BREAKING: The TRUMP CLASS BATTLESHIPS are coming to the U.S. Navy, with the first one being named t

[Atruepatriot]

It's Trump's ego.  No self-respecting naval officer would ever push this kind of stupid nonsense.

Unfortunately you are right. He can't help it, it is his root nature. We all supported that up front boldness and grandiose nature that got him elected, but at times it comes off as Megalomania. Everything is bigger, faster, more powerful, more Golden... This chapter is called MBGA... Make Battleships Great Again. I think he is a sucker for anything they tell him will "create jobs" even if it is illogical, irrational, or impractical. He hears "jobs" and that is it, he's all in without any further questions. So the MIC and Military Contractors are now taking advantage of this subliminal trait.

[Atruepatriot]

truepatriot brags:
"I founded and webmaster my own Conservative domain and forum"

And what would that be...?
Inquiring minds want to know.

You didn't ask that out of curiosity, you asked that because you question my integrity. To claim it was bragging is taking what I shared and why I shared it completely out of context. I only shared it to explain that my personal perspective is that if Individuals and Platforms in the Conservative movement do not support each other we are going to lose the war against the left. We will just cancel each other out and it will render us all ineffective. I am not in the habit of disrespecting other domains by joining just to spam our own. It is a known disrespectful forum community No No...

[jafo2010]

MeganC...

2. Aircraft carriers are not dominant warships. They are lightly armed floating airfields. Aircraft carriers have to be protected by frigates, destroyers, and submarines.

3. The battleship is a component of a navy. Just like an aircraft carrier, frigate, or submarine is. An aircraft carrier that sets to sea with a battleship in its task force will be better protected than it is today.

Megan,

Sorry to say, you have no idea what you are talking about.  Literally!

Your point 2, yes carriers have a screen because they are that valuable an asset.   A single carrier group can wage war on an enemy with extreme lethality.  They can attack hundreds of miles away with their aircraft causing untold devastation.  A battleship is slower than any of the other ships you mentioned, they were obsolete in 1941 when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and proved conclusively by sinking every battleship in our Pacific fleet or causing them serious damage, requiring years before they were seaworthy.

And worse, the US military and stupid *ss politicians were told TEN YEARS PRIOR TO PEARL HARBOR by Col Billy Mitchell that aircraft carrier planes would attack Pearl Harbor and destroy those ships you think are such an asset, and it would be done by the Japanese.  The stupid *ssholes court martialed him for his revelation.  Again, TEN YEARS PRIOR!!!!!!!!!!

The US Iowa and US New Jersey were some of the most modern battleships, and they sit either in mothballs or are museum pieces.  The US New Jersey was recommisoned again for the Vietnam War, but it was still obsolete in the 60s.  And it was active for only ONE YEAR, and then decommissioned again.  I shook my head at the idiocy and the wasted taxpayer dollars back then.

The cost to design, construct and bring them to active duty, the Trump class battleship would most likely build 1-2 aircraft carriers.  They will both require a similar screen as the aircraft carrier.  Adding them to a carrier and a screen do not project the lethality that smaller ships outfitted with missiles would be able to do at a fraction of the cost.  We could probably build 20-30 destroyers for what one of these battleships will cost.  A battleship does not have 10 times the lethality of these ships.

And a battleship moves much slower on the water, which would heighten the risk to the task force.   Their big guns would project out 20 miles maybe, would have to be well within the screen protecting it and the aircraft carrier.  So, it would provide  a greater threat to the aircraft carrier to have to move at speeds the battleship would move at.

LISTEN CAREFULLY...THE BATTLESHIP HAS NOT BEEN A COMPONENT OF ANY NAVY SINCE WWII, WITH A BRIEF PERIOD DURING THE VIETNAM WAR.  THEY DID NOT LAST THEN BECAUSE THEY WERE CONSIDERED OBSOLETE BY ALL THAT HAD A BRAIN IN THE 60S.  IT WAS A HUGE WASTE OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS.   THIS IS A FAR GREATER WASTE OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS.  TRUMP SAYS JUMP, AND THE WORLD MUST JUMP, EVEN IF THE IDEA IS NEARLY OBSOLETE FOR 90+ YEARS.

The idea that a battleship would add to the protection of a carrier fleet is laughable.  Now, rather than protecting one capital ship, the screen would have to protect two ships.  This would require more screen ships in the configuration to protect the two of them.  Any Navy man worth his salt would tell you this is idiocy. 

Even Wrecking Ball Joe wasn't dumb enough to embrace this idea.  If the do nothing Congress is worth getting re-elected, they would tell Trump to shelve this moronic idea.

To be clear, the battleship was obsolete during WWII, but back in the day, there was a large number of old timers who made their bones on battleships before carriers came along.  And when carriers were in their infancy, they proved to the Navy hierarchy that the BATTLESHIP WAS OBSOLETE, LONG BEFORE PEARL HARBOR.  And they had Col Mitchell's findings which they sh*t on and destroyed his career.  And the Japanese did exactly what any aviator could have told our idiot admirals in the years prior to the 1941 attack.

And last but not least, your comment that aircraft carriers are not dominant ships SCREAMS just how little you know about naval warfare.  They are the most dominant ship on the seas.  And the screens that protect them enable a carrier to project the single greatest conventional lethality short nuclear weapons in the whole world.  And they can use nuclear weapons if necessary too.  And they provide our forces on the ground protection from the air that the smaller conventional ships cannot do.  Even battleships would be limited to supporting ground forces to 20 +/- miles.  Again, the lethality is unparalleled to any other ship, which makes them the single greatest asset of any navy.

