Post New

Forget the Felon/moron. Our Navy has had many developmental failures, even as we retire older vessels. This is leaving gaps in our Naval operational capabilities. Even if Harris had won, this would still be the case. So, forget that stuff.

It's pretty clear that someone had this on the drawing board (i.e. the Defiant). It appears, at first glance, to have most or all of the requirements for a US Navy vessel. The below article speculates that it may have been a modification of the DDG-51 concept. Unlike the FREMM, which required modifications to bring it up to Navy specs (whether or not those specs make sense is another subject). I posted a deep-dive video on the failures of US naval procurement/development as it relates to the FREMM/Constellation, and the Zumwalt. Anyone really interested can geek-out over that (it's a very good video).

Here is another article on the vessel. An analysis by CSIS. Not to brag, but it brought up some of the points I mentioned earlier in another thread, and a few that didn't occur to me.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/golden-fleets-battle...

They project we won't see the first ship until the 2030s, at best. So, they aren't ready to start "cutting steel" just yet.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that a future destroyer of 14,500 tons would cost $4.4 billion or $300,000 per ton. That would imply a battleship cost of about $9.1 billion, allowing for some economies of scale. Lead ships are typically 50 percent more expensive than the average, so BBG 1 would likely cost $13.5 billion, about as much as an aircraft carrier.

That's a problem. We need several ships, and we need them yesterday. The BBG will be 4x the size of a current DDG, and cost three times as much as the 14.5K ton "future destroyer" mentioned (and Arleigh-Burke is only about 9K+ tons, so "future destroyer" is 50% larger than that).

The administration has rightly highlighted the need to build more ships, and the 2026 reconciliation bill adds $29.2 billion to do that. However, a BBG class is extremely high risk. When the full cost and schedule become known, the program will almost certainly be canceled. However, that may be after spending several years and several billion dollars.

Build the DDGs. We get more of them for less, and more dispersed fires (i.e. decentralization, which is tactically advantageous). That's the gap that needs to be filled as the Arleigh-Burkes are being stretched to fill those gaps (and will be increasingly unable to do so). I think it unlikely we'll get more than one or two (if that) of the BBGs. And we'll lose a lot of time pursuing that with very little to show for it. I vote for the 14.5K ton DDG. Makes the most sense.

Meanwhile, the Chinese have deployed their Type-055 destroyers, that appear to be very capable and modern.

(BTW, I've been on both the Missouri and the Iowa. They are seriously cool if you're even remotely interested in naval vessels and history. Highly recommended. You can even see where a kamikaze struck Missouri, and created a relatively small dent in the top edge of the hull. The armor is like nothing you've ever seen...in some places, a couple of feet thick.)

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that a future destroyer of 14,500 tons would cost $4.4 billion or $300,000 per ton. That would imply a battleship cost of about $9.1 billion, allowing for some economies of scale. Lead ships are typically 50 percent more expensive than the average, so BBG 1 would likely cost $13.5 billion, about as much as an aircraft carrier.

Well. Better ramp up the public subscriptions for the ship, because, unlike the Zumwalt, LCS, and Connie, Trump has stuck his name on the thing, which will make it uncancelable, as long as he draws breath. I proposed the subscription scheme on a Naval history board on FB, where people know about the other ships financed by subscription, and it was pretty popular: 11 likes, and no laffs.

I noticed that Ryan's piece talks about a gas turbine/diesel plant, vs nuke. That would hold cost down, but his nibs doesn't care about cost, because it's about HIM.

Ryan also noted the Navy already has a USS Defiant, a tug.

Steve

My favorite defense economics person has weighed-in on this. Summary: probably a bad idea. He makes several points I made, but also says we don't have the shipyards to build ships this big. Our destroyer shipyards can't do it. Also, despite Japan's progress with railguns, the advanced systems for the Defiant don't actually yet exist. So, we'd be building a ship whose armament is currently vaporware.

