US Navy will start making super-destroyer class ships in 2023

The US Navy will buy a new ship in 2023 which will be larger than a destroyer but which is not yet called a cruiser. It will be bigger and more expensive than the Arleigh Burke Flight III design and will have more room.

The US Ticonderoga class of guided missile cruisers was first ordered and authorized in the 1978 fiscal year. The cruisers displaced 9600 tons.

The most recent Arleigh Burke Flight block III displace 9600 tons.

The US Navy bought three super-advanced Zumwalt destroyers which displace 15,000 tons.

China’s new Type-055 destroyer displaces 12,000 to 13,000 tons.

It seems likely that the US will go for a 13,000-ton to 20,000-ton ship design with an integrated power system to support railguns and lasers. The US will build a larger hull and fill in the railgun and lasers and power systems at a later time.

The US previously canceled the CG(X) cruiser project. This would have been a 20,000 to 25,000-ton ship.

98 thoughts on “US Navy will start making super-destroyer class ships in 2023”

  1. This conception looks a lot closer to what should have come out of Bath Iron Works than the Zumwalts. More conservative, cheaper yet still effective design. Plus it probably would not do a nose dive in a following sea.

    Reply
  2. I really hate this comment system. I tried to post “I’m just curious, if the build these larger destroyers with integrated power systems what happens to them if neither railguns or shipboard lasers pan out???” but there an error so it said refresh and try again and when I did it complained about the comment being the same!!!! — This is where would curse if the comment system would let me do it! —

    Reply
  3. I really hate this comment system. I tried to post I’m just curious” if the build these larger destroyers with integrated power systems what happens to them if neither railguns or shipboard lasers pan out???”” but there an error so it said refresh and try again and when I did it complained about the comment being the same!!!! — This is where would curse if the comment system would let me do it! –“””

    Reply
  4. Tough China has already deployed integrated power system, railgun and laser on warships, and the American has them on the drawing board just yet, but the American will continue to insist the Chinese steal the technologies from them, and going to round up Chinese Americans for spying.

    Reply
  5. Rail guns and lasers are a done deal. It’s not a matter of whether or not they work. They do work, and they work incredibly well. It’s about building platforms that can handle the power requirements for such weapons. Rail guns dramatically increase the range of projectiles. Lasers have longer range; cannot be tracked; there’s no counter-measures; no running out of ammunition. One problem with rail guns though is the vibration literally rattles apart the system. However, the new designs incorporate a mag-lift system for the sled which practically eliminates the problem.

    Reply
  6. Tough China has already deployed integrated power system railgun and laser on warships and the American has them on the drawing board just yet but the American will continue to insist the Chinese steal the technologies from them and going to round up Chinese Americans for spying.

    Reply
  7. Rail guns and lasers are a done deal. It’s not a matter of whether or not they work. They do work and they work incredibly well. It’s about building platforms that can handle the power requirements for such weapons. Rail guns dramatically increase the range of projectiles. Lasers have longer range; cannot be tracked; there’s no counter-measures; no running out of ammunition. One problem with rail guns though is the vibration literally rattles apart the system. However the new designs incorporate a mag-lift system for the sled which practically eliminates the problem.

    Reply
  8. How about something the size of an aircraft carrier that is nothing but missile launchers from stem to stern with below decks used for missile storage. Your one stop shop for sovereign state destruction. I guess if you wanted to go over the top you could add point defense to the periphery of something that size..

    Reply
  9. British regulators stabbed us in the back by allowing China to buy Dynex Semiconductor which makes an insulated-gate bipolar transistor (IGBT) chip, which allows for near instant switching of very high electrical power which permits EMALS, high power lasers, and rail guns. They all need the same thing…the ability to get the power from a capacitor bank in an instant then shut it down exactly when you want. Not saying that just makes everything you need for these things, but it is a big piece of the puzzle.

    Reply
  10. I am not a big fan of lasers and rail guns. I don’t think they are ready for prime time yet. I would like to see a laser systems that can take out three concurrent anti-ship missiles as a time. And a railgun that can take a hundred shots in an hour and doesn’t need to be totally refurbished.

    Reply
  11. I would like the naval to work on ships that can take a lickin but would keep on tickin. Anti-ship missiles are too cheap and too good. No ships are safe. Design a ship take can take a hit or two and still work.

    Reply
  12. Arleigh Burke destroyers are already larger than the destroyers of the 40s and 50s, aren’t they? And we might as well develop a new class of ship: The Chinese stole the AB designs anyway.

    Reply
  13. How about something the size of an aircraft carrier that is nothing but missile launchers from stem to stern with below decks used for missile storage. Your one stop shop for sovereign state destruction. I guess if you wanted to go over the top you could add point defense to the periphery of something that size..