The Russians have but one carrier.  And every time it has set to sea, it barely makes it back to port without sinking.  Each time, they lose aircraft.  The Chinese have the sister ship to the Russian ship, and they have had nothing but problems.  They are in the process of building a 2nd aircraft carrier.  And eventually, the Chinese will figure out how to build one that functions correctly. 

I believe we currently have ten aircraft carriers in our fleet, and they are hands down the single most deadly ships in the world.

If battleships were worth having, countries would have them in their fleets, but they don't.  It is not a mystery why.  When it comes to cost, lethality, speed on the water, like I said, they were rendered obsolete 90+ years ago.

EVERY ADMIRAL SUGGESTING THIS TO TRUMP SHOULD BE TERMINATED IMMEDIATELY.  MY GUESS, IT IS LIBERAL OBAMA/BIDEN JERKOFFS SUGGESTING THIS NONSENSE TO SET TRUMP UP FOR EMBARASSMENT.

If Trump had been smart about it, he would have rifted the Obama/Biden generals and admirals, every last one of them.  Obama did.  He rifted 4,500 senior officers when he took office.  I am sure it was based on their political affiliation.  Heck, Trump just does not get the politics, not even in the military.  Have you forgotten that Gen Mark Milley told the Chinese communists that he would warn them if Trump did anything?  The man should have been court martialed and dispatched immediately after for treason.  This is the leadership in our military today, and Trump to my knowledge has not purged the ranks of these disloyal traitors.  Yes, the military is every bit as political as the media, as the stinking FBI, which should have been eliminated DAY ONE Trump took office. 

We have $37 TRILLION IN DEBT, the very last thing we should be spending money on is a battleship.  Right up there with Somali theft, it is squandering US taxpayer dollars.  I see no difference.  Where is the plan to halt the debt, to reduce the debt?  I do not see it.    But we have money to waste on this.  CONGRESS CONTROLS THE FUNDS, THEY SHOULD DEMAND EVERY MILITARY PUKE INVOLVED BE IMMEDIATELY TERMINATED.  IF HEGSETH IS SUPPORTING THIS STUPID IDEA, HE NEEDS TO GO TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jafo2010]

It was 1921 when Col Billy Mitchell proved to the Navy brass the superiority of naval aircraft over a battleship.

The events back then:

Key Demonstrations:

1921 (Project B): Billy Mitchell's bombing tests sank several warships, including the battleship Ostfriesland, proving aircraft could sink capital ships, though skeptics pointed to the ships being undefended.

1941 (HMS Prince of Wales): Japanese aircraft sank the modern, fully manned, and underway battleship HMS Prince of Wales in just days, proving to even the most ardent supporters that battleships were vulnerable in wartime, says.

World War II (General Era): Carrier-based aircraft became the primary naval weapon, delivering attacks from much greater distances than battleships could manage, solidifying the shift in naval power.

While Mitchell's 1921 tests were a crucial early warning, it took the dramatic events of World War II for the military world to fully accept that the aircraft carrier, not the battleship, was the new capital ship.

[Atruepatriot]

Megan,

Sorry to say, you have no idea what you are talking about.  Literally!

Your point 2, yes carriers have a screen because they are that valuable an asset.   A single carrier group can wage war on an enemy with extreme lethality.  They can attack hundreds of miles away with their aircraft causing untold devastation.  A battleship is slower than any of the other ships you mentioned, they were obsolete in 1941 when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and proved conclusively by sinking every battleship in our Pacific fleet or causing them serious damage, requiring years before they were seaworthy.

And worse, the US military and stupid *ss politicians were told TEN YEARS PRIOR TO PEARL HARBOR by Col Billy Mitchell that aircraft carrier planes would attack Pearl Harbor and destroy those ships you think are such an asset, and it would be done by the Japanese.  The stupid *ssholes court martialed him for his revelation.  Again, TEN YEARS PRIOR!!!!!!!!!!

The US Iowa and US New Jersey were some of the most modern battleships, and they sit either in mothballs or are museum pieces.  The US New Jersey was recommisoned again for the Vietnam War, but it was still obsolete in the 60s.  And it was active for only ONE YEAR, and then decommissioned again.  I shook my head at the idiocy and the wasted taxpayer dollars back then.

The cost to design, construct and bring them to active duty, the Trump class battleship would most likely build 1-2 aircraft carriers.  They will both require a similar screen as the aircraft carrier.  Adding them to a carrier and a screen do not project the lethality that smaller ships outfitted with missiles would be able to do at a fraction of the cost.  We could probably build 20-30 destroyers for what one of these battleships will cost.  A battleship does not have 10 times the lethality of these ships.

And a battleship moves much slower on the water, which would heighten the risk to the task force.   Their big guns would project out 20 miles maybe, would have to be well within the screen protecting it and the aircraft carrier.  So, it would provide  a greater threat to the aircraft carrier to have to move at speeds the battleship would move at.

LISTEN CAREFULLY...THE BATTLESHIP HAS NOT BEEN A COMPONENT OF ANY NAVY SINCE WWII, WITH A BRIEF PERIOD DURING THE VIETNAM WAR.  THEY DID NOT LAST THEN BECAUSE THEY WERE CONSIDERED OBSOLETE BY ALL THAT HAD A BRAIN IN THE 60S.  IT WAS A HUGE WASTE OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS.   THIS IS A FAR GREATER WASTE OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS.  TRUMP SAYS JUMP, AND THE WORLD MUST JUMP, EVEN IF THE IDEA IS NEARLY OBSOLETE FOR 90+ YEARS.

The idea that a battleship would add to the protection of a carrier fleet is laughable.  Now, rather than protecting one capital ship, the screen would have to protect two ships.  This would require more screen ships in the configuration to protect the two of them.  Any Navy man worth his salt would tell you this is idiocy. 

Even Wrecking Ball Joe wasn't dumb enough to embrace this idea.  If the do nothing Congress is worth getting re-elected, they would tell Trump to shelve this moronic idea.

