The FY2027 NDAA embraces drones, AI, quantum technologies, resilient supply chains, and distributed manufacturing—but the real story is Congress beginning to think about war as a system.
Regarding the BBG(X), I agree that the ship in its current form is not mature enough. It relies too heavily on speculative and immature technologies, such as the electromagnetic railgun. Ultimately, the physical size of a warship predicates the size, height, and power output required to enable its radar to operate effectively.
For this reason, I strongly believe large surface combatants are vital to future force composition. That said, the BBG(X) design is both enormous and enormously expensive. Projections suggest that each vessel is likely to cost a similar amount to a Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier—albeit minus the air wing and with a smaller crew, which translates to far lower life-cycle costs.
Instead, I think the Navy should invest in large warships built in the vein of the DDG(X) at around 13,000 tons. Specifically, I would recommend a cruiser class of around 12 to 16 ships displacing 18,000 tons light to 25,000 tons at full load. This high mass could host a massive Vertical Launch System (VLS) capacity, expansive power-generation capabilities, and immensely powerful radars and sensors, while still undercutting the BBG(X) by 15,000 to 20,000 tons in displacement.
Great point reference the SWAP requirements for the radar. To what extent does proliferated (space-, surface-, and subsurface-based) mesh sensing obviate the need for a powerful single radar on a capital ship?
We'd agree on the DDG(X)-size being about the right size to maximize VLS capabilities. Adm. Trinque's stated concern about the ability to maximize VLS config on the DDG(X) should be addressable through automation creating a minimally-manned vessel. Regardless, we're at risk of being outgunned (in terms of number of tubes) by PLA/N, as they look to expand fleet size and work to increase missiles/VLS cell.
Regarding the BBG(X), I agree that the ship in its current form is not mature enough. It relies too heavily on speculative and immature technologies, such as the electromagnetic railgun. Ultimately, the physical size of a warship predicates the size, height, and power output required to enable its radar to operate effectively.
For this reason, I strongly believe large surface combatants are vital to future force composition. That said, the BBG(X) design is both enormous and enormously expensive. Projections suggest that each vessel is likely to cost a similar amount to a Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier—albeit minus the air wing and with a smaller crew, which translates to far lower life-cycle costs.
Instead, I think the Navy should invest in large warships built in the vein of the DDG(X) at around 13,000 tons. Specifically, I would recommend a cruiser class of around 12 to 16 ships displacing 18,000 tons light to 25,000 tons at full load. This high mass could host a massive Vertical Launch System (VLS) capacity, expansive power-generation capabilities, and immensely powerful radars and sensors, while still undercutting the BBG(X) by 15,000 to 20,000 tons in displacement.
Great point reference the SWAP requirements for the radar. To what extent does proliferated (space-, surface-, and subsurface-based) mesh sensing obviate the need for a powerful single radar on a capital ship?
We'd agree on the DDG(X)-size being about the right size to maximize VLS capabilities. Adm. Trinque's stated concern about the ability to maximize VLS config on the DDG(X) should be addressable through automation creating a minimally-manned vessel. Regardless, we're at risk of being outgunned (in terms of number of tubes) by PLA/N, as they look to expand fleet size and work to increase missiles/VLS cell.