Return of The BATTLESHIP

[Deleted account]

You know they could put two or four F35’s on it instead of/ along with helicopters. Four F35s and 8 drone wingman makes one hell of an air deference arm. Even half….

I'm hardly an expert in warship design, but it occurs to me that this would require a lot of infrastructure purely to support a handful of STOVL aircraft. First of all, the ship would need to include a 450 ft runway + ski lift (or catapult) to facilitate takeoffs. Then you'd need deck (or hangar) space to house the actual a/c. Fueling, maintenance and ordnance management systems would all need to be on hand, along with the associated personnel. And all of that for, what, four F-35...?

The idea of building a BB/CV hybrid has been attempted several times in history, and not once did this result in a successful ship. Perhaps the most famous examples were IJN Ise and Hyuga of WW2 fame. What inevitably ends up happening is you get a ship that's a very crappy surface combatant and a very crappy carrier.

 

[Gaijin]

The 'Trump class'?

The vainglorious, self-absorbed, tone-deaf moron.

The real question is, did the Navy ask for these shipd or has Potus told them that they must have them?

 

[Torch]

A ship's a fool to fight a fort.
- Adm. Horatio Nelson

He was commenting on the idea to employ Royal Navy assets to engage onshore defenses in mainland Europe.

He was right then (and even mostly into the American civil war.)

Now fixed installation can be obliterated eventually as they are fixed without any enemy effort. A mobile platform with (and this seems key) loads and loads of point defense is going to be a very effective platform. Until it meets a sub. Then it’s a target <reef>

I think you just need a mix of everything to keep the enemy guessing. I’m not qualified to make ship and boat assessments in depth


I will say that IMO all our ships have woefully inadequate amount of self defense and point defense.

My thoughts are:

1) Much modern literature discusses overwhelming defense systems with drones and decoys. It doesn’t require a phd to see the maths involved.

2) Compare US Navy ship
load-out / profiles from pre war (1939) to Operation Olympic ready (Sept 1945)

If there was a square yard open on a railing someone bolted on an M2 and if there was deck space they bolted on a Bofors. Not unlike porcupines.


Soapbox, personal.

We should be doing the same thing as we already know what a kamikaze is and we’ve already seen drone swarms in action. The failure of the government to arm our ships and boats to an overwhelming and extreme degree should be criminal.

<ahem>
Thank you.

 

[Torch]

I'm hardly an expert in warship design, but it occurs to me that this would require a lot of infrastructure purely to support a handful of STOVL aircraft. First of all, the ship would need to include a 450 ft runway + ski lift (or catapult) to facilitate takeoffs. Then you'd need deck (or hangar) space to house the actual a/c. Fueling, maintenance and ordnance management systems would all need to be on hand, along with the associated personnel. And all of that for, what, four F-35...?

The aircraft take off vertically and they can be refuel in flight after takeoff by like aircraft or drones. So vertical take (but with 30kts to the good) with weapons but low fuel. In the life of this ship the aircraft will likely all become drones. The only major improvement would be the heat resistance of the deck. I’m not talking about loading these aircraft out for strike packages Im talking about loading for radar picket (mostly drone chasing and air 2 air for self-defense.

If you’re willing, it easily be done. The British converted freighter to an aircraft carrier by using Harrier jets and shipping conexes. F-35 use mostly fan driven air , not exhaust gasses (thrust) they are immensely cooler.

And this is not to be an aircraft carrier or substitute aircraft. These are only self-defense.

But this was just a minor musing and of course is not (probably) going to happen.


BYW just 2 F35s and four drones (loyal wingman supersonic stealth drones) it a crap load of force.

 

[Erecon]

All those coverup announcements

 

[Deleted account]

The real question is, did the Navy ask for these shipd or has Potus told them that they must have them?

I'm inclined to believe that there may have been a dormant research-phase program in the works, and that POTUS demanded that it be accelerated (it's a very bad thing for any country when the Great Leader comes to the conclusion that he's also a military genius, and begings lecturing militarymen in matters related to weapons design, strategy, etc. Pretty much the only other country in the world where this routinely happens is North Korea.)

Irrespective of the above, Trump is likely to be long dead if/when any of those ships sail, and the odds are pretty good on this program being cancelled the moment he's out of power - thus making it a colossal waste of money. It's also possible that we're looking at another attempt at "flooding the zone" (in a similar vein to Trump's Hunger Games - which, in my personal opinion, was a calculated and deliberate ploy to draw attention away from the real issues facing the US).

 

[Deleted account]

We should be doing the same thing as we already know what a kamikaze is and we’ve already seen drone swarms in action. The failure of the government to arm our ships and boats to an overwhelming and extreme degree should be criminal.

