I'm not sure that very big ships are a great idea in the age of hypersonic anti-ship missiles and drones, but if you're going to build one, nuclear is the way to go.
Frigates can't project power ashore or engage in combat from distances. Nor can they cover amphibious operations. Battleships have longer loiter times and capabilities than does carrier-based (or land-based) air cover.
I'm not averse to battleships with these proposed modern weapons systems, but I do worry, even in this supposed new acquisition era, about those systems and how slowly and expensively they'll undergo "development" given DoD/contractor penchant for design creep and for mission creep. Look for the Navy to use the battleship program to insist that it's necessary to improve/redesign those carrier power plants rather than simply drop them into the battleship and do the (justified) improvement/redesign exclusively in the follow-on upgrade versions.
To mitigate design and mission creep, contractors pushing for either while not developing and producing what they're under contract for, need to suffer consequences up to and including loss of the contract by the contractor, termination for cause of the civilian contractor who allowed it, and retirement or reassignment to a combatant command the officer overseeing the contract. The design and production contracts should be final, with any changes assigned to subsequent Blocks/Versions, exclusively.
I'm also thinking about having goodies developed under these programs becoming government property rather than being contractor proprietary, possibly after a brief number of years, with the government licensing the goodies, on a will issue basis, for production. That would increase the upfront cost of the contract, but maybe lower the total cost over time and development. I haven't yet figured out how to make this aspect work.
I'm not sure that very big ships are a great idea in the age of hypersonic anti-ship missiles and drones, but if you're going to build one, nuclear is the way to go.
ReplyDeleteFrigates can't project power ashore or engage in combat from distances. Nor can they cover amphibious operations. Battleships have longer loiter times and capabilities than does carrier-based (or land-based) air cover.
DeleteI'm not averse to battleships with these proposed modern weapons systems, but I do worry, even in this supposed new acquisition era, about those systems and how slowly and expensively they'll undergo "development" given DoD/contractor penchant for design creep and for mission creep. Look for the Navy to use the battleship program to insist that it's necessary to improve/redesign those carrier power plants rather than simply drop them into the battleship and do the (justified) improvement/redesign exclusively in the follow-on upgrade versions.
To mitigate design and mission creep, contractors pushing for either while not developing and producing what they're under contract for, need to suffer consequences up to and including loss of the contract by the contractor, termination for cause of the civilian contractor who allowed it, and retirement or reassignment to a combatant command the officer overseeing the contract. The design and production contracts should be final, with any changes assigned to subsequent Blocks/Versions, exclusively.
I'm also thinking about having goodies developed under these programs becoming government property rather than being contractor proprietary, possibly after a brief number of years, with the government licensing the goodies, on a will issue basis, for production. That would increase the upfront cost of the contract, but maybe lower the total cost over time and development. I haven't yet figured out how to make this aspect work.
Eric Hines
Here's my vision for the Trump class battleship:
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/w6LFkMniuTk?si=vHzhAzdH4jCRiks4
- Tom
Somehow I knew before clicking through what that was going to be.
ReplyDeleteYou know me well ... But it might need a third reactor.
ReplyDelete