We went through this in the late 40s, early 50s. See “Revolt of the Admirals”.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Road to 350: What Does the US Navy Do Anyway?
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
I would argue going the other way, with more less expensive ships and other launchers to 'distribute lethality' across a larger number of platforms making your strike capability more resilient to attack. A lot easier to hit 2 or 3 ships than a dozen augmented by land-based launchers spread out over many possible island bases.
And let's be realistic, the new 'battleships' may be laid down but I seriously doubt if even one hull ever touches the water.
These things are essentially disposable. Fill the inside with flotation, make the containers the package, make sure they can float when the ship is sunk.
1028 TEU = 1,028 containers, and so on.
Container Ships for Sale | 300 to 24,000+ TEU | Small Feeders & Ocean Liners
Purchase container ships for sale, from small 300 TEU regional feeders to 24,000+ TEU ultra-large vessels. Explore technical specs for geared and gearless units
www.nautisnp.com
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
False dichotomy. It's not an either / or decision.
Blue-water engagement against a gaggle of Renhais / Luyangs being different than a ship to shore strike package targeting key infrastructure.
Jaegermeister
SNFO Select
Call me an armchair admiral, but why not just build a Ticon II rather than a possibly oversized/expensive BBG?
Because then Mango Mussolini wouldn’t get the biggest and greatest ship ever for his Golden Shower, I mean Golden Fleet.
It is an either/or decision because the industrial base is already capacity-constrained and that won’t change until the US invests heavily in its shipyards. As it currently stands, we can opt for carrier strike capability or the BBG(X). If we wanted to do both, it would likely require tens of billions in expansion and modernization at Bath, Newport News, and Pascagoula, or else the program starts competing directly with CVN, LHA, DDG, submarine, and RCOH timelines.
The cost-benefit analysis if we’re designing this thing for surface combat against enemy ships doesn’t track either. For the cost of a single BBG(X) at the reported 12.6 billion dollars per vessel (a conservative estimate), China could produce 14 Type 055 destroyers. That’s 128 VLS cells vs 1568. That’s not an exchange ratio the United States Navy can accept in a far-east scenario, especially with our disadvantages in shipyard capacity. If we’re going off the Navy’s procurement timeline, with service entry likely in the late 2030s, that 14v1 number stops being hypothetical. At roughly two Type 055s per year during active production, China can get there inside the BBG(X) development window while still building other combatants in parallel at a rate we aren’t currently capable of matching.
As currently presented, it’s supposed to fill a niche where it’s a cost-ineffective replacement for roles a DDG or SSN already cover. We don’t need another surface combatant that fails to address the issues of operating under the threat of A2/AD missiles, least of all a 20 billion dollar one that’ll require manpower the navy just doesn’t have.
Last edited:
Fucking stealing this one…
Cheddar Cheese Ceaușescu too obscure?
What about Pumpkin Pinochet?
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Well, good thing that BB(X) is slated to be built in Philly and our carriers are built at Newport News. I know of no plans to downsize or scrap the Ford, Virginia, or Columbia class ships as a result of procuring BB(X). Do you?
I mean, now you're grasping for straws here. If we had all of the design specifications on hand, we could not build a Type 055 for the cost that China produces them. We have cultural hurdles (if you want to call them that) like labor laws and a desire to construct our ships to be both survivable and repairable.
The LCS class is an example of what happens when we think we can just take a design 'off the shelf' from another country.
Building a nuclear powered CRUDES solves a LOT of logistics problems that keep the pac side of the house really busy right now. Load out your food in port and you never need to UNREP in a WEZ.
I do wonder how much of this is simply Trump's bombastic messaging. Would everyone be up in arms if Secretary Del Toro announced a CGN replacement for our constantly broken cruisers?
Where did you read this? The Navy identified only Bath, Pascagoula, and Newport News as capable of facilitating the BBG(X) platform. The Philadelphia Yard is a foreign yard that has no experience in producing warships. There is currently no plans to do anything related to procuring the BBG(X) so of course there aren’t any plans for mitigating the consequences. It will, at best, completely upend DDG production.
We can build Arleigh Burkes for 1/10th of the cost that the BBG(X) will likely incur. I don’t think I’m the one grasping for straws here.
The entirely American designed Freedom variant is just as crappy as the Independence variant. It’s completely nonsensical to blame the problems solely on the Independence’s commercial design origins considering NAVSEA completely revamped it.
Where are you going to find the qualified Nukes, not to mention the other manpower requirements? The Navy already struggles to maintain the nuclear manpower we have and there just aren’t enough people who qualify willing to sign up.
If my grandmother had wheels. This program sucks, it would suck even if Jesus Christ himself proposed it. It’ll be unfortunate to see NNS use whatever they lay down as welding practice once we waste billions with nothing to show for it.
Nah, that's 25 years of NYT crossword puns + a addiction to dad jokes.