I'd rather invest the BBG money in expanded shipyard capacity, better maintenance for the existing fleet, which i understand is a growing problem, and doing whatever needed to get a better FF in the water to boost numbers since they have given up on Constellation.

The BBG seems very B-10 to me.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, December 23, 2025 - 11:23 pm: Edit

There is a chance that this is A variation of Ronald Reagans “Star Wars” thing.

Convince the other side that they must invest huge money in a ever expanding arms race.

Worked for Reagan back in the 1980’s and helped push the U.S.S.R. Into bankruptcy.

Just a guess, but China has gone to an extreme ship building spree constructing so many ships they can’t keep up maintaining them all.

If the CCCP in China is stupid enough to try to build twice as many BBG ships as Trump has proposed, they risk losing everything they have built over the last 50+ years.

Another dozen companies have reported abandoning their investments in China, Ikea just this week being one of thelast group of companies.

China doesn’t post accurate statistics, but just from the various news reports massive unemployment now exists in China.

Nearly 10,000 banks are reported closed this week, depositors left without any form of protection for now lost deposits.

Say what you will about the current administration, but since taking office the stress on China’s economy has been significantly increased.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, December 24, 2025 - 03:04 am: Edit

What we have seen about the BBG would be impressive, but I cannot escape the feeling this is just a fever dream or a publicity stunt.

Ships about 37,000 tons, 850 by 110 feet, speed 36 knots. There will be a citadel with six inch armor.

Up front is a big gun, maybe a rail gun or a 155mm.
The B position has two five inch guns,
The C position has two defensive guns, something like CWIS or rolling airframe or SAM6.
Midships we have two big lasers (left and right), four Odin lasers (no idea) and the missile battery (a pathetic 128 cells) and a dozen cells for hypersonic nuclear capable missiles.
In the X and Y positions, we have some defensive weapons of some type.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, December 24, 2025 - 08:06 am: Edit

Two questions

1) What do you want
2) When do you want it

Fair to say the BBG is perhaps more a Pocket Battleship, rather than a real Battleship of up to WW2 era?

Is that going to give the psychological effect you want?

IMHO - probably not, if a CVN doesn't terrify your enemy, a BBG will not??

So, it goes back to my two questions.

1) Lots of ships
2) Sooner and not later

Doesn't the US Navy therefore need to realistically go back to the 18th Century to work out what ships are needed?

The Royal Navy arounnd 1799 had : -
144 Ship of the Line (I think SOL counts as 60 guns plus - other navies did have different definitions)
22 50's (Large Frigates)
200 Frigates
292 Sloops

So lets assume the 50's and SOL are the equivalent of Arleigh Burks's and above - and the US Navy has enough of them (noting you could say we want 20 CVN's- but know you can't afford 20!!!).

So - Frigates in this sense are probably the lower end of Destroyers now - and Sloops are smaller Frigates and Corvettes?

SOL's didn't rule the Seas (too valuable and too limited in numbers to be everywhere) - Frigates (and smaller) did.

So, we need lots of them - and they need to be multi-purpose (the Frigates of old did 'everything, everywhere').

So how about
New Frigate or Destroyer Escort*
Limited Armour
2 x 5.25 Guns
2 x CIWS/SAM6
64 Cell VLS
(16 being able to launch larger missiles say)
Room for 2 Helicopters/Drones
Modest ASW/Radar Systems

New Corvette or Light Frigate*
No Armour
1 x 5.25 Guns
2 x CIWS/SAM6
32 Cell VLS
(8 being able to launch larger missiles say)
Room for 1 Helicopter or 2 x Drones
Modest ASW/Radar Systems

* - Call them what you like!

16 Frigates and 32 Corvettes to be built in the initial run...

Overseas Shipyards buid the first 50%.... and home shipyards build the balance.

Frigate costs $$$ and a Covette costs $$

Plans take 3-6 months (Range/Speed defined and specifics**)
Working out Cost** and Deals take 3-6 months
First ships launched in a total of 3 years time.

** - Once your done on these - your done - no 'tweaking of this' as it will double time and triple costs.

If your committee can't ageee what the plans need to be - your appoint 1 person who has defined parammters' who does it. (And yes, person appointed is probably the accountant....)

Ask suppliers - who can acheive this?

If you can't, there is the door.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Wednesday, December 24, 2025 - 09:59 am: Edit

So, the image that claims to describe the systems for this "BBG" notes that it would have a diesel-electric propulsion system. It also notes that it would have a railgun. That's a pretty incompatible pairing.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, December 24, 2025 - 10:15 am: Edit

It is supposed to be designed to have plenty of power for future electrical needs. But I think this is just a fantasy. No "design" exists, just a handful of drawings various people did at various times for various reasons.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, December 24, 2025 - 12:06 pm: Edit

In other news, the border skirmishes between Cambodia vs Thailand has some early reports that the Chinese weapons that both sides are using are failing at surprising rates.

