Trump Class Battleship 2025

Status
Not open for further replies.
Forest Green

Forest Green

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
11 June 2019
Messages
12,787
Reaction score
27,516
Arjen said:
Most headlines that end with a question mark can be answered with 'no'. Like this one.
Click to expand...

Betteridge's Law of Headlines strikes again.

The article is a ridiculous pile of speculation, rehashing of old Internet arguments, and sheer nonsense.

Which is about what I'd expect from anything based on a conversation between Trump and Phelan. We have a SecNav who has never served in the Navy, worked for the Navy, worked in or around the defense industry, or even owned a boat. Wasn't even a member of the Navy League, AFAIK, which is the usual thing for people interested in Navy matters (and with more money than sense). You could pick a random poster on this forum, and they would be better qualified to discuss the kinds of ships the US Navy needs than Phelan or Trump.

(I am laughing especially because I know one actually quite knowledgeable person who thought he had a shot at being Trump's SecNav. He must be livid right now.)
 
Last edited:
I suppose it depends on what you call a "Battleship".
 
Unlikely to reactivate the Iowa's again, they were hardly in receipt of a proper fitting out last time let alone now.

I suppose a free (To the museums) refit before sending them back would be well received.........
 
There is almost certainly a need for a heavy gunfire support ship, however considering the difficulties that we're having building new design destroyers, frigates and submarines, it is unlikely that we could build such a big ship right now.

Probably the best we can hope for in the medium term would be some sort of uprated DDG(X) that could be classified as a cruiser. In the short term, we'll be lucky to maintain the status quo. I'd be happy to just see some new frigates in the water, or some evidence that DDG(X) will really get built. And keep building those submarines!

DRW
 
TomS said:
Based on what analysis? Where is the operational need coming from?
Click to expand...
Not to mention the last two times this concept was discussed it ended up with the 8"/55 Mk.71 and the 155mm AGS. And while AGS had some questionable ideas, a lightweight 203/60 with modern materials and projectiles would be a pretty capable weapon.
 
drwells42 said:
There is almost certainly a need for a heavy gunfire support ship, however considering the difficulties that we're having building new design destroyers, frigates and submarines, it is unlikely that we could build such a big ship right now.

Probably the best we can hope for in the medium term would be some sort of uprated DDG(X) that could be classified as a cruiser. In the short term, we'll be lucky to maintain the status quo. I'd be happy to just see some new frigates in the water, or some evidence that DDG(X) will really get built. And keep building those submarines!

DRW
Click to expand...
Doubtful. Short of some radical technological revolution (for example, megawatt combat lasers, requiring high volume of fire from multiple autoloading cannons to saturate defenses), the coastal gunfire support could be achieved by other means.

For example, look at modern warfare; both Russia and Ukraine use high-precision glide bombs as fire support weapons. Including as heavy, as 3-ton ones (FAB-3000). Basically, those bombs replaced old-fashioned siege artillery in trench warfare.

For coastal gunfire support, I think, the analogue of GLSDB would be the most efficient weapon. With rocket engine from ESSM (we don't need ESSM sophisticated controls, merely the ability to loft the bomb on required altitude), such rocket-launched glide bombs could be quad-packed in Mk-41 cells. So one Mk-41 module (eight cells) filled with GLSDB, would provide 32 fire support weapons, capable of hitting targets at 150+ km range. With half of Arleigh Burke's cells filled with GLSDB, you would have 192 weapons.
 
Dilandu said:
Doubtful. Short of some radical technological revolution (for example, megawatt combat lasers, requiring high volume of fire from multiple autoloading cannons to saturate defenses), the coastal gunfire support could be achieved by other means.

For example, look at modern warfare; both Russia and Ukraine use high-precision glide bombs as fire support weapons. Including as heavy, as 3-ton ones (FAB-3000). Basically, those bombs replaced old-fashioned siege artillery in trench warfare.

For coastal gunfire support, I think, the analogue of GLSDB would be the most efficient weapon. With rocket engine from ESSM (we don't need ESSM sophisticated controls, merely the ability to loft the bomb on required altitude), such rocket-launched glide bombs could be quad-packed in Mk-41 cells. So one Mk-41 module (eight cells) filled with GLSDB, would provide 32 fire support weapons, capable of hitting targets at 150+ km range. With half of Arleigh Burke's cells filled with GLSDB, you would have 192 weapons.
Click to expand...
Or just drop bombs from a jet? The F-35B/Harrier force exists for a reason!
 
whatismoo said:
Or just drop bombs from a jet? The F-35B/Harrier force exists for a reason!
Click to expand...
Yeah, but jets did not have as good reaction time as ship-launched rockets and missiles. And their ammo supply is more limited, so if prolonged bombardment is required, they would have problems. I'm not saying air strikes aren't good for the job; just that surface-launched bombardment weapon also have its niche.
 
The US cannot build all the ships the Navy needs, so any attempt at building a new class of Battleships is a non-starter. The era for battleships has moved on (except for some people in positions of power who seem to live largely in the past).
 