There's nobody left in the US who has (a) power and resources, and (b) interest in helping America win any wars. Accordingly, the issues you're pointing out will not be addressed, because no one thinks themselves responsible for addressing them. Consider the following:

• For congressmen and senators, the goal is to get reelected and/or funnel federal funding to their respective districts and/or states,
• For defense contractors, the goal is to maximize profits and obtain federal funding - regardless of whether the given project makes sense or not,
• For high-ranking militarymen, the goal is to secure promotions and prestigious postings,
• For members of the presidential administration, the goal is to supplant the lame duck president and establish themselves as the next leader of his political base,
• For Donald Trump, the goal is Donald Trump.

Patriotism - which is commonly (and reasonably) defined as putting the country's interests ahead of one's own - evaporated from US politics circa 2010, and no amount of flag waving and anthem singing will change that. This is in stark contrast to both China and Russia.

 

[Publius]

The 'Trump class'?

The vainglorious, self-absorbed, tone-deaf moron.

The real question is, did the Navy ask for these shipd or has Potus told them that they must have them?

It’s new and as I pointed out an evolution of the proposed navy DDG class to replace the older Arleigh Burks.

Its design is basically an enlargement of the DDG to a great extent.
The considerations were a much larger missile battery from 96 vs 128 plus 12 large VLS launchers.
Nuclear propulsion. Which aids in speed and would provide the generating capacity for new weapons platforms.
Neither the arleigh Burke or the new DDG class destroyers could carrier the larger VLS for long range hypersonic missiles.

It is political to a degree absolutely. But is the proposed class a good idea. Time will tell.
All new technology and platforms are criticized and made fun of. It’s as easy to as jumping on the patriotic bandwagon and declaring it the greatest thing since sliced bread.

 

[Spyglass]

The other thing to consider here, is Trump is trying to defibrillate the ship building industry in the U.S. we just don’t really build ships anymore. When the big one hits, we need to replenish and replenish quickly. Our enemies (China) have us far outgunned there. Notice how much he said that we don’t build fast enough. We need more manufacturing and we need it now. The Trump class vanity thing is just a distraction.

 

[NuclearID]

It's all about the railguns.

 

[Spyglass]

It's all about the railguns.

I can’t tell you how excited like a little kid on Christmas I am, that railguns are being put into service. Last time we saw that was in the Transformers movie. We blew up Megatron or something haha!

 

[william]

Battleships vs Carriers

Battleships are more survivable than carriers. Carriers aren’t good at protecting merchant ships in choke points, as we saw recently when we sent two carriers at one time to protect ships in the Red Sea. So that’s why we need battleships now. It’s not because they ever became obsolete… it’s because we haven’t had a serious enemy at sea (the Russian threat was mostly underwater) and we haven’t needed heavy gunfire to protect choke points and amphibious landings since WW2. In 2025 carriers are still important, but we need some battleships too.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2005453456237043832

 

[william]

Just a bigger bull's-eye for hypersonic missiles and drones.

They need to invest in defence systems, not bigger boats.

"Trump-class battleships are “obsolete” because of hypersonic missiles."

Here’s what the hype crowd misses:

1) Future battleships won’t be naked. They will carry layered anti-hypersonic defenses, directed-energy weapons, decoys, and interceptors specifically designed to kill these things.

2) Hitting a moving ship at hypersonic speed is brutally hard. No nation has publicly demonstrated a successful hypersonic strike on a maneuvering warship. China hit a fake carrier sitting still in the desert. That proves almost nothing. Think about the physics. Flying a kamikaze plane into a carrier was hard but pilots had eyes, brains, and real-time judgment. Now imagine doing that blind, with sensors the size of a soda can, while the target is jamming, maneuvering, spoofing, and throwing decoys. Now imagine the Honey I Shrunk the Kids laser made you the size of an ant and you are told to steer a bullet into a weaving jet ski. Russia can hit slow oil tankers. If they could reliably hit moving ships bringing supplies into Ukraine, they already would have.

3) Hypersonics are scarce and insanely expensive. Even if it took 100 missiles to score a hit on a battleship, that’s 100 missiles that aren’t hitting ports, refineries, factories, air bases, and ammo depots. Most of those targets don’t shoot back. None of them weave like a battleship. Battleships change the economics of war. They force the enemy to burn their most precious weapons just to try to hurt one ship. That’s not vulnerability. That’s deterrence.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2010709853715431728

 

[Torch]

Unless the enemy masses on you early.

Then after a fight as great as the Tirpitz, you have some flotsam and some sailors <who can have a pierced ear an be heroic, not weird> .

 

[Publius]

Unless the enemy masses on you early.

Then after a fight as great as the Tirpitz, you have some flotsam and some sailors <who can have a pierced ear an be heroic, not weird> .