As I pointed out, we get fewer ships, and fewer VLS cells for the same monies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvUbx9TvOwk
(deep dive for those interested)

Revive the DDG(x), and start building them in quantity. Before China swamps us with their Type 055.

but also says we don't have the shipyards to build ships this big.

This is only partially true.
The Defiant-type ships are slightly smaller than the America and Wasp class amphibious assault ships that are built in Mississippi.

If it’s more VLS cells you want, then the way to do it is through the auxiliary cruiser route. CDRSalamandar mentioned these the other day.

He makes several points I made, but also says we don't have the shipyards to build ships this big. Our destroyer shipyards can't do it.

I didn't watch the video, but don't we still have at least one shipyard that can build aircraft carriers? Is the new USS Trump much - if at all - larger than, say, the U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford?

If it’s more VLS cells you want, then the way to do it is through the auxiliary cruiser route.

We need more. However, the auxiliary cruiser concepts I have seen are basically just floating missile platforms that do little else. The problem with those is that if you sink just one, you damage the combat capabilities of the group relying on it tremendously. Sort of "putting all your eggs in one basket". (Which also is a problem with the BBG...since we can produce fewer of them, it hurts more when one is sunk.) Better to finish the DDG(x), and build for quantity. It would be a much more capable ship, and we could crank out a lot of them.

I note that they just launched a flight-3 Arleigh-Burke (Ted Stevens) this week. It's certainly a capable ship, but we need to give the HII shipyard a new, more capable, design to build.

You are correct that we could displace amphibious assault ships to build the BBG, but then you're having to choose between which you would build. Meanwhile, we have fully capable destroyer shipyards that could start building a DDG(x) instead of an Arleigh-Burke. Direct replacement, instead of choosing between which class of ship you can build.

...don't we still have at least one shipyard that can build aircraft carriers...

That would require we stop retiring Nimitz-class, so we can stop building replacements (Ford-class), so we can build the BBG. That's probably not a great option.

That would require we stop retiring Nimitz-class, so we can stop building replacements (Ford-class), so we can build the BBG. That's probably not a great option.

Ok, but something being not a great option has never stopped this admin before. Nothing must impeded Trump from getting what he wants. Nothing!

My favorite defense economics person has weighed-in on this. Summary: probably a bad idea. He makes several points I made, but also says we don't have the shipyards to build ships this big.

CDR Salamander has some background:

https://cdrsalamander.substack.com/p/a-new-year-a-...

A New Year, a "New" Weapon, & an Old Tale
...like I said, the future is not swarms of small drones...

When it comes to trying to figure out the response to drones, the accountants and industrialists have been ringing the bell for a few problems.

Using a $2,000,000 missile to bring down a $200,000 drone is unsustainable.

Having 35 AAW missiles to counter a mix of 125 drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles is not a sustainable way to hold open a sea lane or defend an airfield.

What can you do? Well, you can find a way to use cheaper anti-air guns at sea and ashore. You can find a way to repurpose old or cheaper weapons to do the job. You can indirectly attack them with electronic warfare…or you can look for something “new.”

This is why just adding more VLS cells isn't the only answer. More is needed.

If there is one military in the world that does not have the luxury of relying on vaporware or systems that only work on PPT and the range, it is Israel. Indeed, many of the failures on October 7th were because they bought into comforting ideas and technological shortcuts that Hamas took advantage of. They are extra careful today that they don’t make that same mistake.

So, that is why their laser program is getting my interest.<./i>

Laser systems like this one:
https://breakingdefense.com/2025/12/israels-new-la...

The ministry noted that the system, known as “Or Eitan” in Hebrew, was run through “an extensive series of tests against various threats and successfully intercepted rockets, mortars, and UAVs, will be integrated into the IAF and incorporated into Israel’s multi-layered aerial defense array as a complementary capability to the Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow systems.”

