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.

 

[StobieWan]

Yeah, this thing isn't going to survive the debate over funding it. Trump is already into lame duck territory as we write and the mid terms will likely rewrite the political map in short order.

 

[Todjaeger]

Yeah, this thing isn't going to survive the debate over funding it. Trump is already into lame duck territory as we write and the mid terms will likely rewrite the political map in short order.

It might not even last until the midterm elections. Right now control of the House relies upon a seven seat majority, which also happens to be the same number of House members from that party which are retiring this seat without seeking other offices. There are also 18 other House members who are not seeking re-election to their current House seats and instead are seeking election to other offices.

That slim a majority coupled with already announced retirements means there is potential for control of the US House to flip before the midterm elections even happen.

Yes, this unfort is all political, but my reason for raising it is that should control of either/both chambers of the US Congress change, that would imperil current/future defence programmes which require defence appropriations to be passed in the future. Given that the US does not permit defence contracts for more than five years at a time and often even such contracts require annual appropriations, a number of things would need to end up specific ways for any proposed BBG programme to actually deliver warships in the future.

 

[Feanor]

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

I think this might be *someone's* megalomania. Perhaps he saw a Kirov and got jealous of his friend, went to his staff and said "We'll make our own, with blackjack and hookers".

 

[SammyC]

Trump's battleship is just so predictable, who would have though something like that would come from someone like him. It goes into the same category as the conversion of Gaza into a second Las Vegas, and the annexation of Greenland into the 52nd American State. The Navy will bury it in design until the end of his presidency and then move onto an evolved DDG to replace the ABs, like they originally planned to do. And call it something else.

It is however a very good distraction from other news stories like Epstein and the cost of living.

The Legend class frigate, is however a good decision at the other end of the spectrum. Should have been made ages ago. Simple, reliable, cheap, persistent and easily mass produced. They could have a dozen of these in various states of production within five years across several yards, and have a flight 2 in the water by around 2030.

I don't see the lack of a VLS as a problem for the early builds, only a fraction of it's taskings would require that capability. The ship is designed as a drone controller. It can be paired with a missile carrying drone when it does need it. If anything this may spur on the missile drone technology concepts into maturity to be available when it hits the water later this decade.

And if people really, really want to stick missiles on, I suspect it could be retrofitted later on with a small VLS upfront. HII's media releases indicate that some space and weight is in the base design already.

It would make an argument to bring back the short self defence sized Mk41, for an ESSM loadout in an 8 or 16 cell compact configuration, and fit the fantail with 8 or 16 NSM launchers. A flight 2, with construction commencing in 2-3 years (to allow design time) could come with this all fitted from the get go.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Trump's battleship is just so predictable, who would have though something like that would come from someone like him. It goes into the same category as the conversion of Gaza into a second Las Vegas, and the annexation of Greenland into the 52nd American State. The Navy will bury it in design until the end of his presidency and then move onto an evolved DDG to replace the ABs, like they originally planned to do. And call it something else.

It is however a very good distraction from other news stories like Epstein and the cost of living.

The Legend class frigate, is however a good decision at the other end of the spectrum. Should have been made ages ago. Simple, reliable, cheap, persistent and easily mass produced. They could have a dozen of these in production within five years across several yards, and have a flight 2 in the water by 2030.

I don't see the lack of a VLS as a problem, only a fraction of it's taskings would require that capability. The ship is designed as a drone controller. It can be paired with a missile carrying drone when it does need it. If anything this may spur on the missile drone technology concepts into maturity.

Planning on DDG(X) already exists, but will halt. Golden Shower Fleet vanity projects demand center stage and will consume resources and personnel time. With reporting now that that BBG construction is not expected to begin until the 2030s.
GD BIW and HII will be sole sourced to design the BBG(X), with Leidos Gibbs & Cox sole sourced to support design and analysis. With the design phase expected to last 72 months. So, FY 2032 if they start NOW If you don't think that's going to stretch quite a bit you're delusional. The DDG(X), with a original planned construction start period of FY 2032, recently had it's start date pushed to FY 2034. They say work done in DDG(X) program will be used to advance the program. I assume the Pentagon will also redirect DDG(X) funding for FY 2026 & beyond until BBG(X) funding can be approved in the 2027 defence authorization bills.
Replacing the Ticos remains in the expanding mission set for the AB Flt IIIs, and SLEPing the AB Flt Is to carry out the missions the future AB Flt IIIs should have entered service to accomplish.

Trump Class Battleship Construction Won't Begin Until 2030s

With Trump class ship construction many years off, the survival of a program to build such large and expensive warships is even more questionable.

www.twz.com

FFX doesn't really pick up any of the slack since it will basically be capable of little more than the LCS fleet can be tasked with.
I don't know where you get the idea that the Legend based frigate is somehow designed to be a drone controller, I've seen no evidence of any USn plans along that line. The Navy hasn't been able to make a decision on light UAVs for shipboard sea surveillance use, let alone progressed any of the planned larger V-TOL UAV projects. And a reminder that the Legend-class cutters were not even designed to support UH-60 operations. So operating USN MH-60 from FFX Flt I ships will probably have it's challenges.


Honestly this whole "BBG(X)" nonsense smacks of the same ludicrous posturing as the Russian Project 23560 Lider/Shkval-class large destroyer (despite no Russian surface combatants bigger than a frigate being built in a number of decades)
At least the Russians had the decency to announce they would be nuclear powered to fulfill the fantasy

 

[hauritz]

Just to clarify. Wasn't the original idea to replace the Tico's and AB with the DDG(X)?
The design work on that ship is still many years from completion with construction planned to be commence sometime in the early 2030s. Now from out of nowhere, and not matching up with any actual USN requirement, we get this ship, which Trump seems to believe will be in the water by as soon as 2030.

I can only assume Trump has been skipping his meds.

 

[SammyC]

Planning on DDG(X) already exists, but will halt. Golden Shower Fleet vanity projects demand center stage and will consume resources and personnel time. With reporting now that that BBG construction is not expected to begin until the 2030s.
GD BIW and HII will be sole sourced to design the BBG(X), with Leidos Gibbs & Cox sole sourced to support design and analysis. With the design phase expected to last 72 months. So, FY 2032 if they start NOW If you don't think that's going to stretch quite a bit you're delusional. The DDG(X), with a original planned construction start period of FY 2032, recently had it's start date pushed to FY 2034. They say work done in DDG(X) program will be used to advance the program. I assume the Pentagon will also redirect DDG(X) funding for FY 2026 & beyond until BBG(X) funding can be approved in the 2027 defence authorization bills.
Replacing the Ticos remains in the expanding mission set for the AB Flt IIIs, and SLEPing the AB Flt Is to carry out the missions the future AB Flt IIIs should have entered service to accomplish.

Trump Class Battleship Construction Won't Begin Until 2030s

With Trump class ship construction many years off, the survival of a program to build such large and expensive warships is even more questionable.

www.twz.com

FFX doesn't really pick up any of the slack since it will basically be capable of little more than the LCS fleet can be tasked with.
I don't know where you get the idea that the Legend based frigate is somehow designed to be a drone controller, I've seen no evidence of any USn plans along that line. The Navy hasn't been able to make a decision on light UAVs for shipboard sea surveillance use, let alone progressed any of the planned larger V-TOL UAV projects. And a reminder that the Legend-class cutters were not even designed to support UH-60 operations. So operating USN MH-60 from FFX Flt I ships will probably have it's challenges.


