Thread by @JamesRaxz

Okay let's look into this. Trump-class is not CG(X). We could use that. This, instead, is some confused thing that doesn't make any sense. So what would be the broad specs of a modern CG(X)? It's pretty simple ->

https://twitter.com/eimisweatrag/status/2003347673123029106

1) Big deck house and a lot of power to host a big SPY-6.
2) A lot of VLS cells. At least 128 and/or bigger than Mk.41
3) Sufficient facilities to command air defense.
4) A power system based on Zumwalt.
5) Not much accommodation for surface attack.

This confused thing betrays its nature by having both Mk41 VLS and CPS launchers.

So first of all, why would a CG(X) air defense cruiser dedicate substantial ship real-estate and mass to surface attack. But those on a destroyer. That's what it's for.

It can be an CG(X) air defense cruiser or it can be a multirole ship with CPS, but it cannot be both at the same time. And how will it most likely be used? As an air defense cruiser.

All those CPS cells should be VLS cells for SM-3s.

Now let's talk Mk41. The standard is decades old and while it's very versatile, it's design is dated and most of all, too narrow. As long ago as 2012, the Navy was mooting a new VLS with a wider diameter to accommodate a larger booster for a SM-3 Block IIB.

That never got made, but the idea is still valid: to better defeat ballistic missiles, especially better ICBM defeat, the booster to the SM_3s needs to grow, but it cannot within the confines of Mk41. So what are we doing saddling a ship we'll have into the 2080s years with it?

So the cruiser we want shouldn't even have Mk41. It should have a new modular standard like Lockheed's G-VLS that has somewhat greater diameter. That alone will take up more space for 128 cells vs Mk41, never mind having 200 cells or something.

If we consider what we need to put in VLS for just air defense in coming year - a mix of ESSMs, SM6s, SM2s, SM3s, and now Glide Phase Interceptor, we need cells because the diversity of the threat has only grown and each needs its own solution.

The Navy is in fact developing CAI, the Compat Agile Interceptor, to cram more air and missile and now hypersonic defense capability, within existing MK41s with a smaller diameter missile. That shows the urgency of the magazine depth problem.

How does CPS on this ship advance us on that front? It doesn't. That's why it should go on an actual DD(X), which this replaced.

And then you can get rid of the other non-air defense cruiser supporting crap like the rail gun (that doesn't exist yet and will be heavy).

Rip out the shit throw something like G-VLS on it with 200 cells, and you're probably looking at a 20,000t displacement cruiser build around air defense, as it should be. This, not surprisingly, was the CG(X) spec before this other crap got loaded on.

Furthermore this thing is likely to cost upwards of $10billion. CG(X) will probably be 40% less than that. DDG(X) half. Burkes F3, a third. For the cost of one of these with 128 cell VLS, you could get 3 Burkes and 288 cells of VLS.

There is no argument for this ship. The money is better spent on a real CG(X), two DDG(X)s or three Burkes.

I anticipate as described today, Trump-class will never be built but will morph into CG(X) as features are cut.

To me the tell is that they want to put a rail gun on it, but just doing that alone requires years of work from where they left off. And the Navy enthusiastically just removed AGS from ZUmwalt. Why not have another CPS where the railgun is on this? Or more VLS?

They put it there to make Trump happy. It's obscene. It's un-American. But it's how they're doing business. And I also think it's not happening.

In summary, sure, buy me a 20,000 ton CG(X).
Buy me a 14,000 ton DDG(X) or a Flight IV Burke with CPS support.
Buy me a FFG(X) with 48 cell VLS.
Buy me a L-USV with 32 cells.

But do not buy me this overpriced Frankenstein's monster of a boat.