When you only going to remain in north american to latin american waters, you dont need FA-XX anymore, you need Tarkin doctrine /s
US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
While priority list is indeed strange, I saw more than a couple of times that, surprisingly, more survivable SAG flagships do make a notable difference in Westpac.
Kirov strategy is not something USN really wanted, but it's a viable path forward.
They can't just sit on Burkes doing nothing any longer.
Last edited:
I'm honestly not convinced by the idea that this ship will be completely taken out by a single hypersonic missile, unless its a ballistic or aeroballistic one. Their warheads are pretty small, they tend to slow down on their final trajectories, and their kinetic damage can be mitigated through several structural elements like bulkheads. Many here are assuming that these things will be sailed in range of hypersonic missiles from the mainland. Who said that ? To me, it makes obvious sense to expand attrittable assets in the first few exchanges before deplying the "big guns". The biggest threat to this ship will be in the middle of the ocean from another vessel or a small island base, where it will be able to fire back and intercept incoming missiles. It is also unknown whether these ships are even intended to face off against mainland China in the first place. They could be used to hammer smaller nations in the americas, Europe and the middle east whilst tanking things like drones (air and sea) and slower cruise missiles.
Also this not completely related, but with regards to the postponement of the FA/XX, could it be that the US realized that with how expensive their sixth gens are becoming, spamming missiles might be cheaper ? That could explain why they're switching to building 25 behemths and designating them as capital ships. I don't know, I'd like to know what the more knowledgeable members here think of this.
Also this not completely related, but with regards to the postponement of the FA/XX, could it be that the US realized that with how expensive their sixth gens are becoming, spamming missiles might be cheaper ? That could explain why they're switching to building 25 behemths and designating them as capital ships. I don't know, I'd like to know what the more knowledgeable members here think of this.
Ships are like aircraft, there are so many systems in a ship even the smallest of damage could knock it out of the fight
If we look back at the maritime-to-land strategy after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was no concern over contesting sea control (since there was no adversary at sea), and the focus was solely on limited-intensity operations and fire support. The result was the Zumwalt and LCS.
We all know that both the strategy and the products failed. But looking at this large but ineffective Trump (both man and the ship) and the poorly armed FF(X) now, it seems like a repeat of the past. Zumwalt and LCS were overconfident and piled on too many new technologies; the current products like downgraded versions cobbled together from the few remaining technologies.
I really don't get it, does Trump really going to TACO over the Pacific?
EDIT: Building it in two and a half years is pure fantasy. Given the state of decline in the U.S. shipbuilding industry, completing the design within that timeframe would already be an extraordinary feat.
We all know that both the strategy and the products failed. But looking at this large but ineffective Trump (both man and the ship) and the poorly armed FF(X) now, it seems like a repeat of the past. Zumwalt and LCS were overconfident and piled on too many new technologies; the current products like downgraded versions cobbled together from the few remaining technologies.
I really don't get it, does Trump really going to TACO over the Pacific?
EDIT: Building it in two and a half years is pure fantasy. Given the state of decline in the U.S. shipbuilding industry, completing the design within that timeframe would already be an extraordinary feat.
Last edited:
They can, but there are solid ways to mitigate that. The more displacement, the better.
They are just not worth it by themselves, displacement is funciton of functional payload. If functional payload forces enough size on you, and there is sufficient merit - yes, you start adding survivability measures.
Honestly a bit hard to say what's the plan with Defiant. Right now it appears that this time, survivability is in fact a goal all by itself.
Yeah but that's mainly because modern ships are built to cram a maximum of systems in as little of a footprint as possible. This is not hte case with the trump class though. There should be enough space for a multitude of redundancies. The ship should, in theory, still be able to fire back even after taking a hit or two.
N.B. Before anyone starts thinking that I'm shilling the trump class or the US navy, I'm not. I'm just wondering if the concept of amodern missile battleship is really that outlandish.
Maybe you are not but I definitely am. Trump class needs to be a giant 24 karat solid gold Trump statue, larger than the largest aircraft carrier. It must shoot lasers out of its eyes, missiles out of its ears, and each tooth must be a railgun. It must be nuclear powered and nuclear armed. Not only must the missiles be nuclear, but the railgun rounds as well. It must also be able to fly. Lastly, it must be automated enough that it is operable by a single person alone, and biometrically keyed only to respond to commands from Trump himself.
The missile load out on this hypothetical BBG is kind of underwhelming.
The cancelled 20,000 ton CG(X) was to have up to 200 Mk57 VLS cells. This ship just 128 Mk41 cells? This is marginally more Mk41 VLS than a Burke for 4 times the cost.
The Zumwalts are being refitted to carry 12 CPS per removed turret, in addition to 80 Mk57 VLS cells, which are of larger diameter than Mk41. So potentially more CPS tubes on the Zumwalts than on this ship.
That leaves the railgun and lasers as the differentiator in terms of air defense. General Atomics pitched their rail gun designs (including the 32MJ variant) for air and missile defense, including ballistic missiles. Now that makes it interesting, assuming it works as intended. But is that better than the 260 VLS it misses out compared to 4x Burke? I doubt it, especially since it’s just one gun with a ROF between 6-12 RPM.
The 300-600 kW lasers are short to medium range defenses, but highly susceptible to atmospheric conditions.
A larger hull with more organic power would allow bigger radar antennas, yet they showed the same sized 37 RMA configuration as on FLIII Burkes, significantly smaller than SPY-7 that will be fitted on JMEDF ASEVs.
The cancelled 20,000 ton CG(X) was to have up to 200 Mk57 VLS cells. This ship just 128 Mk41 cells? This is marginally more Mk41 VLS than a Burke for 4 times the cost.
The Zumwalts are being refitted to carry 12 CPS per removed turret, in addition to 80 Mk57 VLS cells, which are of larger diameter than Mk41. So potentially more CPS tubes on the Zumwalts than on this ship.
That leaves the railgun and lasers as the differentiator in terms of air defense. General Atomics pitched their rail gun designs (including the 32MJ variant) for air and missile defense, including ballistic missiles. Now that makes it interesting, assuming it works as intended. But is that better than the 260 VLS it misses out compared to 4x Burke? I doubt it, especially since it’s just one gun with a ROF between 6-12 RPM.
The 300-600 kW lasers are short to medium range defenses, but highly susceptible to atmospheric conditions.
A larger hull with more organic power would allow bigger radar antennas, yet they showed the same sized 37 RMA configuration as on FLIII Burkes, significantly smaller than SPY-7 that will be fitted on JMEDF ASEVs.