The United States Navy has outlined plans for a new class of large surface combatants described as guided-missile battleships, a designation not used by the US since the retirement of the Iowa class.
The ships form part of the U.S. Navy’s wider Golden Fleet initiative, intended to expand fleet size, rebuild maritime industrial capacity and field heavier, more survivable surface combatants.
Size, propulsion and layout
The Trump class is projected to displace more than 35,000 tonnes, placing it well above current US destroyers and cruisers and closer in scale to Cold War capital ships. Length is expected to fall between 840 and 880 feet, with a beam of up to 115 feet and a draft of roughly 24 to 30 feet. Propulsion is shown as a combined gas turbine and diesel arrangement, delivering speeds in excess of 30 knots.
The design includes a flight deck and enclosed hangar sized to operate V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft and future vertical-lift platforms. This would give the ship long-range logistics, personnel transfer and command support capabilities not normally associated with surface combatants of this type.
Sensors, command role and electronic warfare
At the centre of the design is the SPY-6 AMDR radar, depicted with four fixed faces to provide continuous wide-area air and missile surveillance. This is paired with SEWIP Block III electronic warfare systems, also shown with four-face coverage, indicating an emphasis on detection, jamming and electronic attack.
The battleship is intended to operate as a command platform when required. The design explicitly shows space for an embarked commander with a full C4I suite, reinforcing Navy statements that the ship could lead a Surface Action Group, operate independently or integrate into a Carrier Strike Group.
Counter-unmanned capabilities are also prominent, with two Counter-UxS systems shown. This reflects recent operational experience where drones and unmanned surface vessels have become persistent threats to major warships.
Weapons and strike capability
The Trump class is designed around a heavy offensive weapons fit. The diagram shows 12 Conventional Prompt Strike hypersonic missile launchers, supported by vertical launch missile cells. While the labelled graphic indicates 28 Mk 41 VLS cells in one section of the ship, programme documentation suggests a much larger total missile capacity across the full hull.
In addition to hypersonic weapons, the class is expected to carry the SLCM-N nuclear-armed cruise missile, restoring a surface-based nuclear strike role that the US Navy has not fielded for decades.
Naval gunfire plays a significant role. The forward section mounts a 32-megajoule electromagnetic railgun designed to fire hypervelocity projectiles, backed by two 5-inch Mk 45 guns for surface engagement and air defence.
Defensive systems are a defining element of the design. The diagram shows two 300-kilowatt laser weapons, with programme material indicating the potential to scale these to 600-kilowatt class systems. These directed-energy weapons are intended to counter drones, missiles and small surface threats while reducing dependence on interceptor missiles.
Close-in defence is provided by Mk 38 30 mm guns positioned forward and aft, along with Rolling Airframe Missile launchers and optical systems such as ODIN. Together, these create a layered defensive envelope designed to withstand saturation attacks.
How many will be built?
Current planning indicates between 10 and 25 ships, although only an initial pair has been formally approved. The final number will depend on cost, shipyard capacity and sustained political support.
What remains uncertain is how quickly the Trump class can move from concept imagery to operational service, and how it will fit alongside aircraft carriers, submarines and next-generation destroyers within a constrained naval budget. What is clear is that the US Navy is signalling a renewed emphasis on large, heavily armed surface combatants intended to survive and fight in high-intensity conflict.
I did not know it would have rail guns too, this is like BAE and Lockheed Martin’s wildest fantasy about all the dirty things they can do with US tax payers money 😀
I’m not sure ifanyone has told the Orange one but ship classes are named after the first ship in the class so even if this thing gets built one day it will be the defiant class.
On a side note Defiant is a great name for a battle cruiser (which this is as it has no armour)
I checked to make sure it April 1st hadn’t been mived to December by Presidental decree or whether I had woken up to be part of one of those endless films/series based on video games. You can see how for the American people it has become impossible to distinguish between reality and utter madness. This really makes George’s annual Santa fantasies look decidedly rational BBC news broadcasts. Then it got even more fanciful, a fleet of 10 or is it 25 of these monsters which just shows you how they owe nothing to actual military need or planning but represent a total journey through the demented meanderings of Trump’s mind, fuelled by Pete Hegseth’s lust for World domination.
Out of interest has there been any attempt to restore the rail gun program? This sounds like a prequel to the Expanse Series, the way the in-technology of the moment is being simply thrown around to awe us (well the US public) and no detail around practicality, reality or financing it all. Of course in that series the Earth has become a bankrupt Hell hole for the ordinary masses oppressed and run by a privileged elite with democracy a mere front for the manipulations of powerful monied individuals, a residual and toothless UN and conspiring political-economic groupings, so that all sounds familiar.
This is purely a vanity project for Trump as part of the ‘US is Hot’ meme to make the plebs feel their Country has a future when all they see is decline and decaying infrastructure all around, except for the rich and technocrats of course. It really is a scary prelude to a 1984 dystopian future, but then that’s the only way Trump and his acolytes and hangers-on stay out of prison and MAGA doesn’t collapse, through already evident outbreaking civil war falling back into the Hell hole from which it emerged. Selling fantasies to the ordinary people is their only real hope for survival, they are already struggling to fool them with the fantasy economy illusion, so military or technological fantasies are the only real solution left to sell, be it stealing tankers to look tough, through super twin engined F-35s (yeah right) right up to imaginary projects of this Battleship nature, imaginary timelines for (safe) moon landings and futuristic and ridiculous ideas of Mars Cities. Whether it gets to be built isn’t the point, it’s the illusion of power, technological prowess and national/international influence, instilling the concept of ‘success’ and ‘Wealth for all’ into the minds of the manipulated little people that counts, and just long enough to get this administration to the point it cannot be overthrown by inconveniences like ‘democracy’ that matters.
Removes his name from the Epstein files, but wants to add it everywhere else.
“Out of interest has there been any attempt to restore the rail gun program?”
Yes, new technology promises to overcome some of the earlier problems like rapid barrel wearing.
And to add to the surreal the FT report says that they will take two and a half years to build. As you say it is not April 1st but it might just as well be.
Or they might buy the Japanese railgun…?
No, of course not. They’re not going to buy something foreign to equip the White Elephant Class battleship.
Battlecruisers not having armour is a misconception, typically the armour was less than a battleship but greater those in (armoured) cruisers.
.
.
This is not a battleship as described by dump either. A battleship is able to inflict and absorb battle damage engaging a similar class of battleship; to coin a phrase, fighting toe-to-toe. This embarrassing announcement by dump is not able to absorb anything without becoming the world’s biggest colander of souls.
.
.
Given the us cannot even build a frigate and emperor dump (sic) has a ticking clock, expect a proper administration to kick anything which progresses on this development (sic) to be (not so quietly) scrapped (in the truest sense – just for any residue ego burn!). Again, expect the usn back channels to drag their feet on this, which they are very well versed in), as anything like dump has boasted about does not fit with anything resembling a military doctrine.
.
.
Without a balanced navy structure to support it in its mission sets, the proposed class is arguably just a target for enemy forces, whether militarily or within trying to rid themselves of it.
