Don't think that's the plan though... at least for now. Seems like DDG 1000 was going to do most of what has been pitched. May see a similar plant, scaled up. I imagine going nuke would significantly increase the cost.
-
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 anticipate it being the highest of HVTs and wanting it well over the horizon from me.
USS Aggravated
I haven’t played any Star Trek video games in over 20 years, so my knowledge is dated, to say the least. There was a Trek-themed RTS we used to play in college that was pretty fun- on the same order as other RTSs of the day, it was all about out-producing the other guy.
He said there may be a significant range penalty if not, especially given the claimed size, weight and weapons.
So, they're just going to slap an A1B in there and call it good? I can't imagine NR being down with that - especially on a short timeline.
Won’t be a short timeline. I think I saw somewhere 2030s to start construction. It’s basically an extension of what was proposed for DDG X, so I will be shocked if it actually survives in current design form that long. Also nobody knows just exactly which yard this behemoth gets built in?
That said, there is some merit to having a larger ship, which is why LSC/DDG X programs existed.
DDG51s are maxed out. They are the workhorses of the Fleet, can do amazing things barely conceived of when they started construction, and will be continuing on well into the next decade. But ask them to fit any new major system at this point, you better be taking something out, and it better not be adding much demand in topside weight, cooling or power. The CGs are rust buckets and barely hanging on at this point.
I could see a use case for this thing as the primary escort for the CVN. There are many threats out there that now handily outrange the air wing and can also bypass the defensive layer it provides the CSG. I mean, I’m not saying it’ll actually be technically feasible (either technology or industrial capacity), or that it will even be the most cost effective way to provide its capability. Just that it has a potential use case if it worked out. As I told a friend, this thing is either uniquely brilliant vision, or the most fucking batshit crazy idea ever.
Nuclear cruise missiles as a primary mission is kinda nuts though. If we are going to have one in the Navy arsenal, from a sub it makes sense. Even off FFGs or DDGs it could let them punch above their weight. But from a BBG? It’ll carry super long range hypersonics but then be stuck with a nuclear cruise missile with less range? As is, that makes no sense.
Last edited:
Haha dude it is hilarious that you were playing Star Trek as recently as that. Fucking NERD!!!
The Alaskas (35,000 tons) required 150,000 SHP to hit 33 knots, the Iowas (55,000 tons) required 212,000 SHP to hit 33 knots - so 4 LM-2500 turbines around the 45,000 SHP each simply for propulsion? How much more engine power you would need for everything else, I don’t know.
Someone mentioned earlier to start with conventional weapons systems first and replace them with laser / railguns later. Maybe Phalanx for the lasers and the Mark 71 lightweight 8” auto cannon for the railgun. Still, only 128 VLS is not enough for a ship this size.
Ryan Szimanski’s video below mentioned a 6” armor belt - interesting. But as he said, the Navy’s shipbuilding track record doesn’t inspire confidence.
As for the proper name, battleship, battlecruiser or large cruiser, who knows.