As I remember the war in the pacific the outcome was almost always determined by tactical insight and daring.
That was true of both sides.

 

[william]

Unless the enemy masses on you early.

Then after a fight as great as the Tirpitz, you have some flotsam and some sailors <who can have a pierced ear an be heroic, not weird> .

I attribute trying to hit a nuclear-powered maneuvering warship as trying to hit a thrown bottle cap at 500 yards with a rifle. Of course I could be wrong.

 

[Deleted account]

Here’s what the hype crowd misses:

1) Future battleships won’t be naked. They will carry layered anti-hypersonic defenses, directed-energy weapons, decoys, and interceptors specifically designed to kill these things.

"Future battleships will carry a lot of weapons that do not currently exist - but I just made them up to prove my point."

2) (...) Flying a kamikaze plane into a carrier was hard but pilots had eyes, brains, and real-time judgment. Now imagine doing that blind, with sensors the size of a soda can, while the target is jamming, maneuvering, spoofing, and throwing decoys.

This guy seems completely oblivious to recent progress in the area of AI.

Now imagine the Honey I Shrunk the Kids laser made you the size of an ant and you are told to steer a bullet into a weaving jet ski. Russia can hit slow oil tankers. If they could reliably hit moving ships bringing supplies into Ukraine, they already would have.

This guy seems completely oblivious to the logistics surrounding the Russia/Ukraine conflict (the "supplies" he's talking about arrive by rail from Poland, not on ships).

3) Hypersonics are scarce and insanely expensive. Even if it took 100 missiles to score a hit on a battleship, that’s 100 missiles that aren’t hitting ports, refineries, factories, air bases, and ammo depots.

Why 100? Why not 10? Or 1000? That's the problem with pulling numbers out of your ass - you can prove any point that way.

Now, I don't know how many missiles it would take to sink this "Trump-class BB" (and neither does this guy, btw). All I know is that - as I already noted in this thread - America recently blew 25 billion USD to build three useless warships that contribute nothing to its security, but sure as hell made everyone involved quite rich. And that was during a time when accountability mattered more in US politics than it does now. For this reason alone I predict this program will be an unqualified success.

 

[Publius]

"Future battleships will carry a lot of weapons that do not currently exist - but I just made them up to prove my point."

Helios, Helcap already past testing and and Helios is deployed on a few US destroyers
Also Arleigh-Burke destroyers already use SM-6, SM-2, and SeaSparrow defense systems.

This guy seems completely oblivious to recent progress in the area of AI

Optical dazzlers lasers also already moving forward with Helios. Proven effective against drones.

This guy seems completely oblivious to the logistics surrounding the Russia/Ukraine conflict (the "supplies" he's talking about arrive by rail from Poland, not on ships).

Why 100? Why not 10? Or 1000? That's the problem with pulling numbers out of your ass - you can prove any point that way.

Well the fewer inbound rockets the more capable a ship or group can target and shoot down incoming missiles. Or conversely be overwhelmed with two many targets to service in too short a time. So 1-10 or a 100, missile defense systems protocols and capability are not some abstract guess pulled out of they’re nether regions.

Now, I don't know how many missiles it would take to sink this "Trump-class BB" (and neither does this guy, btw). All I know is that - as I already noted in this thread - America recently blew 25 billion USD to build three useless warships that contribute nothing to its security, but sure as hell made everyone involved quite rich. And that was during a time when accountability mattered more in US politics than it does now. For this reason alone I predict this program will be an unqualified success.

And once again your logic would dictate not developing or building any new weapons platforms.

 

[william]

Unless the enemy masses on you early.

Then after a fight as great as the Tirpitz, you have some flotsam and some sailors <who can have a pierced ear an be heroic, not weird> .

Wasn't the Tirpitz a stationary anchored target when it was bombed. I believe it took 3 12000 "Tall Boy" bombs to capsize it.

 

[william]

"Future battleships will carry a lot of weapons that do not currently exist - but I just made them up to prove my point."

This guy seems completely oblivious to recent progress in the area of AI.

This guy seems completely oblivious to the logistics surrounding the Russia/Ukraine conflict (the "supplies" he's talking about arrive by rail from Poland, not on ships).

Why 100? Why not 10? Or 1000? That's the problem with pulling numbers out of your ass - you can prove any point that way.

Now, I don't know how many missiles it would take to sink this "Trump-class BB" (and neither does this guy, btw). All I know is that - as I already noted in this thread - America recently blew 25 billion USD to build three useless warships that contribute nothing to its security, (Those ships were just ahead of their time. They were intended to field the "rail gun" which is just coming online now.) but sure as hell made everyone involved quite rich. And that was during a time when accountability mattered more in US politics than it does now. For this reason alone I predict this program will be an unqualified success.