If it’s named after Trump it should be the Appeasement or Surrender class.
No end to the meglomania of such a tiny mind.
USS 5th Column.
Shades of the Yamato and Bismarck.
You mean it’s going to be a overrated and overhyped waste of money?
Is this the navy’s idea or Trump’s?
I will put money on it is Trumps and the baby is only going along to placate him. They know he will be out of office long before the design is finished.
Further I thought the US had abandoned Rail Gun development or are they hoping the Japanese will sell them theirs. Perhaps in exchange for nuclear propulsion tech and although they could develop it on their own it will be faster to get help from uk or us. Although given the staunch “ No American “ rule for Tempest they may prefer to play with the UK
It’s Trumps wet dream, these se grandiose ideas develop on a whim in his increasingly demented mind that no one dares contradict, as demonstrated by the instantly dreamed up in the Oval Office fantasy twin engined F-35 based it seems purely on the notion from Lockheed contemplating a twin seat version of the aircraft in the future after being locked out of the F-47 project equally ‘named’ after the 47th President.
If you don’t go along with it you are pushed aside or sacked so yes they generally smile and play along, produce a few ‘sexy’ pics (he does like a doodle after all) hoping it will be replaced by the next big momentary fantasy project, or he is replaced by someone more sane. Let’s hope they are right on that last one but even my cynicism is struggling to match the reality of events.
I agree, Trump has no idea of the development timescales for new ships. The Navy will slow walk this and maybe screw more money out of Congress.
They can’t even develop a Frigate based on an existing design.
. . . also Prince of Wales and Repulse.
The KGV-class battleships were excellent for their time.
Repulse wasn’t, but then it was a relatively ancient WW1-era battlecruiser.
Also, these ships were built with the rest of the Royal Navy in mind.
Bismarck and Yamato stand out as the largest battleships of their time (and “ever”), and were built specifically to the strategic paradigm of being more powerful per-unit compared to their projected opponents, with the expectation of being outnumbered.
Repulse was revolutionary for her time it’s just her time was 1917.
The KGV were probably the very best treaty battleships and the only ones which actually complied.
For all the talk of Bismarck she ran away from a direct fight with PoW. Duke of York easily demolished Scharnhorst.
Well, it’s just my opinion but Repulse and Renown were mistakes, poorly-armoured throwbacks to pre-Jutland BCs and the Admiralty were ripping through the prayer beads every time they were deployed in WW2. The RN would have done better to have another Hood-class or two, in their place.
@Dern
Well, credit where it’s due. If I were to look at the negatives, Bismarck was not just a tad obese, she was also inefficient and roughly a match for the KGVs while being 20% heavier.
Hood? You mean the Battle cruiser that was woefully unfit for WW2, but was great for flying the flag of British supposed naval supremacy, and thus unlike her sisters had not even gone through the 30s upgrades to her armour protection?
There are battlecruisers and battlecruisers. Hood was better protected than Renown and Repulse even after their reconstruction. So if Hood was “woeful”, what are they?
To be fair her sisters were cancelled before they were built.
Hindsight: Britain should have politely declined the Washington treaty and just built the G3s. Best battlecruiser design ever. They would have been contemporary even 20 years later.
The entire category of Fast Battleship was arguably a development of Battlecruisers, Hood was considerably more fit for WW2 than for example the R-Class, or some of the American Standards. Standards and R-Class often had to operate separately from the main fleet, Somerville actually had to detach Warspite and Malaya, which weren’t a fast Battleship by WW2 standards, from his R-Class’s on multiple occasions when he was fighting the Japanese and Italians.
Hood needed a modernisation in 1941, but it certainly wasn’t considered woefully unfit, which is why the Admiralty was okay sending her against Bismark, and why her sinking was such a shock to the RN.
The irony of course is that Bismarck wasn’t that big and both the RN and USN would go on to build bigger ships (Vanguard and the Iowa’s respectively where both bigger than Bismarck). Even during her lifetime Bismarck was outsized by Tirpitz.
‘Treaty’ is the Important word isn’t it. They were the best that could be accomplished, the 4 gun turrets that caused problems were a direct result of trying to save weight. So yes they were to a degree compromised whereas the Germans simply ‘compromised’ the stats to get around the Treaty obligations until they simply didn’t bother at all disguising matters.
I mean Bismarck was compromised in a completely different way, yes they build a ship that was bigger than the treaties allowed, but it also was built pretty damn inefficiently, so although big, it wasn’t really in any league that was seperate from the Treaty ships.
As in, quickly sunk?
Only one will be half built, no operating rail gun and 50Kw lasers if any. The US Navy will prevaricate until Trump leaves.
And the cost will be?? The US Navy has serious manning issues just like most other Navy’s. These fantasy ships will require a lot of manning. Another Trump day dream to distract from the mess he is causing in the states.
The USN could move much more towards lean manning if they wanted to. So far they have lacked the inclination, despite the recruitment challenges.
The US Navy achieved its 2025 goal of enlisting 40,600 sailors for FY2025 in June 2025, three months early. Once Biden wandered off into the sunset and the adults took over and eliminated the DEI programs and DEI appointed senior leadership, recruitment took off. US military recruitment results for FY 2025:
US Army – 101.72%
US Navy 108.61%
USAF 100.22%
Space Force 102.89%
Belive that crap if you want too. DEI makes tiny percentage of recruitment. And I’n sensible democracies. If you are capable of fulfilling the role and can pass all the training. You are welcome to join. Because Armed Force’s represent all of our society.
Painted White and given the name “Dumbo” ?
Most expencsve White Elephant ever. 🙄🐘🐘🐘
Won’t be built, will likely bankrupt the shipyard. Like everything else he touches.
The US shut down their railgun program years ago, are they starting it back up or knicking Japan’s technology?
Since Japan’s system works while their’s didn’t, I suspect the latter.
It was started up again.
That was announced a while back.
That’s interesting, gone a little under the radar. I presume as they saw how Japan was making good progress and how China is committed to it and likely making it work it would have been rather humiliating to accept the principle that it was not in the present technological state worth pursuing. Of course the problems they were encountering won’t have changed so I presume they will just milk something else in society to pay for it when they weren’t willing before. Going to be interesting to see where they find this money for all these glory projects, though I suspect I have some inkling of that, or at least how it will be presented to the populace.
Full steam ahead, damn the haters!
Won’t it be brilliant, that just two of these monstrosities exists in the world? Never again will people be able to complain that we need bigger and heavily armoured ships, because there will be the perfect example of why it is a bad idea.
Besides, it’s really cool and now China is going to build 40 of something equivalent.
“We” ??????
‘We’ as in the UK, there are still occasional nutters (see below) who think that this or that RN hull from the 1970s, 40s, 20s would be a great platform for a modern warship because it could ‘survive anti-ship missiles’ or carry endless VLS.
Are you not entertained?
A little more seriously, this is DDG(X), increased in size with a sprinkling of Zumwalt new tech (some of which is approaching usability), mixed in with a bit of arsenal ship. Kirov class redux.
The limiting factors will be the ability to successfully design and build it on time and cost. Or at all.