    Reply
  14. British regulators stabbed us in the back by allowing China to buy Dynex Semiconductor which makes an insulated-gate bipolar transistor (IGBT) chip which allows for near instant switching of very high electrical power which permits EMALS high power lasers and rail guns. They all need the same thing…the ability to get the power from a capacitor bank in an instant then shut it down exactly when you want.Not saying that just makes everything you need for these things but it is a big piece of the puzzle.

    Reply
  15. I am not a big fan of lasers and rail guns. I don’t think they are ready for prime time yet. I would like to see a laser systems that can take out three concurrent anti-ship missiles as a time. And a railgun that can take a hundred shots in an hour and doesn’t need to be totally refurbished.

    Reply
  16. I would like the naval to work on ships that can take a lickin but would keep on tickin. Anti-ship missiles are too cheap and too good. No ships are safe. Design a ship take can take a hit or two and still work.

    Reply
  17. Arleigh Burke destroyers are already larger than the destroyers of the 40s and 50s aren’t they?And we might as well develop a new class of ship: The Chinese stole the AB designs anyway.

    Reply
  18. The Zumwalt’s have an integrated power system, and had it a decade before the ChiComs did. Also, your ilk have never claimed to have a laser on board a warship, and they’ve been pretty silent about the railgun mockup they “tested” a while back, so that can’t have gone well now can it?

    Reply
  19. It is not like no one had ever heard of EMALS, high power lasers, and rail guns. These were all well known future technologies in development ten years ago.

    Reply
  20. You are so funny… I complain about a bug in the current system to which say basically that the old system had bugs too. 😉 Of course Brian could do that one better and remove the comment section so we wouldn’t have any bugs, EVER! 😉 😉 😉

    Reply
  21. This system is less buggy and less hackable by virtue of having zero features. Though I didn’t actually see any hacking with the old one, do you have examples?

    Reply
  22. By “stabbed in the back” you mean “allowed a sale of electrical equipment manufacturer to go ahead without anyone being aware that 10 years in the future such stuff could be applicable to new technological developments in the military

    Reply
  23. Problem with destroyer ships is that the destroyer ship would probably cost 1000x more or even 10000x more than a couple of reversed engineered Mach2 missiles that can sink the same ship . Iran has many of them

    Reply
  24. The Zumwalt’s have an integrated power system and had it a decade before the ChiComs did. Also your ilk have never claimed to have a laser on board a warship and they’ve been pretty silent about the railgun mockup they tested”” a while back”””” so that can’t have gone well now can it?”””

    Reply
  25. It is not like no one had ever heard of EMALS high power lasers and rail guns. These were all well known future technologies in development ten years ago.

    Reply
  26. You are so funny… I complain about a bug in the current system to which say basically that the old system had bugs too. 😉 Of course Brian could do that one better and remove the comment section so we wouldn’t have any bugs EVER! 😉 😉 😉

    Reply
  27. This system is less buggy and less hackable by virtue of having zero features.Though I didn’t actually see any hacking with the old one do you have examples?

    Reply
  28. By stabbed in the back”” you mean “”””allowed a sale of electrical equipment manufacturer to go ahead without anyone being aware that 10 years in the future such stuff could be applicable to new technological developments in the military”””””””

    Reply
  29. Problem with destroyer ships is that the destroyer ship would probably cost 1000x more or even 10000x more than a couple of reversed engineered Mach2 missiles that can sink the same ship . Iran has many of them

    Reply
  30. That is a big ship but it doesn’t have enough deck space. Picture something the size of a Ford Aircraft Carrier that is all missile tubes and storage. It would be a giant nuclear powered missile pod.

    Reply
  31. That is a big ship but it doesn’t have enough deck space. Picture something the size of a Ford Aircraft Carrier that is all missile tubes and storage. It would be a giant nuclear powered missile pod.

    Reply
  32. Doubtful unless they want to have their country exterminated. If you attack the US you had better kill it. You see what the US did to Japan and they just attacked an island and sank some ships. What do you think the US would do to a country that nuked their cities? No survivors.

    Reply
  33. Doubtful unless they want to have their country exterminated. If you attack the US you had better kill it. You see what the US did to Japan and they just attacked an island and sank some ships. What do you think the US would do to a country that nuked their cities? No survivors.

    Reply
  34. The design for a cruiser replacement has shown a few general needs that cannot be compromised on. They are room to add new systems, powerful electrical generation and modular flexability. However these requirements will be true for any new warship from frigate to carrier.However some areas are being neglected that result in design failures. These are the fixed requirements of specific war ship types. In this case we are referring to cruisers. They need high speed long range, good sea keeping and the ability to address any threat. I do not think enough thought has been put into these fixed requirements.Any new cruiser will primarily need to escort and protect carriers. That means high speed, good sea keeping, long range, extensive combat control and an air defense system. But that is just the traditional role of a cold war cruiser.In today’s navy they have many more tasks. Shore support and anti surface ability to name a few. I am sure there are more tasks navy professionals can name. To me this means big fast and stable. I see no way these three characteristics can come cheap or in a body slow single hull does it all. I think the LPD hull has room but I do not even know if it can be modified to generate the speeds neededI like the Zumwalt design but if it will sink in a storm what’s the point of using this design.Personally I think the navy needs to stop trying to over reach in trechnology and build a large conventional hull with weapons that are known to be effective. Regardless, this should have been done 10 years ago not now.

