United States Navy (USN) : News & Discussions

[BMD]

Nuclear-Powered Trump Class Battleships Will Reverse One Of The Navy's "Largest Mistakes": Navy Boss

The Chief of Naval Operations says giving up on nuclear-powered surface combatants was one of the worst decisions his service has ever made.

www.twz.com

 

[BMD]

Source?

It's stated to share the same powerplant and propulsion systems as the Ford Class, which means 2 A1Bs.

Ford Class does over 30kts at 100,000t, Trump Class is only 35,000t. So even with 1 it would be way faster. For comparison a Borei Class displaces 24,000t submerged and has only 37MW (50,000shp) propulsive power. So even with 1 A1B it would have 3.5x the power and displace <50% more LOL.

Borei-class submarine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The 1960s USS Enterprise weighed almost as much as Ford Class and had 20% less power but made 34kts.

USS Enterprise (CVN-65) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You're just coming up with ways to justify a platform that's conceived as a prestige project instead of letting the requirements shape the boat. A solution looking for a problem so to speak.

DDG(X) was to have 128-160 cell VLS but was dropped due to inability to carry CPS, insufficient endurance andinsufficient CUAS/CUSV defences. The result was the Trump Class, which is nuclear powered, carries 36 CPS and massive CUAS/CUSV defences.

 

[Parthu]

It's stated to share the same powerplant and propulsion systems as the Ford Class, which means 2 A1Bs.

Uh, no. It means it'll use the same reactor model, heat-exchanging equipment & maybe the same turbines, shafts etc.

Ford Class does over 30kts at 100,000t, Trump Class is only 35,000t. So even with 1 it would be way faster.

Doesn't exactly scale like that.

For comparison a Borei Class displaces 24,000t submerged and has only 37MW (50,000shp) propulsive power. So even with 1 A1B it would have 3.5x the power and displace <50% more LOL.

Borei is a boomer, not a hunter-killer. It doesn't go around chasing capital ships, it's there for nuclear deterrence.

Yasen's the one you gotta worry about. SSN speeds are classified, it's safe to say they're way faster than publicly known.

Didn't it occur to you that Yasen displaces about half as much as the Borei, they both basically have versions of the same reactor and yet the Borei is somehow able to do ~30kt while the Yasen supposedly only does ~35kt?

Basically, the numbers are BS. Hoping to outrun an SSN is a good way to get killed. A better plan would be what the USN was working on earlier - distributed firepower. Building more, cheaper ships rather than fewer, expensive ones. That plan's being junked due to political directives to pursue prestige projects instead.

Don't know why you're happy about that.

DDG(X) was to have 128-160 cell VLS but was dropped due to inability to carry CPS, insufficient endurance andinsufficient CUAS/CUSV defences. The result was the Trump Class, which is nuclear powered, carries 36 CPS and massive CUAS/CUSV defences.

DDGX could've carried CPS in the modular block amidships. But building a huge ship to carry CPS is stupid. Every sensor in orbit will be tracking this ship 24x7. Good luck surprising tactical targets which is what CPS is supposed to address.

They're already working on Virginia Block-V to carry CPS on a submerged platform - that's more like it. That gives you tactical surprise.

 

[BMD]

Borei is a boomer, not a hunter-killer. It doesn't go around chasing capital ships, it's there for nuclear deterrence.

So provide an example of a chaser.

Yasen's the one you gotta worry about. SSN speeds are classified, it's safe to say they're way faster than publicly known.

Yasen has 43,000shp and dispalces 14t submerged. That's 3shp/ton. Ford Class has 3.5shp/ton, Trump Class has 5shp/ton (assuming one A1B) and isn't dragging a vertical pillar through the water.

Graney Class - Project 885 Yasen

www.globalsecurity.org

Didn't it occur to you that Yasen displaces about half as much as the Borei, they both basically have versions of the same reactor and yet the Borei is somehow able to do ~30kt while the Yasen supposedly only does ~35kt?

Displaces 14t and has 43,000shp so 3shp/ton, less than Ford Class even (3.5shp/ton).

Basically, the numbers are BS. Hoping to outrun an SSN is a good way to get killed. A better plan would be what the USN was working on earlier - distributed firepower. Building more, cheaper ships rather than fewer, expensive ones. That plan's being junked due to political directives to pursue prestige projects instead.

Don't know why you're happy about that.

They are doing that too. And likely ASW helis and P-8s will kill Yasen anyway.