BTW, well done UK with two types of new frigate now floating, that actually have missile silos.
The great irony is that for all the procrastination UK ship design and building is now in a rather better place than USN.
Putting aside the T45 propulsion issues
– AAW – T45 – tick
– carrier – QEC – tick
– ASW – T26 – almost tick
– GP – T31 – maybe tick soon
All we need is really the GP element to allow a level of ASW capability and to up the numbers.. the most important thing is the UK now has the industrial capacity it needs.. the only real tick is security of orders, which is quite frankly the easier bit.
Just churn out T31 variants at one a year and a T26/T83 at one every two years and you have an RN at the right size ( 30 frigates and destroyers).. the problem with the US is they are utterly incapable of building to even keep up present fleet numbers.. let alone keep up with an enemy that has a shipbuilding industry hundreds of times larger than it.
HMS massive AKA Trump class is clearly a bizarre fantasy of flailing around..
I have to agree we now have two yards capable of building surface combatant hulls.
Let’s see how the fitout and snagging goes….given no combatants have been launched since T45 the skills fade on fitout will have been a real issue.
Indeed.. I’m not optimistic for the mid 2020s as I think the RN will slip until 2030.. but I think we now have the fundamental building blocks for a renaissance in the 2030s.. let’s just hope we don’t have a major war in the 2020s or Cameron will become know as the catastrophic.
Hi Jonathan don’t forget Cameron’s side kick Osborne 👍
As much as we laugh about this and the total head banging charade of the US regime and its delusional Hunger Games behaviour (geez they are even taking about creating a woke version of this for their youth), the seriousness is firstly the disaster that later administrations will have to sort out (which the remnant Trump/Maga/Far Right activists/influencers will savagely claim they created) but the total laughing stock the US is and will look to much of the serious and dangerous actors in the rest of the World. Will Putin/Xi ever take them seriously as the true nature of the decline hits, or their successors? Where does that leave the rest of us, because as both are seeing their lifetimes efforts to break the mid Atlantic alliance start to come to fruition with any patch up later again hardly taken seriously, where does that leave the rest of us. Whether Europe gets its act together or not how will it be viewed by these powers, I can’t imagine that Russia in particular will be put off attempting to absorb it in real or political/economic terms as its effective colony and China will strive all the harder to impose its power through economic impositions. So even if Europe is capable of militarily looking after itself Putin or his successors will very likely make missteps again that gets us in a Euro wide conflict. Trump and his ilk will probably see that as a gain for them I fear. Dystopian futures seem surer now than they did even 3 years ago that’s for sure.
What is even more worrying is it is now essentially US policy to break Europe.. if it was simply abandoning and going isolationist that would be one thing, hard to deal with but manageable… no the Trump administration cannot accept a Europe based on international order.. it sees that as an existential threat to its own self image and is now actively trying to destroy that liberal Europe and turn it into a collection of independent highly nationalistic little images of MAGA that can be swallowed by Russia or controlled by the US depending on a line I suspect trump and Putin are in their heads creating… European ( EU) nations need to smell the coffee and prepare… we in the UK need to be ready for a world in which the US and EU are essentially adversarial with an adversarial Russia neutral with the US or a world in which Europe fractures and we are one of many European nations will large powers either side.. the Uk needs to prepare for both to be honest.. neither of which will have NATO.. ( I honestly think planning needs to be focused on life support for NATO but building for a post NATO world.. because I’m not sure it will be there in the 2030s and it definitely will not if the republicans get in again… my only question is will Putin wait for it do die of neglect or will he try and risk killing it early…
Trumps small dick syndrome strikes again.
He has one?
Well he has a vagina in his neck he tries to hide so the jury, like his flights on Epstein’s jet is out.
I would venture to suggest that most commentators here are part of a broad based church that is populated by people of fairly similar minds. So some of what Trump does and says makes sense and sits OK with my slightly right of centre politics BUT, the man is a dangerous loose canon whose mind and opinions sway wildly from topic to topic and side to side! His love of the evil Putin, threats to Denmark and Canada, illogical upending of the world economic order, dangerous isolationism, blatant self aggrandizement and clumsy attacks on Democracy and the rule of Law make him the worst ever US President and the biggest danger to civilisation as we know it. USS Trump-heaven help us
ps did I leave anything out?
To be honest my worry is the men behind him.. because I think Trump is simply to self centred and off the wall to be a true dyed in the wool ideological fascist.. but I’m pretty sure then men now behind him are actually fascists and using him to attack the fabric of the republic.
Hi Jonathan. You could be right but he has shifted the respect for and decorum of the POTUS and its institutions. I have never been taken in by cant or condescending behaviour(love Monty Pythons robed and wigged judge with black stockings and suspenders below) but respect and reverence is out the window in Trumps administration, and you could never have an off the cuff discussion with the man that had some weight or resonance
Yes I do agree, the lack of leadership is profound and I’m not sure the US is going to recover for a generation.. you can say it only one man, but it’s not he is the head of state he represents the state and there is no getting away from the damage he has done in state to state relationships between western allies.
I dislike Trump but what his actions and attitude has highlighted is how unhealthy and unbalanced the western alliance has become with US allies becoming ever increasingly over reliant on US hard power. This mindset is dangerous and allows the US to call all the shots on issues that really matter without fear of rebuttal, which is not good for them or us in the long run.
I genuinely believe until we up-our game in Europe and become more independent in all matters then the western alliance as we knew it is in danger. The US are hard nosed and have always looked after there own interests and I don’t blame them for the current problems in the alliance. Instead we need to look uncomfortably at ourselves for becoming increasingly lazy and dependent on the US over the last 25 years. For those of who think our commitment to the desert wars proves this to be a false narrative I am afraid the facts are we did the bare minimum (thank god) to appease the US whilst continuing to cut our core conventional forces to pay for other things.
I am not currently seeing U.K. politicians come to terms with this state of affairs but they need to in short order.
It’s not so much that bii that concerns me. It’s the fact the US new defence strategy is essentially patch up relations between Russia and china and essentially let them have their head in their own area of influence as long as they stay away from the Western hemisphere ( America north, central and south) while at the same time attacking European unity and stability, essentially the Maga world view is one of a fractured set of European states dependent on the U.S. and Russia ( depending on how the line Putin and Trump negotiate).
The sad thing is the Brexity Reformers are basically Putin’s little flying monkeys helping split Europe up so that Trump and Putin can happily carve it up.
Part of the problem is, despite the rhetoric for home consumption, successive US administrations have been very clear that they don’t want a independent Europe. They want a Europe that is completely dependent on them, while not wanting to foot the bill for that dependency.
Historically speaking, Trump is a typically American US President. He’s ‘America first’. What he is saying is nothing new. He echoes US history… the US tried to invade Canada and declared war on Britain in 1812. Back then, the British Empire actually supported the Native American Indians right to create their own nations… which is something the left fail to mention these days. And, as for Putin… the Russians don’t trust Trump… if he was a Putin stooge he would have immediately stopped all intelligence sharing with Ukraine and refused to sell weapons to NATO which NATO gifts to Ukraine. There’s more nuance to these things.