The VT-4 main battle tank, in particular, has significant issues.

Manufactured by China, and armed with a 125mm main gun, is not performing well.

First issue, appears to be manufacturing defect in the gun barrel, failures noted (with catastrophic failure) at 200 rounds. These include metal fatigue and burst barrels.

A number of tanks have been observed missing the gun altogether. At some point (in combat) the auto loader launches the gun out of the turret when after repeated firings, the part of the gun that is supposed to keep it in position, shears off.

In most cases, the crew is injured, but survivors are reported having survived the experience.

Not a good thing if you are assigned as part of a VT-4 tank crew.

By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Wednesday, December 24, 2025 - 12:54 pm: Edit

Two words Pipe Dream. How long to draw up plans, where to build, probably the only yards large enough with the facilities needed to handle a nuclear powered vessel is NewPort News. There is a shortage of experience ship builders already. If you want to build at the DDG 51 yards, you would need to expand the facilities, more money more people. First you have to build models or model them in a computer simulation to test the hydrodynamic qualities and performance. Thats all before construction even starts. Look at the Burkes for instance, First design studies done in the mid 19080s, first contract awarded in 1985, construction started in 1988 finished in 1991, now takes about 4 years to build. The BBG concept will be much more complicated, and will 1 or 2 ships meet the world wide needs. There is not enough shipyards to build many more.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, December 24, 2025 - 01:12 pm: Edit

Pipe dream?

Pehaps.

But a quick google search yields the following:

Navy shipbuilding plan would cost $1 trillion over the next ...To expand U.S. naval shipbuilding, new capacity would likely leverage existing large private yards (like Bath Iron Works (ME), Newport News (VA), Marinette (WI), Mobile (AL)) and potentially reopen/modernize old public ones (like Philadelphia) for diverse ships, focusing on areas with skilled labor (e.g., NC, Great Lakes, West Coast Bay Area) near strong metro areas, balancing coastal access with inland strategic depth, and boosting the whole supply chain.
Key Areas & Considerations:
Existing Private Shipyards: These are already building major warships (carriers, subs, destroyers, frigates, support ships) and could expand, including:
Newport News, VA (Huntington Ingalls): Carriers, subs.
Bath, ME (Bath Iron Works): Destroyers.
Marinette, WI (Fincantieri): Frigates.
Mobile, AL (Austal/HII): Smaller combatants, support.
San Diego, CA (NASSCO): Oilers, support.
Public Shipyards (Maintenance/Overhaul Focus): The four main ones (Norfolk, Portsmouth, Puget Sound, Pearl Harbor) focus on maintenance but could see increased work or potential new lines, notes NAVSEA.
Reopening/Revitalizing:
Philadelphia Naval Shipyard: Strong push to reopen this dormant site for major shipbuilding, notes this article from mybaseguide.com and Center for Maritime Strategy.
New Locations & Strategic Advantages:
Great Lakes (e.g., Ohio): Offers inland strategic depth, harder to attack, but needs workforce, notes The National Interest.
North Carolina: Strong supplier base and focus on workforce/apprenticeships, notes businessnc.com.
California Bay Area: Potential for new yards near existing naval hubs.
Workforce & Supply Chain: The biggest challenge is skilled labor; locations near growing metro areas (like NC or the Great Lakes) help, as does a strong supplier network, say U.S. Naval Institute and businessnc.com.

Obviously, this is a AI thing, so assume there are errors. YMMV.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Wednesday, December 24, 2025 - 03:54 pm: Edit

One other possibility, at least in my (alleged?) mind, is something that may cross the line into politics. If so, as always, I do apologize and ask for it to be deleted.

That said, President Trump is a man with many detractors, some of whom are, shall we say, extreme in their opinions of him. Could this announcement be something intended to trigger them?

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, December 24, 2025 - 04:00 pm: Edit

Well, you can't have everything.

One advantage of building a modest number, is you can hopefully spread it arounnd a abit, to keep several states happy.

But it is Christmas Eve.... so nothinng is impossible

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, December 24, 2025 - 04:34 pm: Edit

You couldn't build it in the Great Lakes. Based on the information given it's to big to get to the ocean.

Bath Iron Works
Austal/HII in Mobile
NASSCO in San Diego
HII Newport

These likely have the right size yards to build the ship.

Phily Naval Shipyard reopening would be good.

Building a new yard from scratch would be expensive. We could farm out some DDG production to Japan and/or South Korea since they make essentially the same ship already and are soon to get repair contracts from the Navy. Building in Hawaii is out of the question. Would have to ship be sea pretty much everything.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, December 24, 2025 - 05:53 pm: Edit

But even if trapped in the Great Lakes, it would protect us from Canada.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, December 24, 2025 - 10:58 pm: Edit

Kaiser shipyards (1941-45) built Frieghters, tankers, destroyer escorts and escort carriers.

