Battleship Design Revealed in Greater Detail

[william]

Naval “experts” are harrumphing at the cost and design of the Trump Battleship. Too big, too expensive, not worth it. The same experts conveniently forget that at the height of the Reagan Navy buildup were large surface combatants, four re-stored Iowa Class Battleships and around 10 large nuclear powered cruisers.

These large warships provided visible presence which sent a message, carried a lot of weapons, and often acted as the leaders of independent “Surface Action Group” that could lead high speed forays, separate from the Carrier Battle Groups.

The Trump Battleship allows an expanded U.S. Navy that has additional capabilities (i.e. cards in the deck) beyond the mono-answer of Carrier Strike Groups.

One feature that will provide long range capability at a much lower cost is a large “Railgun”. The Railgun will use electrical power to fire a projectile much further and faster than existing cannons. Incoming ballistic missiles, enemy ships, and land targets can be hit at long distances while more expensive missiles can be reserved for the correct

The U.S. Navy flailed with the Railgun concept for years in the early 2000s - and like a string of disappointing program efforts, the Railgun effort was shuttered with no operational deployments The Japanese took the basics of the U.S. Railgun design, fixed it, and handed it back to us - thank you Japan.

There is a strong possibility that the U.S. Navy will return to surface ships with nuclear power, and the Trump Battleships may just be the first of several ship types to re-embrace nuclear power.

Trump Battleship design revealed in greater detail

Two noteworthy topics - the "Railgun" is a core capability of the ship, and will the Battleships be nuclear powered?

colonelretjohn.substack.com

 

[Yingyang]

Better off with more submarines than surface ships.

 

[Friendly Engineer]

 

[william]

Why The US Navy Needs The "Trump Class" (It’s Not A Destroyer)​