We could make an argument for guns or something similar able to sustain a long term barrage. (10 rounds per minute for at least an hour)

But there's no way to pack enough armor onto a ship to sustain hits from either shaped charges (Russian AShMs) or SAP (Harpoon and LRASM)

Do I need to post the picture of what happens to a ship when hit by a Talos, again?
 
TomS said:
(I am laughing especially because I know one actually quite knowledgeable person who thought he had a shot at being Trump's SecNav. He must be livid right now.)
Click to expand...
If it's who I think, he's gone for this in both version of Glorious Leader's regime and never been more than an outside shot. But he keeps licking that boot, hoping against hope.
 
Moose said:
If it's who I think, he's gone for this in both version of Glorious Leader's regime and never been more than an outside shot. But he keeps licking that boot, hoping against hope.
Click to expand...

Maybe not the same person -- my candidate has gone pretty quiet recently.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Do I need to post the picture of what happens to a ship when hit by a Talos, again?
Click to expand...

Talos%20surface%20target%201%201024.jpg

Talos%20surface%20target%202%201024.jpg

Talos%20surface%20target%203%201024.jpg


Moose said:
If it's who I think, he's gone for this in both version of Glorious Leader's regime and never been more than an outside shot.
Click to expand...

Well Battleships do have big guns (16" caliber) and Trump is no doubt "Compensating" for size (Freud would have a field day);):D.
 
Seems to me that the Battleship has been replaced by the modern carrier and submarine force. I would have liked to see our last of the type retained as a training ship and flag waver but tbh, these roles are much better suited to smaller and cheaper types.

I expect the relevant museums would welcome big overhauls and refurbs before the inevitable return because well, who would not relish that and have more of their meagre funds available to their core purpose?
 
Plus, by the time they get into action there has been an election and policy change. This means funds for the war have been reallocated to fun days out for the boyz of all identities. Bungee jumping over an active volcano (Bring your own barbecue vittles though) etc.
 
So, Donald Trump is preparing to announce that the USN will build a new class of "battleships" in a speech later today.

Based on the articles I've been able to see, these ships are intended to be equipped for offensive warfare, including hypersonic weapons, with a flotilla of smaller drones around them to supplement their defensive capabilities. They are throwing around displacements in the 15-20,000 ton range, which is basically Zumwalt territory. Edit: so more large destroyer to cruiser territory for people who still observe these distinctions.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Trump to unveil plans for new U.S. âbattleshipâ, reports say

President Donald Trump is expected to announce plans for a new class of large US Navy surface combatants he has described as âbattleshipsâ.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk
 
Last edited:
Goddamn it. I hope this came from the Navy and Trump is just announcing it. I like Trump (voted for him 3 times) but I don't want him actually micromanaging. Tell the Navy what the national goals are and let them come up with how to carry it out.
 
i not believe that is Battleship in classical term
more crossover of Arsenal ship and Battlecruiser
maybe with Rail-guns even laser ?
 
TomS said:
So, Donald Trump is preparing to announce that the USN will build a new class of "battleships" in a speech later today.

Based on the articles I've been able to see, these ships are intended to be equipped for offensive warfare, including hypersonic weapons, with a flotilla of smaller drones around them to supplement their defensive capabilities. They are throwing around displacements in the 15-20,000 ton range, which is basically Zumwalt territory. Edit: so more large destroyer to cruiser territory for people who still observe these distinctions.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Trump to unveil plans for new U.S. âbattleshipâ, reports say

President Donald Trump is expected to announce plans for a new class of large US Navy surface combatants he has described as âbattleshipsâ.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk
Click to expand...
Conceptually seems like a great idea, but hijacking it and plastering your own name over it is 3rd world behavior.
 
Hull down said:
Conceptually seems like a great idea, but hijacking it and plastering your own name over it is 3rd world behavior.
Click to expand...
Maybe it's because I'm foreigner, but I don't think it sounds half bad. Could be understood in the relation of the verb for people who are not into the person, as in to trump/surpass something.

Makes me wonder if that all goes ahead, which I'm not sure of just yet, if these will be designed DDG, CG or BBG. Either way, I think the Navy should focus on the big projects they have currently going, being the DDG(X), Ford Class, Columbia SSBNs, SSN(X), FFG(X)/FF(X) and the continuation of the Flight III Arleigh-Burkes.
 
The optimistic take in this is the Navy took a hint from USAF numbering their fighter after him and figured this was their best shot at getting a command cruiser.

The realistic take his that he's been wanking about battleships for awhile and so someone slapped together a "squint and it's kinda a battleship" strike cruiser proposal to curry favor.


Absolutely shameful bootlicking either way.
Desertfox said:
Congress didn't allocate any money for them, so...
Click to expand...
Yeah that's definitely stopped him so far
 
Either there's a flightdeck but no hangar, or it's managing to fit a hangar and the aft VLS in the same space. *facepalm*

And if someone has let a J-15 within a nautical mile of the ship then someone has seriously screwed the pooch. Which makes me wonder if the image is sourced from the USN at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom