US Navy News

[Johnnie Lyle]

Does sound like it should be called the Kitchen Sink Class.

I like it

If the USN wants a large combatant like BBG(X), then the last thing it needs, IMVHO, is to attach any one President’s name to it. Call it the Defiant Class, after the first ship of class.

I put these together because I think that a large ship with kitchen sink level armament is frankly inevitable.

We have two in production examples of what it takes to push a DDG to the 112-122 VLS tube range:

• The Chinese Renhai-class (Type 055): 112 VLS, 1x130mm, 1x30mm CIWS, 1x24 cell CIWS missiles, 2 helos, 11-13K tons
• The Japanese ASEV: 128 VLS, 1x5”, CIWS and helo fit TBD, 14k tons standard

Both are essentially stretched versions of the existing DDGs, even with the Japanese ship being designated as a nominal CG last week. The key unknown is what degree of modernization reserve they have.

We also have the ZUMWALTs, which put 80 land attack or CIWS VLS tubes and 2x155mm guns on 15.5K tons. We’re removing the 155mm guns and replacing them with an undisclosed number of hypersonic missiles, but we can reasonably expect said tubes to be relatively small compared to what we think should go on 16k tons.

It’s also worth noting that the BURKEs have grown to 9.6k tons, and the Japanese and Korean AEGIS destroyers are hovering around 10k, and all of these ships growth was in aviation space or battle management, not extra guns or missiles.

So even just making a modern TICONDEROGA with 128 VLS, 2x5”, 2x helos and CIWS fit will probably be around 14-16k tons.

We also have the possibly napkinwaffe 25,000 ton Chinese missile cruiser, which was commented upon here. The tl;dr version of said discussion was that members thought it underarmed compared to members perceptions of what a 25k warship should have.

All of these ships are products of a very specific high-tech mindset, where the threat profile is a relatively few number of high tech targets, or perhaps a single salvo of danger - not a long-term mission facing a multi-dimension fight. It’s also worth noting that many of these ships are also products of the “reduced crew” mentality, which has large numbers of problems as well.

Perhaps most importantly given CDR Sal’s analysis of the importance of the gun in the Houthi and Iranian operations, they have a very minimal gun and CIWS outfit. The Italians disagree with that sentiment - and arguably they are correct. We have been using a lot of 5” in these ops, and guns continue to be postulated for these anti-drone roles, since their ammo is cheap.

We also don’t know what basing hypersonic missiles on ships requires in tonnage and VLS launchers. Now, we may get lucky and discover that said hypersonic missiles can fit in a standard VLS tube, but we may not.

So, from lots of presumably competent designers, we know that a lot of the stuff we want in a CG are going to push the tonnage up - how up is the big question. Stuart postulated that 188 VLS would require about 25k tons. We also have no real reference point for what a railgun would require. Even just upping crew complement is going to vastly change the tonnage requirement.

So all the trends point to CG(X) being big, and bigger than most people here realize. Maybe not the full 40,000 tons proposed, but much bigger than the 10K TICONDEROGAs. It’s also going to be kitchen sinky, since cruisers are by definition multi-role and multi-role increasingly means that you need the kitchen sink, at least when it comes to guns, missiles, lasers, electronics and helos.

As for USS DONALD J TRUMP, the Biden Administration proposed CVN-83 as USS GEORGE W BUSH, despite him being the Hitler du jour for 2000-2012/2016, so being a current political bete noir isn’t necessarily poison. Being extremely cynical, by the time BBG(X)-1 is commissioned, Trump will miraculously transition from evil incarnate to respected elder statesman whom the current Republican presidential candidate or president should emulate. If we’re naming warships after presidents, then we have a short list to choose from.

[jemhouston]

Johnnie, I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't have anything except Presidential libraries for politicians until they've been dead for a decade. I will make an exception for people dying in the line of duty.

[Belushi TD]

What a whole lot of people don't realize is that the Ticos are only about a thousand or two tons more than the Burkes in their original configuration. Since the growth of the Burkes, they're pretty close to the same size.

Ship growth has been inevitable to get the capacity needed to be able to do the things. If you want a ship that can do ALL the things, you will need a large ship.

As far as naming them, I've been of the opinion that you don't name ANYTHING after someone until LONG after they're safely dead. I like the 10 year idea jemhouston made.