To be clear, the battleship was obsolete during WWII, but back in the day, there was a large number of old timers who made their bones on battleships before carriers came along.  And when carriers were in their infancy, they proved to the Navy hierarchy that the BATTLESHIP WAS OBSOLETE, LONG BEFORE PEARL HARBOR.  And they had Col Mitchell's findings which they sh*t on and destroyed his career.  And the Japanese did exactly what any aviator could have told our idiot admirals in the years prior to the 1941 attack.

And last but not least, your comment that aircraft carriers are not dominant ships SCREAMS just how little you know about naval warfare.  They are the most dominant ship on the seas.  And the screens that protect them enable a carrier to project the single greatest conventional lethality short nuclear weapons in the whole world.  And they can use nuclear weapons if necessary too.  And they provide our forces on the ground protection from the air that the smaller conventional ships cannot do.  Even battleships would be limited to supporting ground forces to 20 +/- miles.  Again, the lethality is unparalleled to any other ship, which makes them the single greatest asset of any navy.

The Russians have but one carrier.  And every time it has set to sea, it barely makes it back to port without sinking.  Each time, they lose aircraft.  The Chinese have the sister ship to the Russian ship, and they have had nothing but problems.  They are in the process of building a 2nd aircraft carrier.  And eventually, the Chinese will figure out how to build one that functions correctly. 

I believe we currently have ten aircraft carriers in our fleet, and they are hands down the single most deadly ships in the world.

If battleships were worth having, countries would have them in their fleets, but they don't.  It is not a mystery why.  When it comes to cost, lethality, speed on the water, like I said, they were rendered obsolete 90+ years ago.

EVERY ADMIRAL SUGGESTING THIS TO TRUMP SHOULD BE TERMINATED IMMEDIATELY.  MY GUESS, IT IS LIBERAL OBAMA/BIDEN JERKOFFS SUGGESTING THIS NONSENSE TO SET TRUMP UP FOR EMBARASSMENT.

If Trump had been smart about it, he would have rifted the Obama/Biden generals and admirals, every last one of them.  Obama did.  He rifted 4,500 senior officers when he took office.  I am sure it was based on their political affiliation.  Heck, Trump just does not get the politics, not even in the military.  Have you forgotten that Gen Mark Milley told the Chinese communists that he would warn them if Trump did anything?  The man should have been court martialed and dispatched immediately after for treason.  This is the leadership in our military today, and Trump to my knowledge has not purged the ranks of these disloyal traitors.  Yes, the military is every bit as political as the media, as the stinking FBI, which should have been eliminated DAY ONE Trump took office. 

We have $37 TRILLION IN DEBT, the very last thing we should be spending money on is a battleship.  Right up there with Somali theft, it is squandering US taxpayer dollars.  I see no difference.  Where is the plan to halt the debt, to reduce the debt?  I do not see it.    But we have money to waste on this.  CONGRESS CONTROLS THE FUNDS, THEY SHOULD DEMAND EVERY MILITARY PUKE INVOLVED BE IMMEDIATELY TERMINATED.  IF HEGSETH IS SUPPORTING THIS STUPID IDEA, HE NEEDS TO GO TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You just shared some cool history here, and I learned from it. But may I share a perspective from the true bigger picture? This whole debate about the practicality of Battleships might be completely unnecessary and wasted effort. The reality is, General Dynamics will be receiving all this funding. And once GD gets the money in their bank they will most likely redirect it in their operations to produce other technology and not even spend any of it on actual Battleships.

This is how money is redirected into Black projects. GD is a very diverse Military Contractor that dabbles in a whole lot of directions, and many of them highly classified operations and production. So while the psyop keyword is "Battleships" the true technology this money goes into will most likely be something completely different and classified.

Funding MIC projects is like giving your teenage kid money for the arcade and then have them go out partying with it instead. They lie about why they actually want it and the Pentagon covers for them.

[Timber Rattler]

And last but not least, your comment that aircraft carriers are not dominant ships SCREAMS just how little you know about naval warfare.  They are the most dominant ship on the seas.  And the screens that protect them enable a carrier to project the single greatest conventional lethality short nuclear weapons in the whole world.  And they can use nuclear weapons if necessary too.  And they provide our forces on the ground protection from the air that the smaller conventional ships cannot do.  Even battleships would be limited to supporting ground forces to 20 +/- miles.  Again, the lethality is unparalleled to any other ship, which makes them the single greatest asset of any navy.

I disagree to an extent.  I think that submarines are now the dominant ships in the Navy since, as the old joke goes, CVs are nothing but big fat targets.  So I think you're both right.  However, the Iowa class BBs were in fact designed to keep up with the fast CVs during WWII, with a top speed of 33 knots (38 mph).  However, they are indeed obsolete now, and the Navy has no way with which to properly crew them since it takes at least 1,500 sailors to man them.  And plus the 1940s technological know-how for operating its core systems, big guns, and engines no longer exists, and all its 16-inch shells were disposed of by the Army in 2016. 

So the technology being what it is today, in my humble opinion, what the 21st century U.S. Navy needs are lots of submarines, smaller frigates (for convoy duty and "waving the flag"), a few cruiser/destroyers for doing the surface warfare grunt work, and about 10 smaller fast carriers to provide the mobile air bases to project power inland.  The Ford is an abomination and I think that it would be located and sunk fast by the ChiComs when war finally breaks out in the pacific with the ChiComs.

As to how we got to this state of affairs, I can't post this story enough:

'The last supper': How a 1993 Pentagon dinner reshaped the defense industry

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2023/03/01/the-last-supper-how-a-1993-pentagon-dinner-reshaped-the-defense-industry

They had made very clear what they could afford and they were going to pay for companies that had one third of all factories and inefficiencies to go with that. And they said that the government was not in the business of redesigning companies or consolidating industries or putting people in or out of business. That was up to us, the CEOs of the companies that were in the industry at the time.

