Return of The BATTLESHIP

[Deleted account]

Well the fewer inbound rockets the more capable a ship or group can target and shoot down incoming missiles. Or conversely be overwhelmed with two many targets to service in too short a time. So 1-10 or a 100, missile defense systems protocols and capability are not some abstract guess pulled out of they’re nether regions.

Okay, let's do some actual math instead of pulling numbers out of our collective asses.

The price tag for USS Gerald Ford - the latest US aircraft carrier - worked out to $12.8 billion for the actual ship + $4.7 billion in estimated R&D costs (Source).

So $17.5 billion overall. And that was in 2014 dollars - not 2026 dollars. But okay, let's charitably assume that this new Trump-class behemoth is not going to be more expensive than that.

You know what else you can get for $17.5 billion?

Four thousand modern stealth anti-ship cruise missiles - AGM-158C LRASM specifically (Source). And you could probably get quite a few more if you started manufacturing them at that scale. And China can probably get a lot more with their cheap labor and huge industrial base.

I'm just gonna drop the mic at this point.

And once again your logic would dictate not developing or building any new weapons platforms.

I would say that if you want a strong navy, you should probably start with fixing the procurement system. Set up a commission to investigate the Zumwalt fiasco. Identify the responsible parties, and punish them appropriately. Institute procedures and mechanisms to ensure oversight and accountability going forward.

But since you can't take that to a naval parade, we all know it's not gonna happen.

As a result of the above, this new battleship of yours is gonna end up at the bottom of the sea. Quite possibly the South China Sea.(*)

*) That's assuming it ever sails at all - which isn't particularly likely...

 

[Torch]

Wasn't the Tirpitz a stationary anchored target when it was bombed. I believe it took 3 12000 "Tall Boy" bombs to capsize it.

Yes. My point was that it took R&D to invent and test multiple designs to finally build those bombs. So it took a tremendous effort in resources and personal to sink her.

In the end she was sunk and Britain had a new weapon for those hard to reach places.

So who got the most “value” out of the ship’s existence? The time it spent as a “threat in being” required large portions of the British fleet to shadowing it, even parked.

I think both sides got a lot but a sunk Ship pretty much answers the question. Im actually not taking either side. I thing it requires a complex look at resource constraints and management at the time and a total cost placed upon both. Im pretty confident that sinking the ship gives the British the edge.

 

[Torch]

You know what else you can get for $17.5 billion?

Four thousand modern stealth anti-ship cruise missiles - AGM-158C LRASM specifically

America is going to have both. Plus Railguns*


*finally after 50 years R&D and 25 years after deployment which made a lot of people rich twice!

 

[Deleted account]

America is going to have both.

The contract is for 549 LRASMs to be procured by 2029. So no, it won't have both. It's gonna spend $2 billion on what seems like a useful weapon, and $20+ billion on one that isn't.

Plus Railguns*

Any day now.

*finally after 50 years R&D and 25 years after deployment which made a lot of people rich twice!

Those never-ending mil-ind R&D cash cows that suck in taxpayer dollars sure seem popular in DC... I wonder why.

 

[Torch]

The contract is for 549 LRASMs to be procured by 2029. So no, it won't have both. It's gonna spend $2 billion on what seems like a useful weapon, and $20+ billion on one that isn't.

Any day now.

Those never-ending mil-ind R&D cash cows that suck in taxpayer dollars sure seem popular in DC... I wonder why.

You got the last word in

 

[william]

How many drones or hyper sonic cruise missiles can you fire from a battleship. And it's NOT a fixed target.

 

[Deleted account]

How many drones or hyper sonic cruise missiles can you fire from a battleship. And it's NOT a fixed target

Which of the following two events do you think will happen first:

1. China develops a hypersonic missile capable of hitting a warship
2. US puts USS Donald Trump (or USS Defiant; whatever...) in the water

My money is squarely on #1

PS. Also, torpedoes exist. Just sayin'.

 

[Publius]

Okay, let's do some actual math instead of pulling numbers out of our collective asses.

The price tag for USS Gerald Ford - the latest US aircraft carrier - worked out to $12.8 billion for the actual ship + $4.7 billion in estimated R&D costs (Source).

So $17.5 billion overall. And that was in 2014 dollars - not 2026 dollars. But okay, let's charitably assume that this new Trump-class behemoth is not going to be more expensive than that.

You know what else you can get for $17.5 billion?

Four thousand modern stealth anti-ship cruise missiles - AGM-158C LRASM specifically (Source). And you could probably get quite a few more if you started manufacturing them at that scale. And China can probably get a lot more with their cheap labor and huge industrial base.

I'm just gonna drop the mic at this point.


I would say that if you want a strong navy, you should probably start with fixing the procurement system. Set up a commission to investigate the Zumwalt fiasco. Identify the responsible parties, and punish them appropriately. Institute procedures and mechanisms to ensure oversight and accountability going forward.

But since you can't take that to a naval parade, we all know it's not gonna happen.

As a result of the above, this new battleship of yours is gonna end up at the bottom of the sea. Quite possibly the South China Sea.(*)

*) That's assuming it ever sails at all - which isn't particularly likely...

Lots of hypotheticals there. I answered your initial complaints.
Now we’re back to the Zumwalt complaints. All valid and all abandon at this time.
But of course do nothing

Stealth cruise missiles are not that big of a bargain if you don’t have modern platforms to launch them from.
That’s equivocally to forty or more return to ports to have a ships magazine refiled

 

[Deleted account]

Lots of hypotheticals there. I answered your initial complaints.
Now we’re back to the Zumwalt complaints. All valid and all abandon at this time.
But of course do nothing

I didn't say "do nothing". I said fix your procurement system ASAP; then fund weapons programs that are likely to gobble up most of your defense budget (this gunboat is actually far from the worst offender here - that prize goes to the Golden Dome pipe dream, which is likely to suffer a similar fate).

Stealth cruise missiles are not that big of a bargain if you don’t have modern platforms to launch them from.

You mean like airplanes? That's what LRASMs are launched from. And everyone has those.

It's a numbers game, and the big lumbering (and difficult to resupply) ship loses to the missile swarm. IMO.

 

[Deleted account]

I think both sides got a lot but a sunk Ship pretty much answers the question. Im actually not taking either side. I thing it requires a complex look at resource constraints and management at the time and a total cost placed upon both. Im pretty confident that sinking the ship gives the British the edge.

The Tirpitz tale, while cautionary, isn't actually the best historical analogue. For that, I would point to IJN Musashi - the sister ship of the more famous Yamato, and one for which - at least according to sarcastic Japanese comments - "they had to melt all the cooking pots in Tokyo to put her in the water".

Launched in 1942 as the pride of the Japanese Imperial Navy and the largest warship in existence (by displacement) at the time, featuring the largest caliber guns anyone had ever put on a battleship (460 mm, with plans for a 508 mm retrofit) - the vessel ended up languishing for two years at Kure because the IJN was afraid to commit it to any actual battle (apparently falling afoul of the "but I may need it later" syndrome) - until at last it sailed under Kurita to meet the US Navy at the Battle of Leyte Gulf.

Alas, it never so much as fired a shot: it got swarmed and promptly dispatched by US naval aviation in the Sibuyan Sea without ever engaging any American warship.

Is it just me or are the parallels here a bit uncomfortable...?

 

[william]

Which of the following two events do you think will happen first:

1. China develops a hypersonic missile capable of hitting a warship
2. US puts USS Donald Trump (or USS Defiant; whatever...) in the water

My money is squarely on #1

PS. Also, torpedoes exist. Just sayin'.

China won't be able to hit anything after the US disrupts just one aspect of their kill chain. As far as the torpedoes go our "Hunter Killers" will hit their subs as soon as they flood their tubes in a hot war. Now it is possible they could get off a surprise attack. If they do that God help them!

 

[Deleted account]

China won't be able to hit anything after the US disrupts just one aspect of their kill chain.

That goes both ways. And we all know it'll be China starting the war, not you.

Roll for initiative!

 

[william]

First look at Trump-class BBG(X) and National Security Cutter-derived FF(X) models

https://twitter.com/x/status/2011204905424368088

 

[william]

The Tirpitz tale, while cautionary, isn't actually the best historical analogue. For that, I would point to IJN Musashi - the sister ship of the more famous Yamato, and one for which - at least according to sarcastic Japanese comments - "they had to melt all the cooking pots in Tokyo to put her in the water".

Launched in 1942 as the pride of the Japanese Imperial Navy and the largest warship in existence (by displacement) at the time, featuring the largest caliber guns anyone had ever put on a battleship (460 mm, with plans for a 508 mm retrofit) - the vessel ended up languishing for two years at Kure because the IJN was afraid to commit it to any actual battle (apparently falling afoul of the "but I may need it later" syndrome) Surely you know Americans don't fight like that. If we build it or hopefully them it WILL be in the fight.- until at last it sailed under Kurita to meet the US Navy at the Battle of Leyte Gulf.