Honestly this whole "BBG(X)" nonsense smacks of the same ludicrous posturing as the Russian Project 23560 Lider/Shkval-class large destroyer (despite no Russian surface combatants bigger than a frigate being built in a number of decades)
At least the Russians had the decency to announce they would be nuclear powered to fulfill the fantasy

Navy Embarked MH-60R Helicopter Aboard Coast Guard Cutter

From the above article, it looks like the Legend class can operate an MH60. I don't think it comes standard with RAST, so some limitations in its base form. But it does mean the deck is rated, the hangar can house it, and the safe approach wind vectors have been assessed.

It is in my view a better hull than either of the LCS designs for a simple workhorse. It has a long ranged, fuel efficient propulsion system and is designed for high sea states. Much of the frigate role is just presence and persistence in all weather conditions. The Legend Class is well suited to this.

The drone capability has just come from some of the USN media released on the vessel, but frankly drone control is not complex. Link 16 is all that is needed. I'm thinking more surface or subsurface drones rather than aerial types for this kind of platform.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Aslo in USN news today:
Recent defense funding authorizes the USN to conduct a pilot program field contractor operated seaplanes in the Pacific.
Now don't get consumed by the US-2 image. Probably not going to use them, since there really aren't any available to be contracted. The Canadair CL-415, with significantly reduced range, has much larger production run but their available numbers become scarce during fire seasons across the globe. The article goes on to suggest possible use of float planes, but their limited range would likely be limiting.

Pentagon To Contract Fleet Of Seaplanes For The Pacific

The lack of an American amphibious aircraft capability has become more glaring as the possibility of a conflict with China looms larger.

www.twz.com

EC. 381. PILOT PROGRAM FOR CONTRACTED AMPHIBIOUS AIR RESOURCES FOR THE AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UNITED STATES INDO-PACIFIC COMMAND.

(a) AUTHORITY .—The Secretary of Defense, in conjunction with the Secretary of the Navy and the Commander of the United States Indo-Pacific Command, may carry out a pilot program for the contracted operation of a fleet of commercial amphibious aviation resources to be made available to the commanders of the combatant commands and the commanders of other components of the Department of Defense for mission tasking within the area of responsibility of the United States Indo-Pacific Command.

(b) FIELDING AND ADJUDICATING MISSION REQUESTS

The Commander of the United States Indo-Pacific Command shall establish a process to field and adjudicate mission requests pursuant to the pilot program under subsection (a) in a timely manner.

(c) TERMINATION .—The authority to carry out the pilot program under subsection (a) shall terminate on the date that is three years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

 

[StevoJH]

As a self-defense option, is RAM in the full 21-shot reloadable launcher sufficient for the use cases where this ship would be expected to operate on its own?

The Germans seems to think so?

————

RE: Seaplanes

The Twin Otter could be an option depending on range requirements and what task these aircraft are supposed to accomplish.

 

[76mmGuns]

As a self-defense option, is RAM in the full 21-shot reloadable launcher sufficient for the use cases where this ship would be expected to operate on its own?

The Germans seems to think so?

————

RE: Seaplanes

The Twin Otter could be an option depending on range requirements and what task these aircraft are supposed to accomplish.

Do you mean in terms of missile numbers or lack of redundancies for radar targeting systems?

If you mean for the F125, that is something that puzzles many , given they chose zero VLS for such a large ship. However, it seems to be a ship which prioritises deployment over actual firepower.

German Navy Confirms Its Supersized Frigate Will Avoid The Red Sea

Strictly limited air defense armament has long been a puzzling feature of the German F125 class frigate. Strictly limited air defense armament has long been a puzzling feature of the German F125 class frigate.

www.twz.com

Other German warships don't have this issue.

My personal take on this puzzling design for the F125 is that the German's were actively reducing the costs and firepower of ships due the Cold War Peace dividend, and Germany's anti war politics. Their military was famously run down, despite having high end equipment on paper. Their defence budget was about 1% of GDP. I recall at one time they even had to charter a commercial flight to flight Angela Merkel to the Argentina G20 Summit 2018 because their Air Force 1 equivalent didn't work. It was maintained by the German Air Force.

Of course Russia has famously made them change this attitude, at least in public