And that was quite an awakening, they heard from the Defense Department on how small an industry would be afforded. And I should add to that that in serious war time, the defense industrial base is really the national industrial base. And it too had manufacturing was severely declining at the same time. And in 1980, 18% of the workforce in the nation was in the manufacturing world. Shortly after the Last Supper it was 7%. So the commercial industrial base was declining and the defense industrial was going to decline. Big worry for any future need for large scale military equipment.

Another Last Supper and a New Era of Defense Giants

https://warontherocks.com/2025/05/another-last-supper-and-a-new-era-of-defense-giants/

The merging of the defense-industrial base in the 1990s created clear horizontal market leaders defined by an era dominated by platforms: Lockheed Martin claimed the skies, General Dynamics commanded the land, Northrop Grumman secured space, Raytheon dominated missiles and electronics, and Boeing straddled commercial and military aviation. This horizontal segmentation mirrored the strategic realities of late Cold War military doctrine, where distinct domains of warfare operated with relative independence. Military operations were compartmentalized by service branches with distinct requirements, budgets, and acquisition processes, naturally leading defense companies to organize themselves around these same domain-specific structures.

[MeganC]

Battle ships are outmoded, as outmoded as the two wheeled chariot is or the blunderbuss.

Pull your head out of your ass.

Trump is not proposing to build Iowa Class battleships. He is proposing to build modern capital ships. At least read the proposal before you ignorantly criticize it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump-class_battleship

The Trump class is the name announced by U.S. President Donald Trump for a proposed class of guided-missile battleships for the United States Navy in a press conference in December 2025.[2][3][4][1] The class is also known as BBG(X) in some Navy documents,[5] and is intended to initially consist of the lead ship USS Defiant (BBG-1) and an as-yet unnamed other vessel. Once commissioned, the class is expected to add a nuclear-capable cruise missile option to the U.S. Navy surface fleet.[6]

Ships of the class are planned to include, as part of their primary battery, a Surface-Launched Cruise Missile-Nuclear (SLCM-N) system, a 12-cell Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) hypersonic missile system, and a 128-cell Mark 41 vertical launching system (VLS).

A secondary battery is planned to consist of a 32-megajoule electromagnetic railgun, two 5-inch (127 mm) guns, and a pair of 300kW lasers. A defensive battery is planned with two RAM launchers, four 30mm guns, four ODIN lasers, and two anti-drone systems.[16]

The ships are also planned to have an enclosed hangar for VTOL aircraft such as the V-22 Osprey and other, future vertical-lift manned and unmanned aircraft.[1]


^^^^^

Does any of that resemble an Iowa Class? No, it does not.

So stop bringing up old, obsolete ships from EIGHTY YEARS AGO when that's not at all what's being proposed. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Trump should propose a giant robot instead.

[MeganC]

Trump should propose a giant robot instead.

Why not? Japan is doing it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-6AKJZ6ovk

[BobfromWB]

Back to the  subject on this thread, the Trump class battleship, one question....WHY?

If anything, I thought one of the primary lessons that evolved immediately out of World War II was that battleships were obsolete.  So, again, WHY waste this money now?

We have 11, 12 top nuclear powered aircraft carriers, and they I believe are still the dominant warship of the oceans.  I would rather see another aircraft carrier than a battleship.  The aircraft carrier would be far more lethal and effective than any battleship.

Makes no sense to me!!!

They need something to take the place of the retiring 1981 Ticonderoga class with the loss of 122 VLS cells for each of the 7 operational ships. Other successors had been planned, but were cancelled.

The Trump class will have 128-130 VLS cells. 2 Ships are planned with 8 more in the first batch, following batches could see 20-25 more built.

[MeganC]

They need something to take the place of the retiring 1981 Ticonderoga class with the loss of 122 VLS cells for each of the 7 operational ships. Other successors had been planned, but were cancelled.

The Trump class will have 128-130 VLS cells. 2 Ships are planned with 8 more in the first batch, following batches could see 20-25 more built.

 

[BobfromWB]

Yes, it needs to be explained what has changed over the past 30 years.  Technology?  Capability?  Nature of the threat?

What?

See answer above - but the major reason is the retirement of the 1981 Ticonderoga class and the loss of 122 VLS cells in each of the 7 remaining ships.

[Kamaji]

Pull your head out of your ass.

Trump is not proposing to build Iowa Class battleships. He is proposing to build modern capital ships. At least read the proposal before you ignorantly criticize it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump-class_battleship

The Trump class is the name announced by U.S. President Donald Trump for a proposed class of guided-missile battleships for the United States Navy in a press conference in December 2025.[2][3][4][1] The class is also known as BBG(X) in some Navy documents,[5] and is intended to initially consist of the lead ship USS Defiant (BBG-1) and an as-yet unnamed other vessel. Once commissioned, the class is expected to add a nuclear-capable cruise missile option to the U.S. Navy surface fleet.[6]

Ships of the class are planned to include, as part of their primary battery, a Surface-Launched Cruise Missile-Nuclear (SLCM-N) system, a 12-cell Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) hypersonic missile system, and a 128-cell Mark 41 vertical launching system (VLS).

A secondary battery is planned to consist of a 32-megajoule electromagnetic railgun, two 5-inch (127 mm) guns, and a pair of 300kW lasers. A defensive battery is planned with two RAM launchers, four 30mm guns, four ODIN lasers, and two anti-drone systems.[16]

The ships are also planned to have an enclosed hangar for VTOL aircraft such as the V-22 Osprey and other, future vertical-lift manned and unmanned aircraft.[1]


^^^^^

Does any of that resemble an Iowa Class? No, it does not.