    Reply
  35. A couple of nukes in Washnigton DC and New York would effectively mean the death of the United States as a functional country And by the way, you just need to prove the US you have nukes in the territory , not even blow them up, to bring the americans to their knees

    Reply
  36. A couple of nukes in Washnigton DC and New York would effectively mean the death of the United States as a functional country And by the way you just need to prove the US you have nukes in the territory not even blow them up to bring the americans to their knees

    Reply
  37. A couple of nukes in Washnigton DC and New York would effectively mean the death of the United States as a functional country
    And by the way, you just need to prove the US you have nukes in the territory , not even blow them up, to bring the americans to their knees

    Reply
  38. Doubtful unless they want to have their country exterminated. If you attack the US you had better kill it. You see what the US did to Japan and they just attacked an island and sank some ships. What do you think the US would do to a country that nuked their cities? No survivors.

    Reply
  39. That is a big ship but it doesn’t have enough deck space. Picture something the size of a Ford Aircraft Carrier that is all missile tubes and storage. It would be a giant nuclear powered missile pod.

    Reply
  40. The Zumwalt’s have an integrated power system, and had it a decade before the ChiComs did. Also, your ilk have never claimed to have a laser on board a warship, and they’ve been pretty silent about the railgun mockup they “tested” a while back, so that can’t have gone well now can it?

    Reply
  41. You are so funny… I complain about a bug in the current system to which say basically that the old system had bugs too. 😉 Of course Brian could do that one better and remove the comment section so we wouldn’t have any bugs, EVER! 😉 😉 😉

    Reply
  42. By “stabbed in the back” you mean “allowed a sale of electrical equipment manufacturer to go ahead without anyone being aware that 10 years in the future such stuff could be applicable to new technological developments in the military”

    Reply
  43. Problem with destroyer ships is that the destroyer ship would probably cost 1000x more or even 10000x more than a couple of reversed engineered Mach2 missiles that can sink the same ship . Iran has many of them

    Reply
  44. How about something the size of an aircraft carrier that is nothing but missile launchers from stem to stern with below decks used for missile storage. Your one stop shop for sovereign state destruction.

    I guess if you wanted to go over the top you could add point defense to the periphery of something that size..

    Reply
  45. British regulators stabbed us in the back by allowing China to buy Dynex Semiconductor which makes an insulated-gate bipolar transistor (IGBT) chip, which allows for near instant switching of very high electrical power which permits EMALS, high power lasers, and rail guns. They all need the same thing…the ability to get the power from a capacitor bank in an instant then shut it down exactly when you want.
    Not saying that just makes everything you need for these things, but it is a big piece of the puzzle.

    Reply
  46. I am not a big fan of lasers and rail guns. I don’t think they are ready for prime time yet. I would like to see a laser systems that can take out three concurrent anti-ship missiles as a time. And a railgun that can take a hundred shots in an hour and doesn’t need to be totally refurbished.

    Reply
  47. I would like the naval to work on ships that can take a lickin but would keep on tickin. Anti-ship missiles are too cheap and too good. No ships are safe. Design a ship take can take a hit or two and still work.

    Reply
  48. Arleigh Burke destroyers are already larger than the destroyers of the 40s and 50s, aren’t they?

    And we might as well develop a new class of ship: The Chinese stole the AB designs anyway.

    Reply
  49. Tough China has already deployed integrated power system, railgun and laser on warships, and the American has them on the drawing board just yet, but the American will continue to insist the Chinese steal the technologies from them, and going to round up Chinese Americans for spying.

    Reply
  50. Rail guns and lasers are a done deal. It’s not a matter of whether or not they work. They do work, and they work incredibly well. It’s about building platforms that can handle the power requirements for such weapons. Rail guns dramatically increase the range of projectiles. Lasers have longer range; cannot be tracked; there’s no counter-measures; no running out of ammunition. One problem with rail guns though is the vibration literally rattles apart the system. However, the new designs incorporate a mag-lift system for the sled which practically eliminates the problem.

    Reply
  51. I really hate this comment system. I tried to post “I’m just curious, if the build these larger destroyers with integrated power systems what happens to them if neither railguns or shipboard lasers pan out???” but there an error so it said refresh and try again and when I did it complained about the comment being the same!!!! — This is where would curse if the comment system would let me do it! —

    Reply

Leave a Comment