The potential for laser-based interception of drones, missiles and rockets is one long-desired by militaries, given the cost discrepancy between an expensive kinetic interceptor and incoming small drones or rockets. The Iron Beam can burn or fry objects at a range of around ten kilometers, according to previous statements.

10 klicks to fry stuff at fractions of a penny per shot. Sign us up!

Back to CDR Salamander:
It appears that these are designed to be containerized. So incredibly smart. If they used standard containers, they can be transported by almost anything commercially designed to be the same. Can be placed in untold numbers of locations designed to secure and carry them.

Plug and play…but it does beg the question: how much power does it demand, and can our LCS provide it? I have ideas…

Using a $2,000,000 missile to bring down a $200,000 drone is unsustainable.

Depends on what the drone is heading for. If it's heading for an apartment building that is only worth a few Mill, maybe not. If the drone is heading for a $13B aircraft carrier, the economics of shooting down the drone look a lot better.

What ever happened to "Metalstorm"? Ah, Wiki says went defunct in 2012.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Storm

During WWII, the Japanese developed a "beehive" round for their battleship guns, that turned them into a blunderbuss.

San-shiki-dan (三式弾; "Type 3 shell") was a World War II-era combined shrapnel and incendiary anti-aircraft round used by the Imperial Japanese Navy. They were supposedly referred to as Beehive rounds. The shells were intended to create a large volume of flame which attacking aircraft would have to fly through. However, U.S. pilots considered these shells to be more of a pyrotechnics display than an effective anti-aircraft weapon.[A 1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Shiki_(anti-aircraft_shell)

Toward the end of WWII, the USN developed autoloading 6" and 8" guns that could fire 10-12 rounds per minute. Load them up with flak rounds and they could put up a fair bit of shrapnel that drones would be flying into.

Combine firepower with cheap, chaff rockets, and flares, and a self contained drone would be pretty confused and skinned up.

Steve

Depends on what the drone is heading for. If it's heading for an apartment building that is only worth a few Mill, maybe not. If the drone is heading for a $13B aircraft carrier, the economics of shooting down the drone look a lot better.

The other side can build and shoot way more $200k drones than we can $2M missiles, that's the point.

San-shiki-dan (三式弾; "Type 3 shell") was a World War II-era combined shrapnel and incendiary anti-aircraft round used by the Imperial Japanese Navy. They were supposedly referred to as Beehive rounds. The shells were intended to create a large volume of flame which attacking aircraft would have to fly through. However, U.S. pilots considered these shells to be more of a pyrotechnics display than an effective anti-aircraft weapon

When the Japanese would shoot these, because they were coming out of some of their bigger barrels, they would actually break up their own AAA fire.

When the Japanese would shoot these, because they were coming out of some of their bigger barrels, they would actually break up their own AAA fire.

iirc, the rounds tore up the gun barrels too.

I remember, after the Falklands war showed cruise missiles to be a real threat, there was a push on, by several navies, to add a lot of light, AA to their ships. The Italian navy, for instance, added three twin 40mm AA guns to the Vittorio Veneto's existing suite of 8-76mm rapid fire guns.

Steve

This is why just adding more VLS cells isn't the only answer. More is needed.

Absolutely agree. We would need some SeaWhiz, and expandability for counter-drone weapons (that may not yet exist), likely fitting into a VLS cell. Known technologies, for the most part. You wouldn't want to rely on vaporware that may, or may not, ever exist (or at least within a relevant timeframe to deploy on ships within the next five years).

So, that is why their laser program is getting my interest.

Interest, sure. And keep developing it so that we can mount an effective one on a destroyer-sized ship. Absolutely. But don't rely on a weapon system that is not yet deployable. You don't want a ship ready to launch that doesn't have a working weapons system (other than the VLS, which is fully-known and deployed tech). If it isn't capable of being mounted on a DDG, it's not useful. At least not yet.