DDGX could've carried CPS in the modular block amidships. But building a huge ship to carry CPS is stupid. Every sensor in orbit will be tracking this ship 24x7. Good luck surprising tactical targets which is what CPS is supposed to address.

Based on airspace closures during test, CPS range is about 4,500km, so it will be a surprise. Can be sub-aunched from SSGNs and Virginia Blk4 too.

They're already working on Virginia Block-V to carry CPS on a submerged platform - that's more like it. That gives you tactical surprise.

Only holds 12 missiles though.

Sometimes you want visibility for deterrence and diplomacy.

 

[Parthu]

So provide an example of a chaser.

Yasen has 43,000shp and dispalces 14t submerged. That's 3shp/ton. Ford Class has 3.5shp/ton, Trump Class has 5shp/ton (assuming one A1B) and isn't dragging a vertical pillar through the water.

Graney Class - Project 885 Yasen

www.globalsecurity.org

Displaces 14t and has 43,000shp so 3shp/ton, less than Ford Class even (3.5shp/ton).

You're not getting it mate. The submarine numbers on the internet are BS.

The Borei supposedly has 2 shp/ton (66% of Yasen's 3 shp/ton) and is apparently able to do 29 kts (82% of Yasen's 35kt).

Things don't scale linearly like that and even if they did, the math isn't mathing. If you want to draw conclusions based on these figures you're going to be wrong.

They are doing that too. And likely ASW helis and P-8s will kill Yasen anyway.

So why do they need a nuclear battleship to outrun them?

Based on airspace closures during test, CPS range is about 4,500km, so it will be a surprise.

At that distance from a target, even a conventionally-powered DDG is fine as a CPS launcher. You don't have to worry about outrunning anything if you could basically be anywhere and still hit the target.

Only holds 12 missiles though.

But it can bring them much closer to coast and be able to hit deeper targets. Worth it in the end considering you can buy at least 4 x Virginia Block-Vs for the price of a single Trump battleship.

That means 48 CPS. And each of them fired with higher effectiveness and deeper reach.

Sometimes you want visibility for deterrence and diplomacy.

There's carriers for that.

 

[BMD]

You're not getting it mate. The submarine numbers on the internet are BS.

The Borei supposedly has 2 shp/ton (66% of Yasen's 3 shp/ton) and is apparently able to do 29 kts (82% of Yasen's 35kt).

Things don't scale linearly like that and even if they did, the math isn't mathing. If you want to draw conclusions based on these figures you're going to be wrong.

It's a good place to start though. And with 5shp/ton, yes the Trump Class has a good chance of outrunning a sub.

So why do they need a nuclear battleship to outrun them?

To get from A to B faster than they can.

At that distance from a target, even a conventionally-powered DDG is fine as a CPS launcher. You don't have to worry about outrunning anything if you could basically be anywhere and still hit the target.

You can't quite be anywhere though. The Pacific is quite quite you know.

But it can bring them much closer to coast and be able to hit deeper targets. Worth it in the end considering you can buy at least 4 x Virginia Block-Vs for the price of a single Trump battleship.

Why?

That means 48 CPS. And each of them fired with higher effectiveness and deeper reach.

No Block IV has 4 VPM = 4x3 CPS. Ohio SSGNs can carry 66 throretically though.

There's carriers for that.

Carriers don't carry CPS and cost more.

 

[Parthu]

It's a good place to start though. And with 5shp/ton, yes the Trump Class has a good chance of outrunning a sub.

There's a reason why even during the Cold War when reactor production was happening at industrial scale (like, dozens per year), nuclear-powered surface combatants remained few and far between. Cuz the risk wasn't worth the reward most of the time.

The USN is welcome to re-learn this lesson the hard way. But it's unlikely - by the time this ship makes it through the detailed design phase, Trump will be gone and so will his Ego-Massager 35000. The good part is, any A1Bs they order for these can be repurposed for future Ford-class carriers. The only wastage might be a hunk of metal (keel & some parts) they can sell for scrap.

To get from A to B faster than they can.

Subs are weapons of sea denial. They're already there before you are.

Why?

View attachment 51684

Cuz it gives you more options.

In the map you showed, a sub could come right up to the edge of Pakistani EEZ and target not just anywhere in China but also Moscow - which you can't reach from the point you drew.

No Block IV has 4 VPM = 4x3 CPS. Ohio SSGNs can carry 66 throretically though.

Still more affordable - plus, it's already proven tech.

Carriers don't carry CPS and cost more.

