Actually we do have TBMD - for years, developed in conjunction with the Japanese. Can't remember which SM model they use but it exists and works. Ties in with CEC (cooperative engagement where control of the weapon passes from ship to ship or to aircraft or to ?) Then there are energy weapons. Nuclear power to create a lot of electrical power makes sense. So what exactly do you escort anything with.. submarines have no anti air capability. The Chinese are building carriers and cruisers so apparently they don't think the era is over either. Then there is space based weapons. So ship-ing isn't going anywhere so you must have some way of protecting it and to simply write off ideas off hand, probably shouldn't be done. We aren't in a position anymore to get the whole big picture. I don't think Trump by himself proposed this BBN or CGN. I wouldn't overlook the idea that this will promote a response out of our potential foes of them spending to counter it and China isn't as financially sound as they might outwardly appear. Reagan broke the soviet union with them spending to keep up. Iran has shown us that their own and a bunch of Chinese stuff isn't as effective as advertised. We remain effective at electronic warfare. If our space force is effective as well and turning off their ability to track us in fairly short order that would tend to change the picture a bit now wouldn't it. They have to fly air breathing stuff out to find and target us. Certainly our sub force needs to remain best in the world and also sized to do the job. If there is one thing we are short on is ASW air off the CVN these days. We only have the MH-60R now. We should have a S-4 Viking II or Tracker II or whatever we want to call it. We have no mid zone decent ranged ASW aircraft. Do we have enough P-8's? Do we control enough refueling? I doubt it on both aspects and I am not a big P-8 fan. I think it should have been more along the lines of the modern C-130 airframe with props and long long endurance. Honestly though the day of the seaplane might have a fresh start. The R3Y Tradewind 70 years ago was doing stuff that was pretty impressive even by today's standards but the engine package was a failure and the Navy was already looking to get out of the seaplane business. An amphibious ASW aircraft that could be supported off of a AFSB or other surface vessels suddenly has some utility again. I don't think we can write off the concept of anything that floats or flies and can carry a weapon just yet when it's possible our other systems can blind or defeat our potential foes over the horizon capabilities. We lack a surface combattant able to support an afloat staff. We have outgrown the DDG hull. The CG's were really barely bigger than the DDG's. The Zumwalt is a expensive failure and nobody seems to want to fix them. Nuclear makes a lot of sense. I watched a clip of CNO testifying about the BB and if he thinks it has promise, I would tend to want to see what we can get on the drawing board in the next year. On 5/20/2026 7:27 PM, Dan wrote:
Thanks for sending, Doug. It really gets my synapses snapping. Not that anyone cares what a ASW guy past his use-by date thinks...
I think it is a great discussion but I wonder if anyone is listening to these guys. They hit most of the top issues but I think that Capt Konrad is mostly wrong except for his endorsement of nuclear power should the BB ever be built. He is right about not being able to build one for $17MM... even if a modular design is adopted. Too many rent seekers in line.
The BB's will protect the logistics ships? How many does he want? One per VLCC? Merchant ships need protection close in but not far out to sea? Has he heard of the Russian and Chinese submarine forces? They don't have to predict the routes of the logistics ships, they can watch them from above from the time they "single up."
Cooper has it right in my view. CVN's and BB's are obsolete in today's world. I don't believe that the CVN's are invulnerable even at great distances from the area of contention. Not in an era of ICBM's, which even a two bit regime like North Korea has, and there is not defense against them as yet.
I think it is a debate that needs to be held, but for my money the Trump class is just a vanity project that puts all our chips on red. If there is a debate, it should include drones of every variety and systems that can defend against all types drones and hypersonic missiles.
When, if, the Democrats take over, all those cha-cha projects will be shut down and the White House ballroom will be razed. Just for starters.
The lead in on logistics is right on. The problem is that logistics is not sexy but it is the sine qua non of warfare in any age. Ask Admiral Nimitz (father of underway replenishment) or General Eisenhower. Many others going back centuries have demonstrated that, and the negative examples of Hitler and Napoleon in Russia reinforce the principle. A recent reminder:
“Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics.”
General Robert H. Barrow, USMC (27th Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps).
One more:
"Quantity has a quality of its own." Erroneously attributed to Joseph Stalin, but he would approve. It worked for him.
Captain Konrad is right about one thing: He bewails the fact that so much American know-how is operational in Korean and Chinese shipyards.
After all my time on CV's maybe I should wash my mouth out with soap. I will go do that now.
Dan
On 5/20/2026 6:52 PM, Bruce Engelhardt wrote:
Doug thanks for forwarding - after perusing this - I think nuc power the right decision - they will use FORD CLASS propulsion - no r&d. Pragmatically- if the administration can get it funded why not? It may be that it's not either BBGN or more or other warships. It might be a choice between BBGN or nothing. If we build it we need to make it lethal. I don't know about rail gun but lots and lots of missiles/drones/helos and UUVs would be great. Bruce ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* douglasburnett1972@gmail.com <douglasburnett1972@gmail.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 20, 2026 3:33 PM *To:* 'Lou Fifer' <louisfifer@gmail.com>; 'Bruce Engelhardt' <engelharbb@hotmail.com>; 'Dan' <gator41@allmail.net>; 'bruce valley' <brucevalley@earthlink.net>; 'Steven K. Berg' <skb1943@gmail.com>; 'Al Shively' <mooseshively@earthlink.net>; 'Brian Dennard' <bgdennard@gmail.com>; 'Marc Liebman' <marc@marcliebman.com>; 'Rich-Diana Goldsby' <regoldsby@msn.com>; 'Helobubbas' <helobubbas@helobubbas.com> *Subject:* The Great Battleship Debate
The Great Battleship Debate: gCaptain’s Konrad Takes On AEI’s Zack Cooper <https://gcaptain.com/250713-2/?subscriber=true&goal=0_f50174ef03-04110ac452-170322998&mc_cid=04110ac452&mc_eid=c68cbbc416>
The Defiant Class battleship proposed by the administration is now proposed to be nuclear powered. The cost is $17B before added nuclear power costs are considered. There are pros and cons about this new class of ship which may be multiple vessels. The Navy has been petty reserved in its comments other than artist conceptions of what it looks like.
If you open the link you will see an article but more important there is a video to a hourlong debate by a proponent for the battleship and by a critic of the battleship. I recommend that you listen to it because it brings out a lot of interesting points in terms of choke points, merchant ships, distributive fires, submarines, aircraft carriers and damage control. I have not seen anything like this debate and it is fun to watch. The moderator is one of the nation’s top merchant marine experts. Enjoy.
Doug
_______________________________________________ Helobubbas mailing list --helobubbas@helobubbas.com To unsubscribe send an email tohelobubbas-leave@helobubbas.com