I could "solve" the drone problem right now. Mount EMP. Blasts of EMP will fry any and all electronics on drones. But we don't have one powerful enough to do that (to my knowledge) that is portable enough to be field-deployable. So...I didn't really solve it.

Interest, sure. And keep developing it so that we can mount an effective one on a destroyer-sized ship. Absolutely. But don't rely on a weapon system that is not yet deployable. You don't want a ship ready to launch that doesn't have a working weapons system (other than the VLS, which is fully-known and deployed tech). If it isn't capable of being mounted on a DDG, it's not useful. At least not yet.

Except the Israeli system *is* now deployed. And from the looks of the photos it can fit inside a standard container. CDR Salamander points out that the Israelis don't have the luxury to deploy untested stuff due to the constant nature of attacks...and this system can even shoot down mortar shells(!) along with the ability to shoot stuff down 10 klicks away.

Drone swarms at sea are different from the land kind as there's no terrain to hide behind.

Except the Israeli system *is* now deployed.

The Israelis developed a countermeasure system to protect their vehicles, capable of shooting down an RPG, before it hits the vehicle. Deployed in combat, saving Israeli soldier's lives, for several years now. The US Army wanted to buy it. But Raytheon's bought dogs in the government said "oh no, have Raytheon develop a knockoff of it, instead".

Some 15 years later, and who knows how much for "development", we are still waiting for Raytheon's system.

Quick Kill

There was some controversy when the United States Office of Force Transformation (OFT) planned to battle-test the more mature, but Israeli-made Trophy active protection system on several Stryker armored personnel carriers headed for Iraq in early 2007. The effort was scuttled by the US Army in favor of waiting for the Quick Kill system to be developed.[8] In 2006–2007, the Institute for Defense Analysis found Quick Kill to be relatively immature and had significant development risks. Important components such as the radar were not yet fully developed and testing of the system as a whole was on hold while the warhead was redesigned. They also found Trophy, which uses a shotgun-like kill mechanism, to be the most mature of the 15 systems they analyzed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quick_Kill

Takeaway, as with most other DoD programs over the last 20 years: doesn't expect anything to be developed and delivered on budget, or on schedule. We'll be lucky to see anything actually delivered, ever, regardless of how much we taxpayers pay for it.

Steve

Drone swarms at sea are different from the land kind as there's no terrain to hide behind.

Here's some interesting reading: missile interceptors, at price per shot. "Iron Beam" looks great, at a paltry $3.50/shot. But it's Israeli. We know lobbyist money would prevent the USN deploying it. Instead, Billions would be paid to Raytheon or Lockheed, and decades will pass, with nothing useful ever appearing.

https://www.missiledefenseadvocacy.org/missile-def...

Best bet for the next layer out from the Phalanx, would be the RIM-116, at $1M/shot. The US "JCs" are already making their money off it, probably because it was developed in the early 90s, before the philosophy of "Billions for development, nothing for deployment" took over. BUT, a quickly reloadable launcher is needed. Right now, a VLS is not reloadable at sea. The RIM-116 mount has 21 cells, but a drone swarm will empty that pretty quickly. The missile is light enough for two big, husky, guys to lift into the mount, but, can they reload fast enough? We need something like the old twin arm mounts, where missiles are brought up from a huge magazine, far below deck, then run out on the launcher in a few seconds, as needed. Maybe something that works like the old mounts, but, instead of loading a single missile on each arm, load a magazine with 4 or 6 missiles, on each arm, with each reload cycle. Keep in mind, it isn't firing off $1M missiles, it's keeping the inbound weapons away from a $13B carrier.

Of course, Stingers have a considerably longer range than a Phalanx, and cost "only" about half a mil, but, apparently have an impact fuse, so would need to effectively "hit a bullet with a bullet", vs the RIM-116, which uses a proximity fuse.

Steve...saw an impressive demonstration of a RIM-24 Tarter mount on USS Columbus in 1963.