Hi TM. There may be more nuance but how could any President of the USA support Putin considering the circumstances?
I’m totally with you on that. Trump is a property developer, and not adverse to bending the rules, with ‘a bit’ of corruption! I think he wants to do business with Russia, and would probably see that relationship as being in the US national interest, rather than siding with Europe… which he views more-or-less as a competitor.
Trump is a dementia-riven grifter… its those that around him that worry me; JD Vance and Pete Hegseth (fascists) and Peter Thiel (apocalypse obsessive).
Indeed. Vance in particular is a sinister individual
yes, you left out that Vance could be in the Oval Office in 2028, not sure if that will be an improvement
Even more scary than the present incumbent, though a doubtful result . The backlash against MAGA is well under way.
In some ways it might but in others not so on balance maybe a sideways move. Vance is a sinister man..
In some ways it might but in others not so on balance maybe a sideways move. Vance is a dark character
Geoff I think you would be from the dangerous radical far left in Trump’s mind. I’m also afraid he left any moderate right of centre views in the basement of his demolished casinos along time back which scarily makes any of us his enemies in his increasingly warp mind I suspect. He will only survive by being in power or have his ‘appreciative’ minions in power is and that true concerns me. In fact I am not totally convinced seeing how totally illiterate his speeches are becoming that he is much more than the appealing idiot front man for the likes of Stephen Miller controlling matters from the back. A bit like Boris and Cumming’s regional panto version, but far, far more steroid induced and freed from barely any such restraints. Thankfully the in fighting has really started to break out and Trump’s comedy routine is becoming more and more demented and difficult to hide from all but the most in bred MAGA faithful so no surprise that the distractions have gone up a gear to hide it all.
🙂 Nice post Spy. If I were to be seen as on the radical far left what would he think of Comrade Corbyn!?
Trump loves coal so much I’m quite surprised that it’s not a proper battleship with coal powered boilers like the good old days, and five inches ……
…you forgot the sails, but on second thoughts that’s quaint but far too woke environmental in nature so that’s out. However thousands of ICE detainees chained to oars must appeal and he can keep the coal to heat the Golden Ballroom.
I understand that his Golden Dome initiative is primarily designed to protect him from Golden Showers rather than missiles.
I thought he was partial to golden showers, particularly in Moscow hotel rooms…
Maybe the USN realises that hypersonics and BM are potential carrier killers and they are going to have to get close in with those large silos to put enough on target to sink the Chinese carriers.
That render hasn’t come just as a result of a Trump whim, and it’s hardly a Boris T32 frigate made on the hoof.
If Burke plus designs or future replacement are going to cost multi billions of $ per ship, then the ship may as well be huge. Ballistic missiles silos are going to Dwarf strike length MK41 and that means big hulls.
Maybe we could dust off the Invincible hull drawings…
Why would you want the Invincible hull form for a battleship?
It is optimised so deck conditions are right for Harrier in a wide range of sea states.
I always wondered about the smaller British carrier hulls! They seem so ‘chubby’ but I figured it was either to withstand torpedo hits, or to provide a stable bow area so they don’t pitch too much for aircraft on takeoff.
Currently making up a hull of Hermes, from plans in CAD, it’s quite an unusual shape with much volume forward and a bluff bow shape.
You are right that bow stability is important for take off rotation to be safe from the ski jump.
Equally the deck can’t have movement rates about certain parameters for vertical landings. It is a lot harder matrix to crack than you might think! Which is why building aircraft carriers is not for the faint hearted.
And why so few nations actually build them.. and why the UK cracking out 2 in a decade for 6.6 billion was a pretty significant achievement all told.
And two large carriers that fundamentally work.
Let’s not get into the F35B/C argument or the 30mm debate……other than to say that two F35C carriers could not have been built with the budgets of that time. As it was they were cheese pared with the removal of SAMPON and lot of other bits and pieces.
Yep.. they are arguments about details.. fun to have but you can only have them after you actually have the ships.
We have tucked away somewhere in the IWM or Greenwich the G3 Battlecruiser plans. These would have been almost the equal of the Iowa’s but 20 years earlier. The Nelsons were a cut down version with less power and HMS Rodney disposed of Bismark in quick order.
Thank you for the replies SB. It’s little glimpses of the wisdom behind things like the carrier design that make this site magic.
There are some great videos on youtube like ‘Royal Navy Aviation in the 60 s’ and the Pathe films of Eagle in 1969 where you get to see the ships and their workings in beautiful colour. I always thought the bluff bows above the waterline might have been a design that was originally meant to sit higher in the water, but in reflection after what you mentioned, I reckon they are like that to push waves out of the way and keep the flight deck stable. Some of the footage of Illustrious passing Hermes at speed (showing the transom stern doing it’s thing) is really good too.
Nelson and Rodney had such beautiful hull forms too, very efficient for a battleship moving at relatively modest speed most of the time.
So Hermes was designed for ski jumps. Okaaay.
If you read the thread it was talking about Invincible hull form.
It then wandered off to talk about other carriers.
I was thinking the same thing. Aircraft carriers out, large missile ships in.
You think this thing is any more survivable? How is charging into the missile envelope a better idea
Yep in the end the whole point of a carrier is it can can send a strike 1000km away and stay out of detection and kill chains.
So can a guided missile CPS arsenal ship.
And a carrier has an air-wing to defend itself with, providing airborne warning and CAP.
Agreed but playing Devils Advocate here this ship has a flight deck to enable a future unmanned system to provide AEW. I think CAP is probably an outdated concept when looking at the likely threats such as hypersonic AShW missiles, drones etc.
I don’t see why the CAP is obsolete. An air-defence missile can either be fired from a silo on a ship or from an aircraft. The difference is you can keep rearming aircraft whereas many silo missiles can only be reloaded in port.
The USA needs a successor to the Ticonderoga class cruisers that it’s retiring. This is not it.
No the ship is firing the effector.. an aircraft is a complete platform itself.. it can complete the kill chain then fire its own effectors.. the carrier can essentially be completely separate and not involved in the kill chain it means in the end it’s simply more independent… a ship full of missiles still needs to be creating its own kill chain or part of a kill chain…so not the same.. in the end that was why carriers superseded battleships and major surface combatants.. after all we have had 2500km range missiles for decades but nobody has ever considered them a carrier replacement.
We have not had 2500km missiles that can target moving objects previously.
Space based surveillance , and a massively expanding PLAN fleet of surface vessels, ” fishing boats” and ” merchant shipping”.
The USN next stealth fighter will be limited in size by the deck size and the weapons it can carry by the weapons bays.
Hence the expensive conversion of the Zumwalts and the re build of B52 to threaten distant targets.
It will be the bomber and SSN fleet that fights the main campaign against the PLAN. Once degraded, the carriers will then get deployed IMO
Sea control is still king.. and carriers provide sea control.. I used the 2500km as a too to explain that. I’m aware that the present theoretical range of o present long range anti ship missiles at 1000km.. my point is you need a platform within sensor range to develop the kill chain.. that is why a few massive battleships is a stupid idea.. you want lots of OK platforms..