So stop bringing up old, obsolete ships from EIGHTY YEARS AGO when that's not at all what's being proposed. 

I’d suggest you do the same, but that would be giving you way too much credit. 

You clearly know nothing about either military strategy or naval strategy in particular. 

And yes, I know your daddy was a 20-star admiral who taught you in-depth naval doctrine since before you could walk.

[MeganC]

You clearly know nothing about either military strategy or naval strategy in particular. 

I know that aircraft carriers are lightly armed and have to be defended by a cordon of submarines and heavily armed warships. The carrier air group then provides cover to the carrier task force.

I also know that you're having a childish tizzy fit because this new ship is being called a battleship and if it were instead the exact same ship but called a destroyer or a frigate then and only then would your dull, unimaginative mind accept it without a second thought.

That's your real objection here is the designation and the fact that you are stuck thinking it's going to be a copy of a 1940's Iowa Class.

[Kamaji]

I know that aircraft carriers are lightly armed and have to be defended by a cordon of submarines and heavily armed warships. The carrier air group then provides cover to the carrier task force.

I also know that you're having a childish tizzy fit because this new ship is being called a battleship and if it were instead the exact same ship but called a destroyer or a frigate then and only then would your dull, unimaginative mind accept it without a second thought.

That's your real objection here is the designation and the fact that you are stuck thinking it's going to be a copy of a 1940's Iowa Class.

No dearie.  You don’t know jack shit. 

No doubt, Donald Trump could paint a bathtub gold, put a stopper in the drain, and call it a battleship and you’d swoon all over it.

[MeganC]

No dearie.  You don’t know jack shit. 

You're the one who insists that Trump wants to build a pointless Iowa Class when that's not at all what's been proposed.

Reading is fundamental. Try it.

[BobfromWB]

And a battleship moves much slower on the water,

Everyone is hung up of the world "battleship" which 47 used. The ship proposed is basically the replacement for the Ticonderoga cruiser and their VLS cells, as I tried to explain above. This will be the 3rd redesign of their successor, all of the others having been cancelled for various reasons.

Would it be cheaper to make a Arleigh Burke or a Ticonderoga successor? I can't answer that, but now days modern naval warfare demands high energy output for: SPY-6 Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR), lasers, and rail guns [ all of which are initially included in the design ]; that demands a huge power source, which just maybe too big to fit into the other 2 designs along with the necessary radar, and com gear.

The Navy has pretty much reached the limits of what it can install on existing ships. New designs and weapons simply cannot be installed on these ships without creating stability issues with the increased above water line weight. They demand a larger ship, as do the weapons and radar demand larger power supplies - with huge reserves to draw on with fast replenishment.

Like all ships in the current carrier battle groups, it must be able to keep up with the carrier's 30plus knots. It will not be slower, and could be faster, given the size of the power plant and the size of the wheel it will swing.

The Russian carrier was scrapped last year. No replacement. Russian naval money seems to go toward submarines, but sanctions are hurting them for the needed replacement parts.

[Kamaji]

Everyone is hung up of the world "battleship" which 47 used. The ship proposed is basically the replacement for the Ticonderoga cruiser and their VLS cells, as I tried to explain above. This will be the 3rd redesign of their successor, all of the others having been cancelled for various reasons.

Would it be cheaper to make a Arleigh Burke or a Ticonderoga successor? I can't answer that, but now days modern naval warfare demands high energy output for: SPY-6 Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR), lasers, and rail guns [ all of which are initially included in the design ]; that demands a huge power source, which just maybe too big to fit into the other 2 designs along with the necessary radar, and com gear.

The Navy has pretty much reached the limits of what it can install on existing ships. New designs and weapons simply cannot be installed on these ships without creating stability issues with the increased above water line weight. They demand a larger ship, as do the weapons and radar demand larger power supplies - with huge reserves to draw on with fast replenishment.

Like all ships in the current carrier battle groups, it must be able to keep up with the carrier's 30plus knots. It will not be slower, and could be faster, given the size of the power plant and the size of the wheel it will swing.

The Russian carrier was scrapped last year. No replacement. Russian naval money seems to go toward submarines, but sanctions are hurting them for the needed replacement parts.

Largely because the term “battleship” necessarily connotes a fairly specific set of attributes and roles in warfare.

If the term does not, in fact, carry those connotations, then every naval vessel to which a weapon might be attached, and which might end up running into a potential adversary, would be a battle ship simply because (a) it’s a ship - we’ll leave the Navy’s dinghys out of it for now, and (b) it could end up participating in a battle.

In other words, just because every automobile with a tight suspension is both a vehicle and has usefulness, does not mean that every motorized four wheeled conveyance is an SUV.

So, if what we’re really talking about is either (a) modernizing a different platform with different salient characteristics, or (b) developing a new class of military oceangoing vessel, let’s be clear about it and not play stupid word games.

A battleship, as a type of vessel with certain characteristics and roles, is outmoded and would be a waste of money and a lovely magnet for Chinese missiles without providing sufficient value-add.

[MeganC]

A battleship, as a type of vessel with certain characteristics and roles, is outmoded

No, just what you think a battleship must be is outmoded.

And where is the rule that a battleship must conform to any particular model in order to be a first rate ship of the line?

A battleship is essentially the biggest, most heavily armed, most heavily armored, most fearsome ship in the fleet.

A modern battleship necessarily will be armed with missiles and modern guns. Sixteen inch rifles are nice but obsolete. No one is legitimately proposing to bring them back.

But you can arm a modern armored battleship with a variety of modern artillery, modern missiles, and modern defenses. And that is what is being proposed.

[GtHawk]

Trump should propose a giant robot instead.