In addition to ships, we need munitions. Ships are sexy, missiles are not. We need to both up production by .... maybe an order of magnitude, and reduce the per unit cost by again, maybe an order of magnitude? We'll get some reductions just on volume. However, the entire construction process needs to be reviewed by people who are getting paid to reduce the cost, not by the people who are going to leave the military in 5 years and get a cushy job out of it, nor by people who are trying to generate jobs in their districts.

Belushi TD

[Nightwatch2]

The Zumwalt now has the useless 5” removed and replaced with hypersonic cruise missile battery of 12 Prompt Strike Missiles. (When available). So we do have a good baseline for what the capability and ship size will be at just about 15k tons.

Side note, those will actually be some pretty useful ships with that combined with the 80 cell launcher and the SPY radar suite.

That reopens the debate about what a cruiser should be and I think that combination starts to get us there. Maybe a “light cruiser” for those numbers.

The proposed 35k ton BBG is a jump too far yet and $17B with a B is an eye watering sticker shock that could drain resources from programs that we need to generate numbers of hulls. It is worth noting that the latest proposal did not include the CG(X) or DDG(X) follow on.

So I think somewhere around 20k-25k cruisers with 120 VLS cells, a couple of guns, AEGIS, and the hypersonic strike capability of at least 20 might be the ticket.

And construction in foreign shipyards IS something that we should consider.

So far as naming conventions; concur with the exception that still living, honorably retired veterans who served in a state legislature…….

[Calder]

One comment - the President is not anywhere near pushing for a land war anywhere. He is already on thin ice with much of his base.

I, for one, am in support of the military actions actually taken thus far. I am NOT in favor of some of the threats tossed around and certainly not in favor of threatening allies. (But I take that as his “negotiating style” not to be taken literally. )

Note: When I said support the president I should have wrote support any president. If we are only counting how popular a president is from within his base of support I think Trump is one of the most popular presidents of the last 25 years. Trump has been able to primary any Republican who has opposed him. Even in this case Trump has faced considerable blowback for Iran. I think that will absolutely blow up in face politically if he tried to involve major land forces in Iran proper and not just taking an island. Given that, I don't think any president is getting into a land war in the next 20 years.

[Calder]

Maybe. But a lot of things have to go completely right for the concept as advocated by the former Commandant to succeed.

It’s worked once or twice, ish - but failed considerably more than it succeeded. 1st Wake worked because the IJN was under resourced, and Midway worked because we had 2 carriers + Bad HORNET parked on the enemy flank. Pretty much every other example failed to hold the island or inflict even moderate damage on the attacking fleet.

I think you are forgetting the best example of the strategy succeeding. Guadalcanal was the attritional battle the US desperately needed at the beginning of the war. If we substitute antiship missiles for the cactus air force the parrell holds really well. I would even say the logistical requirements are lower for the antiship missile than they were for supporting an air force.

I agree that if the islands are deep in enemy territory they are going to be problematic. But I don't think that is the intended use case. I think the idea is they can serve as pickets in the 1st island chain where are navy will already be operating. Due to satellites the Navy can't stay in one place all the time but the islands can serve as radar pickets and an unsinkable antiship missile bases as the Navy moves back and forth in the area.

[Johnnie Lyle]

Maybe. But a lot of things have to go completely right for the concept as advocated by the former Commandant to succeed.

It’s worked once or twice, ish - but failed considerably more than it succeeded. 1st Wake worked because the IJN was under resourced, and Midway worked because we had 2 carriers + Bad HORNET parked on the enemy flank. Pretty much every other example failed to hold the island or inflict even moderate damage on the attacking fleet.

I think you are forgetting the best example of the strategy succeeding. Guadalcanal was the attritional battle the US desperately needed at the beginning of the war. If we substitute antiship missiles for the cactus air force the parrell holds really well. I would even say the logistical requirements are lower for the antiship missile than they were for supporting an air force.

I agree that if the islands are deep in enemy territory they are going to be problematic. But I don't think that is the intended use case. I think the idea is they can serve as pickets in the 1st island chain where are navy will already be operating. Due to satellites the Navy can't stay in one place all the time but the islands can serve as radar pickets and an unsinkable antiship missile bases as the Navy moves back and forth in the area.

I wouldn’t say Guadalcanal fits, because that was an offensive operation to take an enemy held asset, not plop a Marine defensive force on a small island before the fun starts and expect the enemy to impale themselves on it. If anything, it demonstrates the futility of the concept since the Japanese bled themselves white trying to maintain all of those garrisons in the Solomons, while we just shot them up, thumbed our noses at them and sent them cannibal cookbooks.