Drach had a decent video today on why the Battleship went out of common use, I think he missed a key point (that I’ll get to) but he basically pointed out the the Battleship wasn’t too slow (Modern Battleships could easily keep up with fleet carriers and where faster than a lot of light and escort carriers), it wasn’t that they where badly protected (they where way more heavily protected that Carriers and could eat damage that would sink most carriers, including torpedoes and kamikaze attacks, and had masses of deck space that by the end of the war had really scary amounts of AA, to the point where Battleships where often deliberately placed between incoming air attacks and carriers to put up AA fire and get aircraft to waste munitions), and it wasn’t that they didn’t have the firepower (the only thing that could survive long near a battleship was another battleship), but the only thing that they couldn’t do anything about was range.
As long as carriers can launch effectors from their aircraft at greater stand off ranges than ship launched effectors that doesn’t change, Carriers will still have the reach advantage.
(The thing I think Drach missed was that post war the only Battleship operating nations where the US, France and UK (Italy had had to hand it’s Battleships over as reperations, and the Soviets blew their only modern Battleship (Guilio Ceasare, one of the Italian reperations) up by accident in 1955, and gave up on building the Sovetsky Soyuz class. As long as the enemy had Battleships, you had to have Battleships just in case they ever closed the range with your carrier force. With the Soviet Battleship force collapsing in on itself, and no other hostile navy, the justification for keeping them around really ended).
Have a read of Jerry Hendrix’s article ‘Retreat from Range’, about 10 years old now. Instead of 1000 miles, as of 2015 he mentions the actual range as much shorter. The reason was no replacement for Intruder, Viking, Tomcat etc. In this case the arsenal ship actually may have a greater strike range, and once more, battleships have the greatest reach, this time with their missiles. The Zumwalts will be the test beds for the hypersonic strike missiles.
Hi jack, that assumes all that matters is effector range and it does not, because delivery of the effector is is just one part of the equation.. that is why a 10,000-15,000 ton destroyer with a huge arsenal of 2500km range missiles still does not replace the carrier.. the carrier does not just launch an effector it launches an aircraft which can develop its own fully independent kill chain and launch its own long range effectors….
Essentially lovely you have a battleship full of 100 long range effectors.. how is it developing a kill chain.. ? So it can launch its effectors.. essentially it needs a platform sitting within sensor range of the target.. that can find the target, pin and track the target then request the effectors get fired and while the effectors are travelling to the target track and update fire solutions then report on the effect of the effector.. that is why battle ships full of long range missiles don’t work against carriers.. kill chain, a carrier launches platforms ( aircraft ) that develop their own kill chains and launch their own effectors.. so the battleship will still need to sit in a carrier battle group so it can have plaforms ( aircraft) that can develop the kill chain.. because at present a complete space based kill chain does not exist.. so ships hurling missiles at each other from 1000s of miles away is still SF.
There was a US 1980 warship concept that used STOVL aircraft essentially as flying fire control radars for its main armament of long range missiles, with secondary armament on the aircraft themselves and then close in defence.
Using drones like V-247 for that today could solve a lot of the problems you are talking about, perhaps?
wwwshipbucketcom/drawings/4383
(usual, add .’s in all the right places)
True but in effect you have just created a less good carrier with missiles 🤷 the question always comes to why fire the effector from the ship when you can have an aircraft do it ?
In this case the ships (called DGV, and actually 1990) were based off the Spruance hull and were only 10,000 tonnes -> vastly cheaper than a carrier.
The aim was just to be able to fire AShMs and LRSAMs at the limit of what mk41 could achieve, rather than thousand-mile shots, so the aircraft were twin-high bypass turbofan vectoring nozzles rather than super-long range.
If you wanted the sorts of missiles I think a lot of the other commenters are suggesting you’d need something like a Kiev class with MQ-9B STOL.
Hey Jonathan, I get what you are saying, the carriers will still have their own ability to command and control an area, launch aircraft, be defended and create kill chains. Especially with an SSN below. But this range is less than what it was in the Cold War now perhaps?
What I was thinking about was a ship having missiles that can do what the old Soviet Zircon’s could do, when fired from an Oscar II. Only difference is this is on the surface, easier to see but cheaper to build.
The zircons could (I learn online) be ‘fired and forgotten’ by the ship; they would then head in the direction of the target reasonably fast at a low altitude, one would briefly pop up higher and scan with radar to determine the target, they would then work out the attack sequence and split between smaller/secondary targets and larger/primary targets. If the missile doing the targeting was shot down, another would go up to take its place. They were designed for salvo fire of 20-24 in one go. Wiki says the effective range was about 1000km. When you consider the technology level they developed these with (did they use the older vaccum-tube electronics in these or transistor based gear?) and the time it was developed in, it’s remarkable.
There’s quite a bit of Kirov in these Trump ships.
Edit: replace ‘Zircon’ for P-700 Granit (Shipwreck). Zircon is a newer missile.
I don’t know to be honest. Is anything survivable now in a peer war, with mass attack, long range missile strikes, drones even? In the Ukraine war, for example, many Russian aircraft are destroyed on the ground rather than in the air, and submarines destroyed in dock than out at sea. I’m guessing that spreading sensors, and weapons out within a larger ship makes it more survivable. Also, it will be armed with global strike missiles – ‘capable of striking anywhere on Earth within an hour’ and nuclear tipped cruise missiles. This feels to me like a Ticonderoga-class cruiser concept merged with a US Navy Arsenal ship concept from 1996 (but probably without the same impractically large missile depth). Let’s hope it works… and doesn’t turn out to be another Zumwalt Class disaster.
Ships in Port and Aircraft on the ground being vulnerable isn’t new; the Dutch destroyed a large portion of the RN in 1667 with a “drone strike.”
Are you referring to fire ship attacks?
There could be an interesting paper written there, on the parallels between age of sail doctrines and modern warfare. Of course in those days, every ship could conduct an amphibious landing simply by putting marines ashore in the boats. Something to think about for MRSS?
Nelson being the chief exponent of that in the Med with his on board marines.
Don’t forget Hornblower!
When the T26s were designed part of the point of the mission bay was that it could be used for raids with marines as a Global Combat Ship with lots of RHIBs and a commando Merlin, but now it has largely been confined to ASW that role is unlikely to be used.
I think the raiding frigate concept still has a lot going for it, the ability to strike quickly and then retreat aboard a small, fast ship is timeless and big LPDs are huge targets beyond our ability to supply them with escorts.
A cutting out expedition against Murmansk might be a step too far but may I suggest the shadow fleet tankers as a target?
Fireships are just primitive one-way naval attack drones.
In that case America is admitting that they are no longer the dominant naval power. Carriers are the weapons of sea control used by whoever is foremost in a particular area, and they are how America has exerted control over most of the world since WW2. China is building them because they want sea control in their own backyard and also extending out across the Pacific and Indian oceans.
For America to give up and focus on attacking the opposing carriers indicates that the USN is planning to be on the defensive rather than imposing a successful outcome on China, if they were confident they would be focussing on offensive carrier air wings and defensive missiles like they have been for the last 60 years.