Drone swarms at sea are different from the land kind as there's no terrain to hide behind.

Aerial drones can be small enough to not register on radar, especially if they're wave-hugging. Sea drones appear to be very low profile, and hard to detect. The Ukrainians have demonstrated the latter several times (most recently penetrating a Russian naval yard and damaging a submarine).

It will be interesting to get details on what is actually deployed (ref: laser). The best information I could find says it was not mobile (Iron Beam) because of size and power issues. Maybe they've sorted that out. They don't have to worry much about ship-mounts in Israel. They are using it (or intend it to be used) as part of their Iron Dome. So, size doesn't matter too much. Just enough power to destroy a target before it can hit its objective.

They are using it (or intend it to be used) as part of their Iron Dome. So, size doesn't matter too much. Just enough power to destroy a target before it can hit its objective.

I have been in a discussion on a FB page, about how to deal with drone swarms/cruise missiles/"hypersonic" missiles in mass attacks. One thing I wondered about was how long a beam weapon, like Iron Beam, needs to be in contact with the target, to burn through and do structural damage. According to the net sifter, 2-3 seconds. Iron Dome may be fine against the primitive, aluminum, rockets Hamas used, but how about a "hypersonic" missile? Due to air friction heating, anything traveling at Mach 3 needs to have a titanium skin, or other high temperature material. That means the dwell time for the beam to burn through one spot on the target will be longer. If the missile was designed to rotate in flight, like the USian RIM-116 does, it would be impossible for the beam to be on one spot long enough. So, a titanium, or ceramic, skinned, rolling frame, missile, would appear to be immune to beam weapons.

Steve

Aegis radars can resolve birds; it’s just a matter of how much power you want the radar to output.

At any rate, you’re not shooting down super small objects with either a SAM from a VLS cell, a Stinger-type weapon or even a CIWS. For that kind of target you’re definitely better off using a laser, which can shoot hundreds of times a second and not be affected by the recoil of the barrel (since there isn’t any).

The Navy has demonstrated ship borne lasers already; now it’s a matter of making them a little smaller and mating them with the right power plant.

So, size doesn't matter too much. Just enough power to destroy a target before it can hit its objective.

Size matters…somewhat. The Israelis don’t want a hugely massive thing - they’d rather have something they can move around (on say, a flathead 18-wheeler) if need be so they can be deployed/redeployed.

For that kind of target you’re definitely better off using a laser, which can shoot hundreds of times a second and not be affected by the recoil of the barrel (since there isn’t any).

Negative. A laser needs to be in continuous contact with one spot on the target, for several seconds, to burn through.

Here's a film about a mount the USN is putzing with right now.

Finally! Watch the US Navy's Laser Weapon in Action

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvQV7Mt02q4

Steve

At any rate, you’re not shooting down super small objects with either a SAM from a VLS cell, a Stinger-type weapon or even a CIWS.

CIWS is probably the best option for drones, at this time. I agree about SAMs and such. I also agree with using a laser, but we don't yet have one that is deployable. However, if you want to destroy a target (e.g. drone), there will be a dwell time on the target. Shooting "hundreds of times per second" isn't really an option. Depending on the target you'll have to dwell -possibly- for a few seconds per (depending on the target).

It is true that Aegis can track a single bird (I was aware of flocks, but it can track a single bird). As you probably know, targets hugging the waves are a lot more difficult to track because of the waves. Creates a lot of false reflections when you are trying to resolve something small flying just a few meters above the peaks.

However, if you want to destroy a target (e.g. drone), there will be a dwell time on the target. Shooting "hundreds of times per second" isn't really an option. Depending on the target you'll have to dwell -possibly- for a few seconds per (depending on the target).


Shooting lots of “rounds” is a reference to being able to fire rapidly at a rapidly moving target *without* having to worry about the recoil of the weapon affecting the launch point. That’s not a concern with laser based weapons, especially when tracking hypersonic targets.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.