CDR Salamander - We’re Going to Need my Plan-B for Battleships

I stopped doing dedicated politics here a decade ago, and there are plenty of places you can go to get the play by play of the Democrats’ very good midterm.

That round is out of the tube, so let’s start thinking about what this means for the Navy.

I think it is time that we revisit my post from February of this year, We Need a Plan-B for the Battleship.

I hate to say, “I told you so,” but…

If you are really on team battleship, there are some critical vulnerabilities from the start that you need to accept.

1. The Trump Class: this is the foundational error of what by all logic and tradition should be called the Defiant Class. At the start, this automatically makes 38% of the American public and their elected representatives dislike the entire project. In the greater Washington, DC metropolitan area, where our ruling class lives, 75% of voters supported Harris in the 2024 election. Calling a class of warship that will need bipartisan support, in both the Executive and Legislative branches of government through the length of the program, this poisons the program from the start. For an unnecessarily large percentage, you cannot even begin to argue the merits of the program, their ears and minds are closed to it. I’m not sure how you mitigate that unforced error at the start.

Make no mistake: along a very broad front, (D) are going to go after anything with more than a passing connection to President Trump—one of the most expected and predictable outcomes of this election. They don’t have the razor-thin margins the (R) had the last couple of years, they have a bone in their teeth, and they have a mandate.

It would be silly not to think that, with (D) controlling the purse strings in both houses of Congress, that they won’t go after one of the most Trump-branded items in the defense budget: BBGN.

The President can propose whatever he wants, but Congress will decide where the money goes.

Last year, DDG(X) was put out to pasture, and a full effort was put toward BBGN. We’ll see what the next Congress does, but I don’t think the smart money is betting on BBGN.

So, what options are there except for the running seven-year joke here,

Well, I presented the options last February. I’d recommend reading the whole post, but here’s what you’re looking for.

So, we have your baseline DDG(X). Let’s call that Flight I a DDG that takes over the mission set of the Arleigh Burke DDG (PBUH).

The Navy has envisaged the DDG(X) as a ship with (1) DDG-51 Flight III Aegis combat system elements; (2) more growth margin than the DDG-51 Flight III design, meaning more space, weight-carrying capacity, electrical power, and cooling capacity (aka SWAP-C) for accepting additional or higher-power equipment and weapons (including directed-energy weapons) over the ship’s service life; (3) an integrated power system (IPS); (4) reduced vulnerability due to reduced infrared, acoustic, and underwater electromagnetic signatures; (5) increased cruising range and time on station; and (6) increased weapon capacity.

Without the BBG in play, we still need to fill the requirements of the BBG.

I can already see requirements for three different flights of DDG(X).

Flight II would be a CAG. Yes, a guided missile attack cruiser.

• Baseline Flight I with the addition of the DPM and substituting the 32 VLS forward for 12 CPS in what I assume will be G-VLS…unless, as I have heard rumored, you have to remove the 5” gun forward in order to have your CPS configured like in the Zumwalts with the 4 APM. If you can put 4 APM or 12 G-VLS in the DPM, then that still leaves you, what, 64 MK-41 VLS aft for SM-2/3/6, ASROC, etc? Rumor has it you can pack multiple PAC-3 missiles in the G-VLS as well, so mix and match? Sounds fun either way. Also, sorry about all the acronyms, but as a recidivist staff weenie, this is my happy place.

Flight III would be your Air Warfare Commander CVN escort. It’s a CG.

• Baseline Flight I with the DPM full of G-VLS loaded with PAC-3 missiles, and expanded square footage to support afloat staff.

In Sal’s world, in a fit of pique, I’d mandate that we build all three flights in parallel in three different yards.

If, as we swag’d Monday, you can buy a bit more than three DDG(X) for each BBG…and let’s say 2.5 CG and CAG for each BBG…then you have a very solid Plan-B.

If you really want to seal the deal, bring in the conversation about the intangible advantages of not so much “Distributed Lethality” but “Distributed Risk.”

Most of the nightmares that come with the concentrated risk of the Arsenal Ship concept, are there with the BBG as well.

I’m open to hearing what other positive directions we may have for our surface force with the (D) in power. It’s been a rough century so far regardless of who was in power. I’m not too concerned about air and submarine…they have challenging but modern programs moving forward.

Don’t get me wrong, Arleigh Burke Flight III are great…but…there is only so much more we can do with that design.

Well…we will see, won’t we?

Pray for peace.

Leave a comment

Share

View the full article