Why send a manned aircraft (capital cost, maintenance, crew training etc) to fire a stand off missile or drop a bomb when you can send a conventional ballistic or cruise missile? Seems sensible to me.
Because the missile is only useable after the war actually starts, and the way Russia and China are gearing up any war will begin with some sort of grey zone/false flag operation designed to provoke an excuse to start an all out war. If you have a suspicious airliner or rogue oil tanker then obliterating it from hundreds of miles away is not a good idea, but carrier-based jets can go and take a look before making the decision on whether to fire or not.
Additionally the magazines of a carrier and its supply ship can store hundreds upon hundreds of cruise missiles and keep up a solid bombardment for weeks while requiring smaller missiles for a given target range for even more capacity, while in a real war scenario the supply ships could be rotated to keep the carrier on station for even longer. An arsenal ship fires off its hundred missiles (or fewer with the longer ranged CPS types) and then goes home for a month to resupply with no practical method as yet of resupplying large cruise missiles at sea.
I can see your argument. But supply ships would also be primary targets, and much easier ones… much like aircraft tankers have become vulnerable… leading to longer range aircraft like Tempest.
That’s why the US developed Aegis as a fleet defence system large enough to cover the entire theatre, and the ‘don’t touch the boats’ meme is well founded. The doctrine was always to sit off the coast of the opponent and then through a combination of distances, air attacks and missile defences to survive the enemy’s A2/AD, which worked every time in the past. Admittedly China spend a lot of time in the 2010s working out how to attack CSGs but at that point the US had enough escorts to deal with it.
Tempest is a separate concept, and to my eye it’s largely incidental that it could fulfill some of the long range carrier strike roles. If you listen to some of the RAF/GCAP podcasts, then what the guys in charge say about it is that the fuel capacity is there to ensure long endurance enemy airspace as well as long flights to and from it, and the large size is for large numbers of internal missiles. It’s actually an extension of what I was saying about getting closer to the enemy to make decisions, rather than a long range substitute for carrier groups on station for months at a time.
Sure, carrier groups are going to have to stay further offshore now because the risk of missile attack is greater, but aircraft ranges are also increasing and so the overall balance is IMHO going to stay the same.
Nah i don’t agree. You are not going to put a multi million dollar aircraft within Mk1 eyeball range of anything remotely fishy. Visual inspection can be done by a small drone. If you are justifying our choice of pursuing carrier strike instead of this then suprisingly i do think it was the right choice for us as they are never going near a peer war but are suitable for non-peer or secondary ops. I see the US trajectory as Arsenal ships as capital units plus Gator or small Carriers supporting.
We put multi million dollar aircraft close to fishy targets for visual inspection on a regular basis, that’s the whole point of QRA. If what I am saying was pointless we would have SAM batteries like in the Cold War and just swat anything suspicious out of the sky.
As far as a peer war goes, the Nimitz class are designed for a daily sortie rate of 120, with surge to 240 for a 24 hour period. Assuming that half of those are for a mixture of CAP, COD, AEW and longer ranged anti-air patrols but with 2 cruise missiles per jet that gets you 120 cruise missiles used in a hot war, every day for as long as your supplies last (probably about a week at that rate of consumption). What fleet of arsenal ships could match that?
With 4 missiles per jet (e.g. F-18 with LRASM) and the one-day surge rate you could put nearly 500 cruise missiles on various targets in a single day, anywhere within 1700km.
“Fishy targets” are what the OPV’s are for.
Exactly. Don’t risk a highly valuable pilot and aircraft, plus expensive logistics support base needed, to do what a long range missile or drone can achieve.
David you have been drinking too much of the Koolaid which is in effect the whole point of this Battleship. Like the twin engined F-35 it is a whim, just one created I expect in a bout a week with the real purpose of distraction and grandiose ’golden’ fantasy for public consumption to feel good about. I could knock up an AI based image like that in a day once the POTUS had decided what super weapons he remembered from his dreams during his Oval Office naps. Someone far more involved with Sora or similar than I could do something far more impressive in an hour. These images do remind me of my action comics as a kid in fact.
I actually think its an idea of sending out one of these out with say an AB and SSN to threaten, rather than sending out the whole gizbang of a carrier task force. Bit like the Bismark- Prinz Eugen sortie which required the whole Home Fleet and Force H to neutralise. Something the Russians obviously have/had in mind for the Kirovs. Something of a fleet in being on its own. Think Tirpitz as the same and the resources it took to neutralise and sink her.
Consider also the loss to your airforce if/when you lose a carrier.
It required the whole of the Home Fleet and Force H to track down and prevent from Running away. The Neutralisation was ultimately just a KGV and a Nelson.
Yes KGV and Rodney. KGV was running on fuel fumes but Tovey said he would continue the pursuit and be towed home rather than let Bismark reach France and safety.
The USN seems confused. To counter China they want more hulls, aiming for a 350 ship navy. To do that it’s best to use a proven platform with predictable costs. Instead, the choice of a much larger, more complex surface combatant is likely to have the opposite effect, requiring vast resources to deliver at most psmall numbers.
Factor in the failure of recent programmes to deliver on ambitions- LCS, Zumwalt, Constellation- and there must be serious doubts this will ever get built.
Currently USN needs the Something-Effective-That-Gets-Built Class of ships rolling off the slipway at a fair old rate.
The trouble with The-Biggest-Most-Beautiful-Trump-Gold-Plate Class is that it will divert time effort and energy away from what is needed.
Although I have just realised that this is a very cunning USN plan to give The Tangerine Tinted One a box of gold coloured crayons to design The-Biggest-Most-Beautiful-Trump-Gold-Plate. This way The Tangerine Toddler’s tantrums are diverted away from navy programs that need to succeed.
Zumwalt as designed with AGS was an expensive failure. Zumwalt with CPS has a different mission and may prove an effective proof of concept.
It may be a spanner to absorb funding for effective escorts the USN actually needs. Divirting funds to pay for wet-dream “Battleships” & a new corvette/OPV instead of a decent FFG now they’ve canned the Constelation class. One thing the whole MAGA agenda won’r do is make America greater, but weaker & more corrupt, losing friends & allies. Part of the problem, not the solution.
The failure and cancellation of the US FREMM, the plan to replace a frigate program with an OPV and now the plan to try and reset the board with HMS massive.. shows a nation that is essentially desperate to my mind.
It does not know how to counter the maritime juggernaut that is China and is flailing around for answers..and it’s come up with resetting the board with HMS massive.
Now this can work.. but it really only works if you have a massive shipbuilding capacity.. France tried this in the 19century with Gloire and for a year created an invasion fear in the UK, until the UKs overwhelming ship building capability built warrior and many other all iron ships in answer.
Britain itself then decided to reset the board in the early 20c with dreadnought.. making all previous battleships redundant.. but it had the capability to outbuild everyone else.. even then it was a risk and Germany used the opportunity to close the gap..
The US naval industry has a history now of catastrophic failure.. and is tiny compared to China.. trying to create HMS massive is I fear a road to further failure..
