(X) Next-Generation Destroyer Program: Background and Issues for Congress
 
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
1768353019270.png
https://x.com/cjohnston/status/2011204905424368088

Rear VLS deleted.
Hull is interesting. If you remove the 5"s and the rail gun, fill it full of VLS. Maybe..

I look forward to Cher being at its launch, turning back time.
 
FormerDirtDart

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
koxinga said:
Current update.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Chris Cavas of @CavasShips on Twitter/X posted that image and on of the BBG(X)
Also went to check and see if any of the official graphics/illustrations depicting vessel and tech/specs on the USN "Golden Fleet" page (link a few posts up) match or different from this graphic, but page says the page is under construction


@ StingrayOZ unlike the claims of the twitter account posting the image you shared, this graphic still shows the rear VLS
 
Last edited:
StevoJH

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
John Fedup said:
More likely the design needs to lose about 15k tons, just like its namesake.
Click to expand...
If you drop the railgun that a ship primarily designed to be a CSG AAW command ship is highly unlikely to be in a position to use, there is no reason why you probably couldn’t keep everything else they want.

Even the 2x5” if you put them in the A and X position like a Ticonderoga.
 
S

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
I heard a theory and I am beginning to subscribe to it - that this is just an attempt to get funding for the cruiser replacement the USN has been trying to build for 30+ years. All the images are just place holders designed to make the boss happy and the eventual design will morph over time into something that looks like DDG(X)
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
StobieWan said:
I heard a theory and I am beginning to subscribe to it - that this is just an attempt to get funding for the cruiser replacement the USN has been trying to build for 30+ years. All the images are just place holders designed to make the boss happy and the eventual design will morph over time into something that looks like DDG(X)
Click to expand...
I think that is exactly right. Hopefully a DDG(X) design will emerge that can be built in sufficient numbers but given the USN's track record lately perhaps a bridge too far.:(
 
Terran

Terran

Well-Known Member
hauritz said:
My theory is that it will end up being a stretched DDG(X) if not just an actual DDG(X). The US has been struggling hard to even get something as relatively easy as the Constellation class up and running.
Click to expand...
Constellation class is anything but easy. Despite what people seem to think it’s a triple threat of problems. The Navy who drafted requirements for more of a DDG-light than a FFG, Congress who limited the options available to “Existing proven designs”, the Vendor who made assumptions about the ability to use the existing design only to realize they had to start from scratch.
 
Mark_Evans

Mark_Evans

Active Member
hauritz said:
My theory is that it will end up being a stretched DDG(X) if not just an actual DDG(X). The US has been struggling hard to even get something as relatively easy as the Constellation class up and running.
Click to expand...
Possibly 2 versions. DDGX plus a DDGX with missile plug in module. Like they are doing with the Virginia class. A question to ask will be if they are going to go down to the module approach to build segments and assemble them at main yards. Already doing it with subs and they could do it with surface ships. I had heard there was talk about doing this with follow on versions of the ffx.
 
Ananda

Ananda

The Bunker Group
www.navalnews.com

New U.S Navy Frigate: FF(X) Program Specs Revealed - Naval News

During Surface Navy 2026's Future Fleet Panel new details surrounding the U.S Navy's FF(X) program were unveiled.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com

This philosophy using Frigate (FF-X) as Low and Low Medium threat, in my opinion will not be much different then philosophy in Litoral Ships. My understanding before that Constelation class being build base on FREMM design to increase survivebility in peer to near peer conflicts. Seems now it is changing again ?

So why new design and not just modified existing litoral ships ? Unless the aim now is to find something more economical then present litoral ships.
 
K

koxinga

Well-Known Member
Ananda said:
So why new design and not just modified existing litoral ships ? Unless the aim now is to find something more economical then present litoral ships.
Click to expand...
Because the base design were designed for different missions.

The LCS design prioritizes speed as it was meant to be forward deployed to littorals (which means no need for longer range for transit and patrol). The Legend-class design prioritizes long range (>10k NM) / endurance (60 - 90 days), which will suit a more flexible mission that is typical of the role of a frigate (patrol wider areas, sealanes, both littoral and open ocean).
 
Terran

Terran

Well-Known Member
Ananda said:
www.navalnews.com

New U.S Navy Frigate: FF(X) Program Specs Revealed - Naval News

During Surface Navy 2026's Future Fleet Panel new details surrounding the U.S Navy's FF(X) program were unveiled.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com

This philosophy using Frigate (FF-X) as Low and Low Medium threat, in my opinion will not be much different then philosophy in Litoral Ships. My understanding before that Constelation class being build base on FREMM design to increase survivebility in peer to near peer conflicts. Seems now it is changing again ?

So why new design and not just modified existing litoral ships ? Unless the aim now is to find something more economical then present litoral ships.
Click to expand...
The Independence class production line is closed. I believe the production facility is working on another contract
Freedom class line closed and is likely canabilized for the Saudi MMSC.
I suspect the “popularity” of the LCS program and the aim to get something delivered by 2029 drove the choice.
 
spoz

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Actual Congressional Research Service report is here: Navy Guided Missile Battleship (BBG[X]) Program: Background and Issues for Congress or here: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF13142

If you are interested in the USN, and don’t have a bookmark to the CRS reports, you should - both for general info about programs and to get an idea of what Congress might do. While I often find myself arguing with some of the issues O’Rourke raises, there is no doubt that he is both logical in his approach and well respected by Senators and Representatives. He’s been around for a long time and has very good knowledge of his subject. And, after all, raising issues for Congressional consideration is his job.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top