A quick question on Google resulted in this:

Quote:” How Kaiser Built Carriers
Prefabrication: Kaiser revolutionized shipbuilding by building huge sections (blocks) of ships in assembly plants and then moving them to the slipways for final assembly, drastically cutting build times.
Escort Carriers (CVEs): Kaiser focused on escort carriers (CVEs) like the Bogue-class, which were converted merchant ship hulls, making them faster and cheaper to build than large fleet carriers.
Slipways & Docks: While details on specific carrier slipways aren't prominent, Kaiser's yards were massive operations with numerous slipways and building docks (like in Richmond, CA) to handle the large volume of ships, including these carriers, using their innovative methods.
Speed & Volume: This efficiency allowed them to build many carriers (50 small carriers mentioned in one source) in a fraction of the time it took traditional yards, crucial for the war effort.
In short, Kaiser's advanced methods included the necessary slipway infrastructure, but they leveraged it with prefabrication to build carriers (and countless other vessels) at unprecedented speeds. ”

By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Thursday, December 25, 2025 - 12:29 am: Edit

Jeff nothing larger than a frigate can be built on the great lakes. The maxdraft for the ST Lawrence seaway is 26.5 feet. Burkes range from 30.5 to 35.6 ft

By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Thursday, December 25, 2025 - 12:37 am: Edit

Jeff Bath can handle 780 by 105, BBG 840-880 by 105/115

By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Thursday, December 25, 2025 - 12:49 am: Edit

HHI in mississippi has built the American class which is 844 by 106, so maybe there.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Thursday, December 25, 2025 - 12:44 pm: Edit

The plan (pretending for a moment that this "BBG" is a real plan) is to build the thing in the Hanwha Philly Shipyard.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, December 25, 2025 - 01:54 pm: Edit

Just listened to the speech again, I do believe Jessica may have misstated what the President, Sec of War and the Secretary of the navy intend.

The phrase “competition between Shipyards” could mean multiple hulls under construction concurrently, the goal to being to encourage price competition between shipyards in different regions of the continental U.S. States, with the reward of follow on production of additional hulls and the most expensive yards not included in future contracts. They also specifically stated that the intended production run to be 20 to 25 hulls.

The problem is SVC nailed it with his observation about it being a publicity stunt. We will not know how serious this all is until we see completion of the first and second production sets.

No one has seen this kind of thing since the run up for WorldWar 1 and the contest between Britain and Imperial Germany.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, December 26, 2025 - 02:12 am: Edit

US bombs Islamic State targets in Nigeria. The Nigerian government said it gave a list of targets when Trump offered to send strikes to support their multi-year campaign against the militants.

For a guy who hates war, Trump seems to be looking for wars he can contribute to.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, December 26, 2025 - 05:36 am: Edit

Might be personal…

Having survived at least two attempted assassin attacks, any group that uses assassination tactics (which includes such groups as Islamic State) would certainly be of concern to the President.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, December 28, 2025 - 05:51 pm: Edit

Fox news, bay area in California, broadcast a story that Gov. Newsome is preparing to seize refineries to “prevent” economic damage caused by various oil companies closing said refineries in 2026. The story was immediately posted to you tube, which is where I viewed it.

In just the five hours since the release of the story, significant public opinions have been released both for and against the Governor’s anticipated seizure of private property.

It needs to be remembered that the potential exists for serious economic damage to states other than California alone.

Neither Arizona or Nevada currently have refineries or large oil reserves, and in Arizona’s case, thirty percent of the Gasoline and Diesel fuel is sourced in California.

All of the jet fuel used in LAX AND fuel for ships using Los Angeles harbor comes from the Phillips 66 refinery in Los Angeles (and also is one of the refineries already scheduled to be closed.) that same refinery currently supplies 8% of the total fuel consumption of California gasoline and diesel on an annual basis. Phillips 66 has given assurances that they would honor contracts to deliver fuel after the closure of the refinery, via imports from outside California… but at the same time the oil co spokesman was releasing the information, admitted that the still do not know how many tankers will be required, let alone whether there is sufficient existing capacity of American built tankers (see the Jones act for details.)

Is it possible, in this day and age, that NO ONE has explained to California legislators and its governor how supply and demand works?

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Sunday, December 28, 2025 - 06:09 pm: Edit

Jeff, have u read Atlas Shrugged?

--Mike

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Sunday, December 28, 2025 - 07:14 pm: Edit

Based on what I have been reading, Phillips's 66 and Valero have chosen to close one refinery each, leaving seven other refineries.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, December 28, 2025 - 07:38 pm: Edit

Mike, yes, I have, it was in 1975.

Thank you for reminding me!

I guess whatever is old, gets to be new again at some point.