What the US needs is a good solid 6000+ ton GP surface combatant with a bit of everything and low crewing that can be thrown out in very large numbers.. because over the next decade or so ontop of its planned Burke building programme it needs about 80+ of these frigates if it is to stay within touching distance of China.
If the rail gun gets too expensive/problematic, then swap it for the Mark 71 8″ gun (203mm). America was down to 4 of the old WW2 Battleships when Reagan reactivated them. I cannot see even the USN being able to afford more than 4 of this new Trump class.
Hmm, computer generated renders look cool, really cool, but they are a very long way from a engineering design that can be built. Four factors could scupper this program, five if you include money.
1) Industrial capacity. Given the difficulties that they had bringing the Constellation class to fruition do they have the design capability to tackle what is likely going to be a very complex design given the high tech specification suggested in the article? Not to mention the fact that the USN has just announced that the Constellation class is to be cut and a new frigate designed based on a Coast Guard cutter, plus it is increasingly likely that a new destroyer design is needed to replace the very successful but aging Arleigh Burke design.
2) Meddling. Will they be able to actually properly freeze the requirements and allow the design team time to get on and design the ship to a stable set of operational requirements or will politicians and admirals who will come and go during the design process insist on having their pet capability added to the design or perhaps force a redesign to reduce the inevitable cost overruns?
3) Time. Is there the time to design and build such a massive ship in sufficient numbers before the Chinese actually strike? Or is this going to be America’s Lion Class of battleships?
4) Fleet balance. Is this even the right strategy from a fleet balance perspective or would more frigates and destroyers be appropriate? This approach seems to be all eggs in one or too few baskets especially in the short term. I think many would agree that the USN needs mass, but is a few huge powerfully armed ships what they actually need or would a more numerous and flexible fleet of smaller frigates and destroyers, supported by autonomous vessels, that can be appropriately concentrated to meet different threats be of greater use and more achievable given the likely time available to the US? A ship can only be in one place at a time after all…
Just my initial thoughts.
On the plus side, at least the US is trying to respond to the Chinese threat, but as we are finding, it ain’t easy.
Cheers CR
Except the renders look like shyt. I assume that had some Trump input.
I was trying to be slightly sarcastic, although on reflection I see that it wasn’t that obvious…
Cheers CR
Apart from everything else I have said here about this concept, knowing as much about Trump that I ow sadly do having read so much in recent times and as his new White House Presidential panels recently introduced demonstrate, this man is obsessed with Reagan almost as much as himself. So as laughable as it sounds I can see the true inspiration for this being that Reagan had Battleships and the World loved seeing them as they toured the World demonstrating a visual image of apparent US strength, geez they even fired their guns on occasion and what a sight that was, the pictures were stunning for the media to present and the viewer to salivate over, their patriotism re-enthused. Hmm now who would remember that and want to have something similar but new, better and effectiveness on steroids. Actual function and common sense will be purely secondary.
Hi CR. Good comment. On the subject of size, does this necessarily make a ship more survivable or just easier to hit!!? 🙂
Good point, and we have to. Iew this from the point of view of what weaponry will be like in ten years time and beyond. I know where my money sits.
I think that making a vessel larger can actually decrease complexity. For example if you can allocate a hundred tons to putting in a feature say a Lazer weapon it will be much easier than trying to fit in the same weapon with a fifty ton allowance. The weapon will still weigh the same five tons but there is no longer a delegate balance to be had about how to fit it in and route cables from generators etc.
As regards survivability then a larger ship can have many more segregated compartments with stronger inter compartment separation due to the simpler allocation of space as noted above.
I could probably knock up a design to replace say a T45 which was relatively simple (compared to the T45) If I was given a 20,000 ton weight allowance.
Bigger ships also tend to be stronger in some respects and given the potential need to fight across the Arctic with potential ice risks a hill strengthened to ice breaker strength might be a good idea.
Bigger ships get more expensive very quickly if you then try and squeeze in as much as you can, thereby increasing complexity and restoring the £xx,000 pet ton cost of the vessels.
Britain’s aircraft carriers cost much less per ton than the more complex T45 or T26 which proceeded and succeeded them in terms of manufacturing dates.
My dyslexia strikes again, despite reading my post through before posting I missed the typo. “”delegate balance” should read “delicate balance”
I agree and think one should look at this as not being all about Trump. There is something to be said for a ship which doesnt have to turn into the wind to launch and recover and all the same jazz, if deployed forward towards the SCS.
Nevertheless size may not matter if hit by a hypersonic! Concept should not be dismissed out of hand. so still worth a look.
I hope we are dusting off those G3-Vanguard plans just in case!
Hello Martin-yes, as with assembly line numbers, cost per ton, all other things being equal, quickly drop!
Thanks Geoff,
As Martin says size does have benefits when it comes to surviving hits simply because for any given size of warhead there are more compartments that need to be damaged to generate a given level of damage.
However, even big well compartmentalised ships can have their weaknesses especially if there is a single point of failure somewhere in the design. The sinking of the battleship HMS Prince of Wales exposed a weakness in the design of the KG V class battleships, namely only one prime mover attached to the high voltage generators for the 5.5inch AA guns. When the Japanese hit the ship with a torpedo they got lucky and took out the drive line that drove said generator, disabling the fleet’s most powerful AA guns at a stroke..! This weakness was corrected in the surviving ships of the class after the court of enquiry.
Such a big ship with the potential for significant fire power might be seen as a ‘single point of failure’ at the fleet level as it will inevitably come at the expense of more frigates and destroyers so even a ‘mission’ kill could represent a significant loss to a fleet trying to contain the PLAN with in the first island chain. Certainly, I think these ships will absorb a considerable portion of American’s depleted ship building capacity at a time when I think they need a new frigate in considerable numbers and a new destroyer design to replace the AB’s on the production lines.
Cheers CR
USS Kirov in da house!
I’m sure it will excel at murdering unarmed fishing boats in the Caribbean.
On paper being bigger and better armed might theoretically make it more capable of resisting attack. Problem is it only needs to fail once and foreseeing the weapons of the next ten to twenty years I suspect it won’t be put in real harms way in any peer to peer conflict because it almost certainly wont last much longer than the Yamato. Whether it would have much of a role beyond that however that smaller, agile and more flexible ships might have (and far less of a prize target) will be the interesting talking point. Cannot see it myself but open to see alternative points of view.
‘Fishing boats’ 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Meanwhile Trump pardons convicted drug & weapons runners who share his fascist values.
Did Homer Simpson consult on this, it looks like it.
It’ll be a tight a race between these and PANG to see which one won’t be built first
The Trump class fleet size will be smaller than the Zumwalt class. Even 2 is optimistic. The latest frigate option has no VLS. The PLAN won’t sink the USN, Trump will.
Possible design fault here with those two side saddled 5″ guns look like thry might take out some of the forward vls launched missiles? Bit ugly as.