Alas, it never so much as fired a shot: it got swarmed and promptly dispatched by US naval aviation in the Sibuyan Sea without ever engaging any American warship.

Is it just me or are the parallels here a bit uncomfortable...?

 

[Deleted account]

View attachment 8554

This looks and feels like CG(X)-21 (conceptual illustration below) - a cruiser in the 20k ton range (not the 35k+ battlewagon touted by Trump).
This might be a viable warship, but if it keeps shrinking at that rate, you'll end up with a 13k ton destroyer by the time the keel is laid.

 

[william]

“I am excited about Battleships and I am NOT being sarcastic. Here’s why,” RADM Dereck Trinque, US Navy

https://twitter.com/x/status/2011164179974275284

 

[Torch]

It comes down to the capacity to generate power .

 

[Deleted account]

It comes down to the capacity to generate power .

What does that even mean?

If you're referring to the capability of a ship to generate sufficient power to support DEWs, then modern naval reactors got you covered.

An A1B nuclear reactor (of the kind that powers US CVNs) outputs something like 125 MW of electrical power (or, if you really want to be precise - produces enough steam for the attached turbine to generate the aforementioned amount of power). That's sufficient to power literally hundreds of various DEWs, with enough juice to spare for all other vital systems. And btw., CVNs carry two of those reactors per.

So no, it does not "come down to the capacity to generate power". That's a solved problem.

What it does come down to is as follows:

• Threat assessment (What kinds of naval conflicts can we expect in the future? What types of weapons will be available to our adversaries? Does the new class allow us to effectively handle the resulting threats?)
• SWOT analysis (How does the new class improve the overall warfighting potential of the Navy and of the armed forces in general? What are its potential weaknesses that could be exploited by adversaries? What is the likelihood of the new class failing to meet the declared technical specifications - e.g. as a result of new technologies not living up to their promise, or of development costs being underestimated? How would such shortcomings affect the overall usefulness of these vessels?)
• Funding (Are we able to accurately estimate the cost of developing and deploying the new class? Will Congress allocate sufficient funds for it? Where would the money come from?)
• R&D schedule (How much time will be needed to develop and deploy the new class? What is the likelihood of development delays? How would such delays affect the threat picture mentioned above?)
• Industrial capacity (Does the USA possess sufficient industrial capacity to meet the requirements of the program?)

You know, all that boring stuff nobody in the decision chain cares about.

 

[Deleted account]

"I am excited about Battleships and I am NOT being sarcastic."

I like big ships and I cannot lie.

 

[Torch]

What does that even mean?

If you're referring to the capability of a ship to generate sufficient power to support DEWs, then modern naval reactors got you covered.

An A1B nuclear reactor (of the kind that powers US CVNs) outputs something like 125 MW of electrical power (or, if you really want to be precise - produces enough steam for the attached turbine to generate the aforementioned amount of power). That's sufficient to power literally hundreds of various DEWs, with enough juice to spare for all other vital systems. And btw., CVNs carry two of those reactors per.

So no, it does not "come down to the capacity to generate power". That's a solved problem.

What it does come down to is as follows:

• Threat assessment (What kinds of naval conflicts can we expect in the future? What types of weapons will be available to our adversaries? Does the new class allow us to effectively handle the resulting threats?)
• SWOT analysis (How does the new class improve the overall warfighting potential of the Navy and of the armed forces in general? What are its potential weaknesses that could be exploited by adversaries? What is the likelihood of the new class failing to meet the declared technical specifications - e.g. as a result of new technologies not living up to their promise, or of development costs being underestimated? How would such shortcomings affect the overall usefulness of these vessels?)
• Funding (Are we able to accurately estimate the cost of developing and deploying the new class? Will Congress allocate sufficient funds for it? Where would the money come from?)
• R&D schedule (How much time will be needed to develop and deploy the new class? What is the likelihood of development delays? How would such delays affect the threat picture mentioned above?)
• Industrial capacity (Does the USA possess sufficient industrial capacity to meet the requirements of the program?)

You know, all that boring stuff nobody in the decision chain cares about.

Nope. It comes down to generating power.

Space is limited on current warships. Power plants need protected space that can connect with the various bus. Warships (at least one that wishes to remain afloat) cannot simply place additional power generating equipment in any available space. Hence a new larger design.

So no, it does not "come down to the capacity to generate power". That's a solved problem.

Location is not. Space is not. You need both to generate power.
We are taking about an advance ship not a civic improvement. In this thread and in reference to this ship it is all about generating power.