Indeed, as postulated by the Commandant in question, the Marines would give up the offensive amphibious items necessary to make an opposed landing or even engage in a protracted ground campaign.

The forces were explicitly designed to be modern day base defense forces for small island chains.

Here’s the problem with the concept - it only works if you are the 800 pound gorilla, and your enemy is fat, dumb, stupid and sits in harbor with its thumb up its ass. These bases are not unsinkable radar pickets - they’re red meat dangled in front of an aviator, submariner or some dude who has a cruise missile. The air defense and air warning system is much more vulnerable than a fleet, similar to how vulnerable fast attack craft are, and for much the same reason. The observation horizon is very close, the ability to stage airborne radar from them is very limited, and they’re essentially forced to irradiate from relatively fixed assets unlike a fleet or aviation assets. Nor do they move.

It’s exactly the kind of targets that the USAF and USN excel at taking out. And, as the losses to surveillance assets show during the current unpleasantness with Iran show, modern militaries of all degrees of capability excel at blowing up fixed targets.

Essentially it invites defeat in detail by putting assets where a sufficiently aggressive enemy can get at them - while the ability of them to control the sea space around them is very limited.

[Rocket J Squrriel]

The Zumwalt now has the useless 5” removed and replaced with hypersonic cruise missile battery of 12 Prompt Strike Missiles. (When available). So we do have a good baseline for what the capability and ship size will be at just about 15k tons.

Side note, those will actually be some pretty useful ships with that combined with the 80 cell launcher and the SPY radar suite.

That reopens the debate about what a cruiser should be and I think that combination starts to get us there. Maybe a “light cruiser” for those numbers.

The proposed 35k ton BBG is a jump too far yet and $17B with a B is an eye watering sticker shock that could drain resources from programs that we need to generate numbers of hulls. It is worth noting that the latest proposal did not include the CG(X) or DDG(X) follow on.

So I think somewhere around 20k-25k cruisers with 120 VLS cells, a couple of guns, AEGIS, and the hypersonic strike capability of at least 20 might be the ticket.

And construction in foreign shipyards IS something that we should consider.

So far as naming conventions; concur with the exception that still living, honorably retired veterans who served in a state legislature…….

Cruiser Baseline Study
Zumwalt sized hull and power plant with a larger, Burke type superstructure with space for Flag. The AN/SPY-6(V) radar but with the 69 radar modules instead of the Burke's 39. A lot more sensitive. 122 VLS based on MK 57 so it can take larger cells. 2 5 inch guns. Separate space for the hypersonic and plenty of growth margin. Gas turbines but do a nuclear study just as a very remote possibility.

[Nightwatch2]

The Zumwalt now has the useless 5” removed and replaced with hypersonic cruise missile battery of 12 Prompt Strike Missiles. (When available). So we do have a good baseline for what the capability and ship size will be at just about 15k tons.

Side note, those will actually be some pretty useful ships with that combined with the 80 cell launcher and the SPY radar suite.

That reopens the debate about what a cruiser should be and I think that combination starts to get us there. Maybe a “light cruiser” for those numbers.

The proposed 35k ton BBG is a jump too far yet and $17B with a B is an eye watering sticker shock that could drain resources from programs that we need to generate numbers of hulls. It is worth noting that the latest proposal did not include the CG(X) or DDG(X) follow on.

So I think somewhere around 20k-25k cruisers with 120 VLS cells, a couple of guns, AEGIS, and the hypersonic strike capability of at least 20 might be the ticket.

And construction in foreign shipyards IS something that we should consider.

So far as naming conventions; concur with the exception that still living, honorably retired veterans who served in a state legislature…….

Cruiser Baseline Study
Zumwalt sized hull and power plant with a larger, Burke type superstructure with space for Flag. The AN/SPY-6(V) radar but with the 69 radar modules instead of the Burke's 39. A lot more sensitive. 122 VLS based on MK 57 so it can take larger cells. 2 5 inch guns. Separate space for the hypersonic and plenty of growth margin. Gas turbines but do a nuclear study just as a very remote possibility.

I like it, but I think that’s a larger hull than Zumwalt.

[Rocket J Squrriel]

The Zumwalt now has the useless 5” removed and replaced with hypersonic cruise missile battery of 12 Prompt Strike Missiles. (When available). So we do have a good baseline for what the capability and ship size will be at just about 15k tons.

Side note, those will actually be some pretty useful ships with that combined with the 80 cell launcher and the SPY radar suite.

That reopens the debate about what a cruiser should be and I think that combination starts to get us there. Maybe a “light cruiser” for those numbers.

The proposed 35k ton BBG is a jump too far yet and $17B with a B is an eye watering sticker shock that could drain resources from programs that we need to generate numbers of hulls. It is worth noting that the latest proposal did not include the CG(X) or DDG(X) follow on.

So I think somewhere around 20k-25k cruisers with 120 VLS cells, a couple of guns, AEGIS, and the hypersonic strike capability of at least 20 might be the ticket.

And construction in foreign shipyards IS something that we should consider.

So far as naming conventions; concur with the exception that still living, honorably retired veterans who served in a state legislature…….

Cruiser Baseline Study
Zumwalt sized hull and power plant with a larger, Burke type superstructure with space for Flag. The AN/SPY-6(V) radar but with the 69 radar modules instead of the Burke's 39. A lot more sensitive. 122 VLS based on MK 57 so it can take larger cells. 2 5 inch guns. Separate space for the hypersonic and plenty of growth margin. Gas turbines but do a nuclear study just as a very remote possibility.

I like it, but I think that’s a larger hull than Zumwalt.

Approaching Trump BB class territory? Shrink it down to the 20-25k but keep the idea.

[Johnnie Lyle]

Cruiser Baseline Study
Zumwalt sized hull and power plant with a larger, Burke type superstructure with space for Flag. The AN/SPY-6(V) radar but with the 69 radar modules instead of the Burke's 39. A lot more sensitive. 122 VLS based on MK 57 so it can take larger cells. 2 5 inch guns. Separate space for the hypersonic and plenty of growth margin. Gas turbines but do a nuclear study just as a very remote possibility.

I like it, but I think that’s a larger hull than Zumwalt.

Approaching Trump BB class territory? Shrink it down to the 20-25k but keep the idea.

122 VLS (2xMk 41) and a 5” is 14k, so you are highly unlikely to get what is advertised on 16k.

20-25k is more likely, and even then you may not have sufficient room for growth.

We also have to keep in mind that both the railguns and the CIWS lasers are going to be available in fleet service by the time BBG-1 or CG-75 commissions, so we need to make sure that we have ample room and power to fit them.

Finally there’s the battle management system and all the electrical power and space that is going to require.

Hence why kitchen sink class is appropriate, because we’re going to be doing at least three roles - land attack, fleet air defense, fleet ASW defense - and probably a fourth, independent operations. And some of the proposed systems, like the hypersonic missiles, will be limited to a few ships in the fleet and not reloadable at sea, so we need to make sure we have sufficient magazine depth to allow for sustained engagement at sea.

So I fear that even 25k is going to become very small and cramped very fast.

[Johnnie Lyle]

Johnnie, I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't have anything except Presidential libraries for politicians until they've been dead for a decade. I will make an exception for people dying in the line of duty.

We largely don’t have a choice. If the price of having warships is naming them after unsavory people, fish don’t vote. Her captain and crew will bring her to life, and if shit hits the fan, they’ll take her into battle and turn an unsavory name holy.

God knows we objectively have some incredibly stupid names that mean a lot because their captains and crews met the moment asked of them.

Cause that’s what we do.

[Rocket J Squrriel]

122 VLS (2xMk 41) and a 5” is 14k, so you are highly unlikely to get what is advertised on 16k.

20-25k is more likely, and even then you may not have sufficient room for growth.

We also have to keep in mind that both the railguns and the CIWS lasers are going to be available in fleet service by the time BBG-1 or CG-75 commissions, so we need to make sure that we have ample room and power to fit them.

Finally there’s the battle management system and all the electrical power and space that is going to require.

Hence why kitchen sink class is appropriate, because we’re going to be doing at least three roles - land attack, fleet air defense, fleet ASW defense - and probably a fourth, independent operations. And some of the proposed systems, like the hypersonic missiles, will be limited to a few ships in the fleet and not reloadable at sea, so we need to make sure we have sufficient magazine depth to allow for sustained engagement at sea.

So I fear that even 25k is going to become very small and cramped very fast.

One last comment and then I'll be quiet.

It might be a dangerous idea considering how easy it could be screwed up but sub-classes? Same hulls, guns, engines, deckhouses but different concentrations of items. Some get the big SPY-6 version and the others the smaller ones but all linked. Different loadouts.
cruiser- Aerospace defense.
destroyer - general purpose with hypersonics
frigate - fleet ASW

[Johnnie Lyle]

122 VLS (2xMk 41) and a 5” is 14k, so you are highly unlikely to get what is advertised on 16k.

20-25k is more likely, and even then you may not have sufficient room for growth.