Just wondered cost wise on these new Battleships ? Like I know the WW2 Battle wagons are now classed has floating museums but would it not be cost effective to bring the old Vessels back to life . Let’s face it when the Ronald Reagan government brought them back to life in the 80s & 90s apart from the big 16in Guns ,they also were Armed with Air defence missiles ,Cruise missiles , Phalanx cannons ,numerous AA guns and not forgetting side turret guns .And away from that Battleships with an Armoured belt all comes in rather handy .Manpower for the USN not a problem if needs be I guess ,but the RN 🤔 well we don’t have worry about that one .
We should have save HMS Vanguard. A better sea boat than the Iowa’s and with a better organized control tower, maybe secondary armament and quite possibly better armour protection. Its also generally accepted that the Iowas had thinner armour than widely advertised except on their turrets and was very widely distributed and of excellent quality.
In theory at least Vanguard would have devastated any Argentinian attempt on the Falklands or acted as a deterrent.
Yes KGV and Rodney. KGV was running on fuel fumes but Tovey said he would continue the pursuit and be towed home rather than let Bismark reach France and safety.
Trump could be simply burdening the USN with expensive white elephants that slow the building of effective escorts, subs & carriers urgently needed to defeat the PLAN. The new Consteltion replacements are seriously underarmed. Just serving up easily defeated warships.
Cruisers/Battlecruisers rather than battleships.
The fact that these Trump class ships come at the expense of practical Destroyers and Frigates given the cancellation of DDG(X) and FFG(X) programs and the FF(X) program at least the early ones to be identical in weapons fit to the Legend Class Cutters of the coastguard is a massive cut in hull numbers and asw capability. This is massive sabotage to the future of the US Navy and the western powers. We will need to increase the size of the royal navy and other NATO fleets to compensate for the loss of hulls.
The current plan for the Royal navy has about 32 Major Warship hulls ordered or planned to be retained beyond 2035 with plans for 10 additional manned hulls (Type 32 and AUKUS) to be added in the future. Also there is the plan for small drone warships to added to act as escorts for the manned vessels. The government did mention 1 2 2 strategy for upgrading our armed forces which is for every manned vehicle 2 drones and 2 missiles/suicide drones. Could this be 64 toto 84 drone warships for the navy? If they could be made as quickly as the Patrol ships maybe. However I think most will be recon drones the size of an archer class or smaller with limited armament say a couple of Stingrays, a few Spear 3’s, maybe CAMM’s and a 30mm cannon rather than larger ones the size of River class with a 32 cell vls and a couple of autocannons.
It’s the U.S Congress’s responsibility to defiy the present admin’s sabotage and vote funding for DDG(X) and FFG(X).
Of course there’s a slim chance these end up getting built – but for the fun of it I’d like to at least ponder the concept. From face value, I criticize:
– Her inclusion of 2x Mk.45 naval guns. They’re simply not good; even if they were given new-design guided munitions, with such a large ship armed with a railgun, ideally you won’t be within gunnery range of the Mk.45s. Against aerial targets meanwhile there are better alternatives.
– Her small radar arrays. The 14,000~ tonne DDGX is expected to have those same 37RMA arrays, for a vessel significantly larger it should have a stronger radar suite.
– Her SPQ-9Bs field of view which is obstructed by her IFF and other communications equipment; why American ship designs are so allergic to communications masts are beyond me.
– Her SPG-62s that could do with a replacement. There’s a clear opportunity here for the USN to replace both the SPG-62 and SPQ-9B aboard not only these vessels but other vessel types with staring X-band arrays, properly fulfilling the Dual Band Radar concept.
– That she’s lacking any visible vertical smokestacks on her renders… Diesel generators could perhaps have have their funnels protruding from the hull as per many German designs, however I doubt these vessels gas generators could be designed like so. To make space for vertical smokestacks I’d delete the Mk.45 naval guns and bring the superstructure forward, to have a funnel connected immediately aft from the main mast. I’d also get rid of the aft SPG-62s, making room for a second funnel.
– That her tonnage is unrealistic. Even if she had nuclear propulsion, she would still be too fat. Realistically if she were to ever set sail, I expect her displacement to sit at about 25,000 tonnes and not exceed 30,000 tonnes.
– That her twin Mk.38 guns sat above the bridge is simply a dumb idea, that would disorient personnel located directly below. That bridge design as well does not allow personnel to see more directly behind the vessel. On the subject of secondary armament, the SeaRAM, Nulka, and DEWs located amidship could be moved beside the aft SPG-62s or otherwise could be placed elsewhere. Having them besides the midship VLS is not ideal and could pose a hazard to crew that may attempt to reload the SeaRAMs and Nulkas. Their current placement also removes any potential for the vessels to fit additional periphery VLS cells amidship, like the ESSM in bespoke launchers or the Mk57 periphery VLS.
– The hangars being sized for V-22s may well be unnecessary. Two split hangars separated by the aft VLS battery, sized for helicopters such as the AW101 Merlin would be preferable. That would proffer spare space to enlarge the aft VLS battery.
– Her requirement to launch nuclear missiles. Ship-launched nuclear missiles make any vessel a target, and simply is unnecessary when submarines are better suited for the job. VLS capacity would be better filled with conventional missiles.
In my spare time I’ve made similar concepts for large surface combatants for a more fictional British/CANZUK-oriented fleet. Closest would perhaps be my concept for a General Purpose Cruiser… Basically make these Trump-class vessels like those but replace the rotating X-band radar for a fixed one, replace the bow gun with a railgun, . I’ve copy-pasted the rundown of my General Purpose Cruiser concept below.
Design and Role: 14000-20000 tonnes fully laden. IFEP. 28kn speed, 200 to 300 man crew. At the bow is 1x 127mm or 76mm gun and a VLS battery, followed then by the forward superstructure. The forward superstructure accommodates 2x level forward-looking main radar panels – and an integrated mast with a horizon search radar atop it. Adjoined aft of the forward superstructure is a large funnel, flanked by boat bays. Above the boat bays are 30/40mm guns and trainable decoy launchers either side. Amidship is the main VLS battery, followed by the aft superstructure. The aft superstructure accommodates a large funnel and communications mast, which is flanked by torpedo launchers. Atop the torpedo launchers are 30/40mm guns and DEWs atop them. Furthest astern and connected to the aft superstructure are twin hangars, with 2x level aft-looking main radar panels above it and a 76mm gun between them. Stealth hull. Bow sonar.
Equipment: Fixed S-band MFR, rotating X-band HSR. 2 trainable decoy launchers, 4 floating decoy launchers, and 2 DEWs. Gatekeeper. Also fitted with SSTD and CEC, R-ESM and C-ESM. 2 secondary S-band and X-band navigation radars.
Armament: 1x 127mm or 76mm gun, 1x 76mm gun, and 4x 30mm or 40mm guns. 32 Mk.41 VLS cells forward, 96 Mk.41 VLS cells amidship, 96 miniature CAMM cells.
Presumably they will be delivered covered in Gold Leaf?
One of these has already been built and I understand Donald plays with it every bath time.
A few suggestions for ship names:
USS Orange Shitgibbon
USS Taco McBitchTits
USS Jeffery Epstein
USS Bone Spurs
USS Piggy