US Navy News and updates

[John Fedup]

Sure a single SSGN variant of an SSBN will carry more missiles, but you can have more Virginia Block V's.

Cost, missile capacity, speed, how quiet, and crewing issues are weighed and I guess a USN team evaluation decides which path is best…I don’t know but hopefully they do albeit the track record on other USN decisions is somewhat tarnished.

One current SSGN has the missile load of 4 Virginia block 5 SSNs. The Columbia SSBN has a missile compartment with 12 Tridents versus the Ohio's 16 so unless the Columbia is enlarged, its SSGN derivative would equal 3 block V Virginia SSNs. Setting cost aside, the extra crewing issue might be the biggest issue wrt SSGN versus SSN Virginia block V.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

In today's BBGN news US Chief of Naval Operations states that the A1B reactor, used to power the Ford-class carriers, will be used to power the Trump-class ships.
Not answered, how many reactors will each ship receive. Historically US nuclear powered surface combatants have been equipped with two reactors, and two A1B would seem like a huge amount of excess installed power

Trump-class Battleship will get same nuclear reactor as Ford aircraft carrier - Breaking Defense

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle confirmed the battleship would share several design features with the USS Ford.

breakingdefense.com

 

[John Fedup]

In today's BBGN news US Chief of Naval Operations states that the A1B reactor, used to power the Ford-class carriers, will be used to power the Trump-class ships.
Not answered, how many reactors will each ship receive. Historically US nuclear powered surface combatants have been equipped with two reactors, and two A1B would seem like a huge amount of excess installed power

Trump-class Battleship will get same nuclear reactor as Ford aircraft carrier - Breaking Defense

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle confirmed the battleship would share several design features with the USS Ford.

breakingdefense.com

What is the size of a A1B reactor? There is a lot more space in a 100,000 ton ship versus a 30,000 ship. Guessing the earlier surface combatant reactors weren't considered reliable enough 40- 50 years ago to utilize only one. In any event, I really can't see this class happening.

 

[StevoJH]

What is the size of a A1B reactor? There is a lot more space in a 100,000 ton ship versus a 30,000 ship. Guessing the earlier surface combatant reactors weren't considered reliable enough 40- 50 years ago to utilize only one. In any event, I really can't see this class happening.

1 reactor with backup diesel generators would surely have to be enough, but I suppose that would depend on the speed requirement and hull form.

It still leaves the question of what shipyard they get built in? Even if built as modules, the final assembly would presumably have to be at a Nuclear Certified facility which considerably reduces the possible locations.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

In BBG(X)/BBGN(X) AND FF(X) news the US Congress seems to be attempting flew a little oversight muscle.
Early drafts of the FY27 defense budget fences off construction funding for both the BBG(X) and FF(X) until the Department of Defense meets certain criteria.
Congress Moves To Block Trump Class Battleship Work Until Its Key Weapons Are Mature

For the BBG(X):

“The Secretary of the Navy may not enter into a contract or other agreement that includes a scope of work for the construction of the lead ship of the Battleship program until the date on which the Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees that the weapon systems planned for inclusion in such lead ship are at a sufficiently mature technology readiness level.”

The provision does not name any particular weapon systems or define what level of “technology readiness” would be accepted as “sufficiently mature.”

Might be significant hurdles to certify the maturity of the railgun and directed energy weapons. The Conventional Prompt Strike missiles still has questions but I believe we're supposed to see at-sea test firing off the USS Zumwalt between 2027 and 2028

For the FF(X):

In its current form, the draft NDAA would also require the Secretary of the Navy to “submit to the congressional defense committees a strategy for the iterative development of the FF(X) class frigate” within 180 days of the bill becoming law. The Secretary would also be compelled to provide a briefing to update legislators on their progress in devising this strategy within 90 days.

The strategy would have to include the following:

• “Information on the estimated timeline for each planned variant (commonly known as a ‘‘Flight’’) of the FF(X) class frigate”
• “Details on the integration of additional capabilities for future Flights of the frigate, such as vertical launch systems or improved sensors, and implications for the space, weight, power, and cost of the hull form.”
• Any additional mission sets or combat functions that may be added to the concept of operation for FF(X) class frigates.”

Likely easier hurdle to overcome, they just have show an actual plan. Though, that might be hard for this administration. And the inability to contract for long lead items and material should have a substantial impact on production-to-fielding timelines.

Related: I took a look at what if any updates the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports have on both the BBG(X) & FF(X) program. Surprisingly (at least to me) there haven't been any updates since Jan 20, 2026, despite the many issues publicly identified for both programs.
Navy Guided Missile Battleship (BBG[X]) Program: Background and Issues for Congress
Navy Constellation (FFG-62) and FF(X) Class Frigate Programs: Background and Issues for Congress

An added bonus from the article was a slide showing images of the Conventional Prompt Strike launch tube integration on the USS Zumwalt. (context- 3 missiles per launch tube, total twelve CPS missiles)

 

[John Fedup]

I would be surprised if the BBG(N) survives post Trump. Perhaps this oversight is the start. Having said that, probably the biggest hurdles are the price tag) and the railgun. The other stuff is not far off and some of the expensive kit is from the Ford is more or less proven (radar and reactor). The BBG(N) makes sense from an endurance point of view but it would still need a missile replenishment at sea system or the endurance advantage is minimised. I guess the railgun would address the replenishment issue somewhat. Like all USN projects, the elephant in the room is ship building capacity,

 

[FormerDirtDart]

I would be surprised if the BBG(N) survives post Trump. Perhaps this oversight is the start. Having said that, probably the biggest hurdles are the price tag) and the railgun. The other stuff is not far off and some of the expensive kit is from the Ford is more or less proven (radar and reactor). The BBG(N) makes sense from an endurance point of view but it would still need a missile replenishment at sea system or the endurance advantage is minimised. I guess the railgun would address the replenishment issue somewhat. Like all USN projects, the elephant in the room is ship building capacity,

I don't think BBG(X) gets gets in the water. I really hope several billion dollars isn't wasted before it's killed.
Keeping steel from being cut before Jan 2029 is the goal. If that can be achieved the possibility of a single ship redheaded stepchild entering service is reduced.
And yeah the railgun is likely the furthest from maturity. But the planned 300kw DEW doesn't exist. And the current (as in previously known) is to increase the currently deployed HELIOS from 60kw to 150kw, so 300 seems a long way off.
Now the administration could get enough members of Congress to accept "Built for but not with" as a viable alternative. And we wind up with $100 Billion sunk into the program

 

[John Fedup]

I don't think BBG(X) gets gets in the water. I really hope several billion dollars isn't wasted before it's killed.
Keeping steel from being cut before Jan 2029 is the goal. If that can be achieved the possibility of a single ship redheaded stepchild entering service is reduced.
And yeah the railgun is likely the furthest from maturity. But the planned 300kw DEW doesn't exist. And the current (as in previously known) is to increase the currently deployed HELIOS from 60kw to 150kw, so 300 seems a long way off.
Now the administration could get enough members of Congress to accept "Built for but not with" as a viable alternative. And we wind up with $100 Billion sunk into the program

Yep. As for “built with but not with”, I am sure our Brit members can weigh in.