He could call it Gigantor Trump, kind of like this but orange with gold highlights and of course the hair.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sb7AEigrywo

[Kamaji]

No, just what you think a battleship must be is outmoded.

And where is the rule that a battleship must conform to any particular model in order to be a first rate ship of the line?

A battleship is essentially the biggest, most heavily armed, most heavily armored, most fearsome ship in the fleet.

A modern battleship necessarily will be armed with missiles and modern guns. Sixteen inch rifles are nice but obsolete. No one is legitimately proposing to bring them back.

But you can arm a modern armored battleship with a variety of modern artillery, modern missiles, and modern defenses. And that is what is being proposed.

Then it won't be a battleship, dearie.  I know it's kind of hard to handle such advanced thinking, but if I start with a Porsche 911, put in frame rails and hardware to support a diesel up front, install a diesel truck motor, remove the rear body panels and put in a bed from an old El Camino, then adjust the brakes and suspension to handle the different loads, it's no longer a sports car, regardless of whether the title and registration still say "Porsche 911" or not.

[BobfromWB]

All navy ships everywhere are classed on displacement. Corvette class, destroyer class, frigate class, cruiser class, battleships class [ aircraft carriers are the exception ], with corvettes being the lowest displacement and battleships being the largest displacement. Classifications are not based on appearance or armament carried.

Trump's ship is by definition a battleship, due to it very large displacement. Arguing that a battleship has to look a certain way or carry certain armaments is against naval ship classifications.

[Timber Rattler]

No dearie.  You don’t know jack shit. 

No doubt, Donald Trump could paint a bathtub gold, put a stopper in the drain, and call it a battleship and you’d swoon all over it.

OK, enough mudslinging at each other @Kamaji @MeganC.  We're all friends here debating naval technology and strategy, so lets be nice to each other.  This ain't TOS and you're both friends of mine so I hate seeing you argue like this with the cussing and name calling. 



 

[MeganC]

Then it won't be a battleship, dearie.  I know it's kind of hard to handle such advanced thinking, but if I start with a Porsche 911, put in frame rails and hardware to support a diesel up front, install a diesel truck motor, remove the rear body panels and put in a bed from an old El Camino, then adjust the brakes and suspension to handle the different loads, it's no longer a sports car, regardless of whether the title and registration still say "Porsche 911" or not.

If Porsche decides to make the next model of their 911 have frame rails and the hardware to support a Cummins diesel, and they give it a bed large enough to carry your old El Camino, and then they adjust the brakes and suspension to handle the different loads, then it's still a Porsche 911 regardless of your inability to wrap your head around the concept.

Likewise a modern battleship no more has to resemble your stubborn old fogey Iowa Class requirements than the Iowa Class battleships had to conform to the requirements of the 90-gun 1850 French battleship, Napoléon.

 

[MeganC]

OK, enough mudslinging at each other @Kamaji @MeganC.  We're all friends here debating naval technology and strategy, so lets be nice to each other.  This ain't TOS and you're both friends of mine so I hate seeing you argue like this with the cussing and name calling. 



 

I was being nice.

This is about what I look like when I am not being nice:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYxVGBGr6BI&list=RDBYxVGBGr6BI&start_radio=1

[MeganC]

@Kamaji

Merry Christmas to both of you! 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I could see Trump proposing the army build a real life voltron robot.

[MeganC]

I could see Trump proposing the army build a real life voltron robot.

Voltron was pretty cool! 

[txradioguy]

We have $37 TRILLION IN DEBT, the very last thing we should be spending money on is a battleship.  Right up there with Somali theft, it is squandering US taxpayer dollars.  I see no difference.  Where is the plan to halt the debt, to reduce the debt?  I do not see it.    But we have money to waste on this.  CONGRESS CONTROLS THE FUNDS, THEY SHOULD DEMAND EVERY MILITARY PUKE INVOLVED BE IMMEDIATELY TERMINATED.  IF HEGSETH IS SUPPORTING THIS STUPID IDEA, HE NEEDS TO GO TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@jafo2010 We're not 37 billion in debt because of our spending on Defense and building two new BB's won't contribute to that debt either.  Our Navy is woefully short the ships we need to do what our Navy is supposed to do.  Our ship building capabilities have declined to a dangerous point.  Reviving naval ship building and reviving those naval shipyards will be an economic boon.


We have some real world issues just beyond the horizon that will need to be dealt with militarily and ships that pack a big punch like a modernized battleship will be needed. 


The fact that you don't see the difference between the need to spend for the military to defend this nation from countries that are actively planning for and building the military might to take us down and Somali's scamming the country out of billions is actually tragic and shows a very short sightedness on your part.

[txradioguy]

I could see Trump proposing the army build a real life voltron robot.

DARPA and Natick Labs probably already are.  For all we know they've been working on it for years LOL!

[Smokin Joe]

No, just what you think a battleship must be is outmoded.

And where is the rule that a battleship must conform to any particular model in order to be a first rate ship of the line?

A battleship is essentially the biggest, most heavily armed, most heavily armored, most fearsome ship in the fleet.

A modern battleship necessarily will be armed with missiles and modern guns. Sixteen inch rifles are nice but obsolete. No one is legitimately proposing to bring them back.

But you can arm a modern armored battleship with a variety of modern artillery, modern missiles, and modern defenses. And that is what is being proposed.

Add in lasers and railguns, which require beaucoup power. That will take a larger hull than existing vessels, and it is likely it will move fast enough (have the power) to keep up with the fleet.

[txradioguy]

Add in lasers and railguns, which require beaucoup power. That will take a larger hull than existing vessels, and it is likely it will move fast enough (have the power) to keep up with the fleet.