We also have to keep in mind that both the railguns and the CIWS lasers are going to be available in fleet service by the time BBG-1 or CG-75 commissions, so we need to make sure that we have ample room and power to fit them.

Finally there’s the battle management system and all the electrical power and space that is going to require.

Hence why kitchen sink class is appropriate, because we’re going to be doing at least three roles - land attack, fleet air defense, fleet ASW defense - and probably a fourth, independent operations. And some of the proposed systems, like the hypersonic missiles, will be limited to a few ships in the fleet and not reloadable at sea, so we need to make sure we have sufficient magazine depth to allow for sustained engagement at sea.

So I fear that even 25k is going to become very small and cramped very fast.

One last comment and then I'll be quiet.

It might be a dangerous idea considering how easy it could be screwed up but sub-classes? Same hulls, guns, engines, deckhouses but different concentrations of items. Some get the big SPY-6 version and the others the smaller ones but all linked. Different loadouts.
cruiser- Aerospace defense.
destroyer - general purpose with hypersonics
frigate - fleet ASW

Don’t be quiet. I was wrong once. Nobody died. Don’t be afraid to postulate things that might be wrong. Worst that happens is that you learn something.

We have seen a bit of that in the past. The KIDDs and the TICONDEROGAs were the air defense versions of the SPRUANCEs, which emphasized ASW and then land attack when they got their armored box launchers or replaced the ASROC with VLS.

However, the USN needs multi-role ships rather than big single purpose warships, because the USN mission changes on the daily. The only real single purpose warship we need is the presence warship, what the RN called the third class cruiser and the USN the peace cruiser. It’s job is essentially maritime policing crossed with high seas coast guard - and a crew that looks hot on parade and whose uniforms look great on my floor.

When it comes to serious combat, the world is sufficiently crazy that a big single purpose surface combatant would find itself the only warship available for a task it ill suited. Won’t stop them from sailing out anyway, because the Coast Guard doesn’t have a monopoly on “you have to go out, you don’t have to come back” - but a general purpose warship is more flexible than a single purpose one.

[Belushi TD]

However, the USN needs multi-role ships rather than big single purpose warships, because the USN mission changes on the daily. The only real single purpose warship we need is the presence warship, what the RN called the third class cruiser and the USN the peace cruiser. It’s job is essentially maritime policing crossed with high seas coast guard - and a crew that looks hot on parade and whose uniforms look great on my floor.

The bolded text made me laugh a lot more than it should have.

Belushi TD

[Johnnie Lyle]

However, the USN needs multi-role ships rather than big single purpose warships, because the USN mission changes on the daily. The only real single purpose warship we need is the presence warship, what the RN called the third class cruiser and the USN the peace cruiser. It’s job is essentially maritime policing crossed with high seas coast guard - and a crew that looks hot on parade and whose uniforms look great on my floor.

The bolded text made me laugh a lot more than it should have.

Belushi TD

It’s a snarky comment, but also somewhat true. Looking good in the uniform is an important recruiting tool and presence maintaining tool.

[Rocket J Squrriel]

Just read a CDR Salamander post about a letter the Chief of Naval Operations sent out on 04/24/2026
https://cdrsalamander.substack.com/p/sh ... he-amphibs

In short, Aviators will no longer get command slots on the amphibious ships. Instead, they will go to Surface Warfare Officers. Reason is the poor readiness state of the amphib fleet.

[Johnnie Lyle]

CDR Salamander also had a good post on the last go around on CG(x), and how the Navy has not gotten the large surface warships they wanted since at least the Carter Administration, and that we’re seeing the same trends today.

[Nightwatch2]

The last two are both excellent articles. He always has excellent articles.

A couple of points -

The “deep draft” commands are in the track to CV command for a reason. Those are the amphibs. So not clear at this point what will take the place of that rather critical step in career progression.

The BBG(X) will concentrate surface combat power, and resources, in a few hulls at ginormous expen$$$e. The CG(X) and DDG(X) programs are gone. Rather than 3 hulls at $40 billion a program that distributes a greater combat power across 5 or 6 cruiser hulls for the same $40B might be a worthwhile option that should be considered.

That consideration won’t happen of course because of the political situation, i.e., the Pres has spoken!

[Paul Nuttall]

Just curios, what was the usual incident rate for fires on board ship as it seems the USS Higgins, experienced an onboard fire while operating in the Indo-Pacific earlier this week, according to a Defense Department official cited by CBS News.