They don't need it cuz the subs have that covered. Tag one of the Zumwalts along if you want.

 

[BMD]

There's a reason why even during the Cold War when reactor production was happening at industrial scale (like, dozens per year), nuclear-powered surface combatants remained few and far between. Cuz the risk wasn't worth the reward most of the time.

The USN is welcome to re-learn this lesson the hard way. But it's unlikely - by the time this ship makes it through the detailed design phase, Trump will be gone and so will his Ego-Massager 35000. The good part is, any A1Bs they order for these can be repurposed for future Ford-class carriers. The only wastage might be a hunk of metal (keel & some parts) they can sell for scrap.

They existed on both sides, Kirov Class, Long Beach, Bainbridge....

Subs are weapons of sea denial. They're already there before you are.

Says who? Depends on scenario. Nuke ships can also keep up with carriers better.

Cuz it gives you more options.

In the map you showed, a sub could come right up to the edge of Pakistani EEZ and target not just anywhere in China but also Moscow - which you can't reach from the point you drew.

Can reach Moscow from 500km out too.

Still more affordable - plus, it's already proven tech.

VPMs are what the Trump Class uses too.

They don't need it cuz the subs have that covered. Tag one of the Zumwalts along if you want.

To few Zumwalts, too few CPS, can't keep up with carriers ove max speed long haul.

 

[Parthu]

They existed on both sides, Kirov Class, Long Beach, Bainbridge....

I didn't say they didn't exist. I said they were few & far between. Mostly one-offs or class of half a dozen or fewer.

Compare that to number of nuke subs that were built over the same time period.

Says who? Depends on scenario. Nuke ships can also keep up with carriers better.

Can reach Moscow from 500km out too.

VPMs are what the Trump Class uses too.

To few Zumwalts, too few CPS, can't keep up with carriers ove max speed long haul.

Nuke carriers with a conventionally-powered battle group (escorted by an SSN or two) is a concept that's proven to work and work adequately. Any Admiral saying otherwise is a$$-kissing Trump in an effort to make sure he isn't the next to get fired.

Needing a nuke powered battleship to keep up with the carrier is what they call a solution looking for a problem.

 

[BMD]

I didn't say they didn't exist. I said they were few & far between. Mostly one-offs or class of half a dozen or fewer.

Compare that to number of nuke subs that were built over the same time period.

Yet they were built for a purpose. Now they are even more relevant, since carriers not only face the threat of AShCMs but also AShBMs. Arguably fighters can deal with AShCMs and drones but they can't protect against AShBMs or AShHWs, nor can a sub. You need a ship to do that, and you need a nuclear-powered one to match the carrier's pace.

Nuke carriers with a conventionally-powered battle group (escorted by an SSN or two) is a concept that's proven to work and work adequately. Any Admiral saying otherwise is a$$-kissing Trump in an effort to make sure he isn't the next to get fired.

Needing a nuke powered battleship to keep up with the carrier is what they call a solution looking for a problem.

Not even slightly, if you need to respond to a situation, you need to get there fast, and conventionally-powered escorts slowing down carrier response time is not a good thing.

 

[randomradio]

@Parthu @BMD

Kirov has 3 reactors at 300 MWth each and weighs less than 30kT. So yeah, a Trump class getting 2 A1Bs is well within its fit.

Guess destroyers are more power hungry than carriers for non-propulsion needs.

 

[BMD]

@Parthu @BMD

Kirov has 3 reactors at 300 MWth each and weighs less than 30kT. So yeah, a Trump class getting 2 A1Bs is well within its fit.

Guess destroyers are more power hungry than carriers for non-propulsion needs.

2xKN-3 at 300MWt

Kirov-class battlecruiser - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The BBG(X) will be powering a railgun too.

 

[randomradio]

2xKN-3 at 300MWt

Kirov-class battlecruiser - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The BBG(X) will be powering a railgun too.

Ah, cool. I thought it was odd, pun intended.

 

[BMD]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2057901327670219119

 

[BMD]

L3Harris Delivering Clandestine Submarine-Launched AUVs to the U.S. Navy​

L3Harris Delivering Clandestine Submarine-Launched AUVs to the U.S. Navy

L3Harris is pushing forward with production of its Iver4 900 autonomous undersea vehicle (AUV) under a previously unknown Defense Innovation Unit effort that is looking to deliver a torpedo tube launch and recovery (TTL&R) autonomous drone to the U.S. Navy's attack submarine fleet.

www.navalnews.com