I've always thought they could just hollow out the current BB hulls and reload them with all the new tech.  They've got the speed and if you replace the boilers with a couple of nuclear reactors you've got all the power you need for the rail guns and the speed a ship like that requires.

[Smokin Joe]

I've always thought they could just hollow out the current BB hulls and reload them with all the new tech.  They've got the speed and if you replace the boilers with a couple of nuclear reactors you've got all the power you need for the rail guns and the speed a ship like that requires.

Most of them are museums, and it's hard to say what effect the last 80 years of corrosion have had on the hulls. A new, purpose built hull might be better, despite the question of an armor belt to help ward off torpedo/drone damage. Analysis of the damage to the Cole should give the designers some idea of what they'd be up against insofar as armor goes.

But it should be able to make speed with the rest of the fleet (carriers are fast to get wind across the deck for launching and retrieving aircraft) and reactors would ensure they can continue to keep up for as long as needed ans still fire electricity hungry weapons.

[txradioguy]

Most of them are museums, and it's hard to say what effect the last 80 years of corrosion have had on the hulls. A new, purpose built hull might be better, despite the question of an armor belt to help ward off torpedo/drone damage. Analysis of the damage to the Cole should give the designers some idea of what they'd be up against insofar as armor goes.

But it should be able to make speed with the rest of the fleet (carriers are fast to get wind across the deck for launching and retrieving aircraft) and reactors would ensure they can continue to keep up for as long as needed ans still fire electricity hungry weapons.

I know that the New Jersey just went through dry dock for the first time in 30 years and IIRC the most extensive work that had to be done was replacing the teak decking.  The hull itself was in pretty good shape...probably because of it being thoroughly worked over in 1982 when Reagan brought it out of mothballs.

The Iowa class BB's could make 35 knots on steam power.  The Ford class carrier top speed is classified but open source info says they top 30 knots and the Nimitz class carriers top speed is 30 knots.

[BobfromWB]

I know that the New Jersey just went through dry dock for the first time in 30 years and IIRC the most extensive work that had to be done was replacing the teak decking.  The hull itself was in pretty good shape...probably because of it being thoroughly worked over in 1982 when Reagan brought it out of mothballs.

The Iowa class BB's could make 35 knots on steam power.  The Ford class carrier top speed is classified but open source info says they top 30 knots and the Nimitz class carriers top speed is 30 knots.

Top speed is likely 2X that. Based on where a carrier was and how quickly it go to Pearl.

[BobfromWB]

Armor on US battleships - question asked on AI

Q: Can steel foundries make the same armor today?

A: Modern steel foundries can produce armor of the same or superior quality to that used on WWII-era U.S. battleships, but the specific industrial capacity to manufacture the very largest single plates (like those for turret faces or thick belts) is no longer active.

The specialized production of battleship armor was centered at facilities like Bethlehem Steel, which no longer exists for this purpose ( its former site is now an event space ). The exact processes for rolling and heat-treating massive plates of Class B armor and Special Treatment Steel (STS) are considered a "lost art" in terms of immediate, large-scale industrial capability.

However, the metallurgical knowledge remains, and modern advancements in steel production, welding, and composite materials mean that a nation could re-develop and produce equivalent or better armor, if needed. Modern high-strength steels like HY-80, which evolved from STS, are already used in submarines and offer excellent protection. The primary barrier is not technical feasibility, but the lack of demand and dedicated production lines for such specialized, large-scale naval armor.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Maybe this is the sort of thing that Trump should delegate? 

[MeganC]

Top speed is likely 2X that. Based on where a carrier was and how quickly it go to Pearl.

Agreed. Someone on FR once noted a public report of the Reagan going x miles in y hours and it worked out to 52 knots.

[Smokin Joe]

Most vessels top speeds are classified, simply because it keeps the other side guessing. That includes subs.

[txradioguy]

Top speed is likely 2X that. Based on where a carrier was and how quickly it go to Pearl.

Yeah I can see that. It's like back during the Cold War... everything is estimated or what the DoW wants us to believe about the specs.

You always have to take the published numbers with a grain of salt.

[txradioguy]

Most vessels top speeds are classified, simply because it keeps the other side guessing. That includes subs.

Janes has always been the most accurate when it comes to top speeds and stuff like that.

[Smokin Joe]

Janes has always been the most accurate when it comes to top speeds and stuff like that.

I haven't seen a copy of Janes in decades. It was always fun to flip through.

Not sure where they put our vessels nowadays, but you can be sure actual top speeds exceed what is published.

[PeteS in CA]

Adding a bit to the historical discussion above:

* In December 1941, the USN had all of two battleships (BBs) commissioned after 1923. The Nevada, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Tennessee, and Colorado classes (chronologically) incorporated incremental improvements, but also shared some common feature so they were relatively inter-operable - 21 Kn speed, the same armor scheme ("all or nothing" instead of distributed), the same secondary guns, and except for the Colorado class, the same 14" main gun shells. The USN regarded the twelve 14"/50s of the New Mexico and Tennessee class BBs to be approximately as destructive as the eight 16"/45s of the Colorado class BBs. They were referred to as "Standards" because they were operationally similar. When the last of the Colorados were commissioned, airplanes were still relatively fragile biplanes.

* Mitchell's tests should be taken with a block of salt. The battleship sunk was the war prize SMS Ostfriesland, whose class was akin to the USN's Delaware class, the second oldest class of Dreadnought-type battleships (USS Nevada and USS Oklahoma, the oldest BBs present at Pearl Harbor, were four classes more modern). During the bomb runs, spread across two days, Ostfriesland was stationary and unmanned. The latter condition meant there could be no anti-aircraft gun fire, and no damage control. Ironically, relative little damage was done by direct hits. Ostfriesland was sunk by progressive flooding due to several near-misses. Had there been a damage control crew aboard, the leaks probably could have been contained or repaired, and Ostfriesland probably would not have sunk. How good the accuracy of the bombing would have been if facing AA is another question.

