CDR Salamander - So, we have a USS Defiant (BBG-1)

This was going to be a dual post about last Friday’s frigate announcement and the battleship announcement, but I decided that would be a bit too much and will split it in two.

The greatest interest is in the BB news Monday afternoon, so we’ll cover that today and on Christmas Eve we’ll post on the frigate.

Well, let’s start with the announcement on X.

First of all, let’s put to the side the Trump branding aspect of this. Let’s put this in the “F-47A” folder and move on…but we can give a knowing wink to fans of Deep Space 9.

Mike over at gCaptain got the detail sheet. Let’s look at it.

BBG-1

What am I surprised the most about? The lack of nuclear power. The Ford Class CVNs are on the struggle bus and we are building them slower than we are building the power plants. We could have built it around the Ford’s nuclear plant.

If you want to keep up with the CVN, charge your railgun capacitors, and power your lasers…you’re going to need a LOT of power at sustained high levels. Nuclear power can give you that. It is a lot more challenging to do that with a conventionally powered ship…but it will cost less.

My bet: there’s the rub.

Conventional power? A bit limiting. Will we be using the Zumwalt’s engineering plant? I really don’t know. Heck, I don’t even know if we’ve figured out whether it works well. Neither does the Navy, really. The ship has never been properly tested, nor even pushed through a full deployment.

Sigh.

So, we know this deserves a “G”…but does this ship deserve the “BB”?

Well, before any of this was announced on Monday, I decided I would put my cards on the table about what I considered baseline requirements.

OK, I will just like to go ahead and put this out ahead of time.

1. If it isn’t >40,000 tons full load displacement (inline with the North Carolina Class BB (Iowa Class was 60,000 full load displacement), it isn’t a BB.

2. If it does not have the AAW capability 2X a Flight III Arleigh Burke DDG, it isn’t a BB.

3. If it does not have at least two 5” gun mounts and six 76mm gun mounts (I’d love to see the MK-71 8” come back, but I’m trying to be reasonable), it isn’t a BB.

4. If it doesn’t have at least 4X the number of Conventional Prompt Strike missiles than the soon to be upgraded Zumwalt DDG, it isn’t a BB. Well, I guess in our archaic ship classification system, it should be a BBG by now.

5. It should have the same nuclear power plant as the Ford CVN (100,000 tons full load), which will make it a BBGN.

For planning purposes (and budgeting), assume it will wind up costing at least 2/3 of a Ford CVN w/o her CVW.

OK. There’s my blind Quick Look should Lara’s sources be solid.

Should we do that? Could we do that? Will be a fun debate.

Final note: If we wanted to reach for the stars, the most modern large caliber gun the US Navy built was the 12-inch/50 caliber Mark 8 gun of the Alaska Class Large Cruisers (in Salamanderland they are battle cruisers at 34,800 tons) in service from 1944-47. We could brush those plans off…and…well…if we still have the steel mills that can produce the barrels…

So, how did we do?

1. It states >35K, so we’re close. Given that our tendency to add weight, we might just meet the minimums there.

2. Doesn’t have twice the VLS cells of a Flight III, but it has lasers. Once again, might be close to the minimum.

3. We got the two 5”. Instead of six 76mm, we have four 30mm. Almost…but not quite there.

4. I was a little overenthusiastic about the CPS. A dozen is not quite enough. The cost of being too light in displacement, I guess.

5. Oops.

If I were being pedantic, I’d say we just fell short of making a 21st-century battleship. However, we are calling an Arleigh Burke Flight III DDG a destroyer, when it is really a cruiser. The Europeans call everything a frigate. Don’t even get me started with the Japanese and aircraft carriers. This will be the largest surface combatant afloat…so as in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king…I guess we can make the stretch.

I would call it a large cruiser, a CB. And no, you are not the only one thinking of CG(X).

What did I say about cost? Two-thirds of ~$12 billion is $8 billion, but that was based on it being nuclear powered. IIRC, cost estimate of the nuclear CG(X) came in at around $7 billion in 2009 dollars. The nation balked and the Obama Administration cancelled it a year later.

That would be ~$10.5 billion in 2025 dollars.

No one wanted a large nuclear cruiser in 2009. However, people are supporting a large non-nuclear cruiser / small(ish) battleship in 2025. Maybe we have a fighting chance?

Anyway, we’re going to call it a BB, I guess, so, a battleship it is…but will we see it displace water?

USS Long Beach (CGN-9) was laid down in 1957, commissioned in 1961. Four years.

USS Virginia (CGN-38) was laid down in 1972, commissioned in 1976. Four years.

Is USS Defiant (¿BBG?-1) a mature design? Are we ready to cut steel? Could we lay it down in 2026? Will Congress fund it? If they do…that means it would (please suspend disbelief for a moment that we can perform like previous generations) commission in 2030? Really? Maybe 2040? Maybe never?

I don’t think the railgun is ready, but maybe it is. if not, we could follow the lead of the great naval tradition of “fitted for but not with" until it is? It worked with the Spruance Class DD.

What it will require is funding and support from both political parties over the next decade. Sadly, we are already seeing this partisanship creeping up. I hope it fades, but in the pettiness of today’s politics? It will be a slog to get there.

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

View the full article