* Did carriers (CVs) need escort in WW2? Of course. The carriers had AA guns, which improved considerably through the war (5"/25s, 1.1" cannon, and .50 caliber machine guns at the start, soon 5"/38s, 40 mm Bofors, and 20 mm Oerlikons, with the latter two types increasing in number as the war progressed), but they also had cruisers (CAs) and destroyers (DDs) to add protection against planes, surface ships, and submarines. Guess what? Battleships (BBs) also needed escorts - cruisers (CAs) and destroyers (DDs) to add protection against planes, surface ships, and submarines.

* It was only in late 1942, 9 or 10 months into the war, that the first fast battleships started steaming with carrier task forces. North Carolina and South Dakota class BBs could not match to top speed of Lexington and Yorktown class CVs, but that top speed was only used during attacks. Consequently, when under attack, the BBs gradually fell behind USS Saratoga, USS Enterprise or USS Hornet (CV-8). But if well positioned in the task force, those BBs' 5"/38s, 40 mms, and 20 mms were valuable for considerable time.

* No full-sized USN fleet carriers were sunk after late 1942. And it took multiple torpedo hits to sink USS Lexington, USS Yorktown, and USS Hornet (USS Wasp CV-7 was not full-size, though she, too, was sunk by three torpedoes). OTOH, USS Enterprise, for example, took multiple bomb hits on two occasions and a kamikaze hit (bomb plus gasoline) and survived WW2. Modern CVNs are some 5X the size of Yorktown class carriers and have torpedo defense systems much more robust. Fleet carriers were and are not fragile.

* Iowa class BBs' top speeds matched CVs' top speed, but USS Iowa and USS New Jersey did not enter the Pacific War until early 1944. In late 1942 and all of 1943, it was North Carolina (2) and South Dakota class (4) BBs that were in carrier task forces.

* Except for rare and brief occasions, the only WW2 USN ships that sailed more or less alone were submarines. Even boats in wolfpacks patrolled some distance apart to spread the areas they covered. CVs and BBs did not steam without escorts.

* The old "Standards" were not scrapped or consigned to reserve. Except for USS Oklahoma and USS Arizona, all BBs damaged in Pearl Harbor were repaired, and in some cases, substantially rebuilt, and returned to service. Some served in the Aleutians campaign. Pretty much all did shore bombarment duty, which allowed the fast battleships to escort carrier task forces, and some fought in the October 1944 Battle of the Surigao Strait, completing the sinking of the Japanese battleship Yamashiro (Fuso was sunk by multiple DD torpedo hits).

* The big advantages carriers (modern CVNs) had and have over the BBs that fought in WW2 are how far their planes can fly and deliver ordnance (BBs' guns maximum range was under 25 miles), the much greater weight of ordnance a carrier air group can deliver compared a battleship, and range, not needing to refuel (battleships used a LOT of fuel oil!).

[Timber Rattler]

I haven't seen a copy of Janes in decades. It was always fun to flip through.

Not sure where they put our vessels nowadays, but you can be sure actual top speeds exceed what is published.

Here's how Jane's promulgates defense intelligence these days...

https://www.janes.com/

Their reference books are VERY pricey now...

https://shop.janes.com/products/maritime

https://shop.janes.com/products/air-space

https://shop.janes.com/products/military-capabilities

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Add in lasers and railguns, which require beaucoup power. That will take a larger hull than existing vessels, and it is likely it will move fast enough (have the power) to keep up with the fleet.

In our new age of drones, I would think having a mechanism to launch these might be also what this new ship might accomplish.  Antidrone ability would be a must as well, like maybe a short-range EMP to drop them dead in the air(or sea).

[BobfromWB]

Agreed. Someone on FR once noted a public report of the Reagan going x miles in y hours and it worked out to 52 knots.

That's likely the same story I read.

[BobfromWB]

In our new age of drones, I would think having a mechanism to launch these might be also what this new ship might accomplish.  Antidrone ability would be a must as well, like maybe a short-range EMP to drop them dead in the air(or sea).

Anti-drone - that's one of the reason for Lasers. They are operational now on certain ships.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Anti-drone - that's one of the reason for Lasers. They are operational now on certain ships.

Yep. 

Likely there are other methods to stop them as well, as my Marine brother who deployed anti-missile and anti-anti-missile systems on helicopters has told me, without any particulars due to security issues.

[Hoodat]

Will it be a nice, shiny golden battleship (a rich Persian's shiny bath toy) for the Golden Fleet?

The S.S. Covfefe

[jafo2010]

The intended replacement for the Ticonderosa class cruiser is the DDG(X), which has 96 VLS cells at a projected cost of $4.4 billion each.  This ship which was in the planning stages is being scrapped for Trump's idiocy.

The cost of a Trump class battleship is projected to be $15 billion with 128 VLS cells. I expect the cost will skyrocket up to $25 billion.  That is almost 2 fleet aircraft carriers.

You get 3 plus part of a 4th DDG(X) ship for what one Trump class battleship will cost. 

For just comparing 3 DDG(X) ships to 1 Trump class battleship,  that is 288 VLS cells + part of a 4th ship cost versus 128 VLS cells for Trump's idiocy.  In terms of lethality, there is no comparison.  Roughly about THREE TIMES THE FIRE POWER of Trump's gold plated battleship.

ANY MEMBER OF CONGRESS THAT VOTES FOR THIS SHOULD BE PRIMARIED WITH THEIR NEXT ELECTION.  I AM TIRED OF THESE PUKES SQUANDERING TAXPAYER MONEY LIKE IT IS AN ENDLESS FOUNTAIN!!!!!!!