testtest

Trump bringing back the Battleship

Frankly I’d love to see us come up with true 21st century battleships-nuclear power, heavy modern armor, fast, agile with thrusters,, full battery of heavy (16” or larger) extended range guns firing HE ammo (railguns?), Aegis AA defense systems and a full suite of missiles to deal with surface to air, surface to surface and asroc threats. Such a ship would pretty safe from current antiship systems (since current are designed to be used against unarmored ships. Would be a great “show of force” and “amphib assault fire support” vessel. It’ll never happen though as the cost would be in the 30 billions range
 
Last edited:
I shoulda known this thread would devolve into lefty rooster gobbling lol. You just can't have nice things with libtards around.



lefties losing their minds.jpg
 
Shibadog said:
Frankly I’d love to see us come up with true 21st century battleships-nuclear power, heavy modern armor, fast, agile with thrusters,, full battery of heavy (16” or larger) extended range guns firing HE ammo (railguns?), Aegis AA defense systems and a full suite of missiles to deal with surface to air, surface to surface and asroc threats. Such a ship would pretty safe from current antiship systems (since current are designed to be used against unarmored ships. Would be a great “show of force” and “amphib assault fire support” vessel. It’ll never happen though as the cost would be in the 30 billions range
Click to expand...
We could easily afford them if we cut 100% of illegal alien spending, a good amount of "foreign aid" to basically enemies, excess pay and benefits to 535 leeches and a few other things.
 
Career woodsman said:
Two 'battleships' -- two expensive disasters.
Click to expand...
They could not possibly be as big a disaster as the Zumwalts class and Both classes of “littoral combat” ships the Navy’s waster a bloody fortune on only to have unarmed/lightly armed vessels with little capability and in the case of the latter two, poor speaking ability. You want to see a disaster look up those POS’s
 
Speed, maneuverability, adaptability and stealth are what are needed. This is a PR stunt. When we parked off the coast of Syria several years ago and Russia was hitting targets, with precision, using missiles launched from the Caspian, we wisely motored out of there. In Yemen, we had problems with refueling and replenishing missiles to stay in place and be sustainably effective. Hypersonics are here to stay. UAV’s are the new economical warfare tool. Money and research best spent here. And AD bc without proper defense, there is no effective offense. It ain’t gonna happen with Unions and outdated price models and the huge leak in our tax dollars by unaccountable decision makers. My 2 cents.
 
With the current deficit in fleet numbers the US can get much more "Bang for the Buck" than indulging in a $15 billion USD 35,000 t. large ship with 128 Mk.41 VLS cells when it can get 6.8 9,900 t. Flight III Arleigh Burke ($2.2 billion USD) destroyers (in production), each with with 96 Mk.41 cells.

Which on an individual basis the Burkes have 75% of the capability of the proposed "Trump" so-called battleship, for the same $15 billion, 6.8 Burkes can be bought providing 652 cells (each can contain one or more missiles/ordnance depending on type) vs. 128 for only one Trump Class ship, which ends up to be 500% more firepower than can be distributed over a larger area, or in more AOPs, with more endurance since once empty the ship has to withdraw for reloading.

Considering how the the Russian-Ukraine War and Red Sea Houthi attacks have shown ordnance expenditure is very high, and will be more in any conflict with the CCP.

Plus, the USN has a notable fleet deficit of attack subs, and are trying to replace the remaining Los Angeles-Class SSNs with the of $4 billion USD Virginia-Class attack subs, as well as starting to replace the 18 Ohio-Class SSBN/SSGNs (ballistic missile subs) with 12 of the $15 billion USD Columbia-Class SSBNs.

With a $38T USD deficit and a potential CCP conflict the US needs to build up fleet ship numbers & associated ordnance load-out vs. a couple show-boats.

My .02
 
Last edited:
I think a couple of Battlewagons is warranted. Most of our ships are multi-purpose. Destroyers are set up for Anti-Submarine warfare and air defense, as well as ground support.They carry the Helos or Drones for multi-purpose situations and versatility. Cruisers same thing, just bigger with more firepower via missiles and other weaponry. Litoral are also multi-purpose, with a rail gun. The Battleship was and should remain the main carrier of firepower. Meaning more missiles, rail guns for hypersonic missiles, air defense and anything else that rises up. Pure firepower. That is a Battlewagon. Not compromised to carry drones or helos or anti-sub. Not multi-purpose or a multi-tool. Just hair, teeth and eyeballs of sheer hellfire raining down on you. THAT is the purpose. The older platforms, while retrofitted with modern anti-aircraft defenses and missiles were becoming obsolete. All we would need are two of them. Epecially when needed in defense of a fleet and to concentrate firepower where needed. The idea of the Battlewagon is not obsolete, it just needs to take on the modern and future needs of our Navy. Right now, as it stands, we are sorely lacking in any means of defense to take out multiple hypersonic missiles, particularly those with nuclear warheads.
 
Onewolf426 said:
I think a couple of Battlewagons is warranted. Most of our ships are multi-purpose. Destroyers are set up for Anti-Submarine warfare and air defense, as well as ground support.They carry the Helos or Drones for multi-purpose situations and versatility. Cruisers same thing, just bigger with more firepower via missiles and other weaponry. Litoral are also multi-purpose, with a rail gun. The Battleship was and should remain the main carrier of firepower. Meaning more missiles, rail guns for hypersonic missiles, air defense and anything else that rises up. Pure firepower. That is a Battlewagon. Not compromised to carry drones or helos or anti-sub. Not multi-purpose or a multi-tool. Just hair, teeth and eyeballs of sheer hellfire raining down on you. THAT is the purpose. The older platforms, while retrofitted with modern anti-aircraft defenses and missiles were becoming obsolete. All we would need are two of them. Epecially when needed in defense of a fleet and to concentrate firepower where needed. The idea of the Battlewagon is not obsolete, it just needs to take on the modern and future needs of our Navy. Right now, as it stands, we are sorely lacking in any means of defense to take out multiple hypersonic missiles, particularly those with nuclear warheads.
Click to expand...
CNO couldn't have said it better
 
The three Zumwalt's are each being converted to carry the same number (12) of Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) missiles that a Trump-Class ship would, so that capability will already exist for no extra billions of taxpayers USD.

news.usni.org

Navy Details Hypersonic Missile Plan for Zumwalt Destroyers, Virginia Submarines - USNI News

ARLINGTON, Va. – The trio of Zumwalt-class guided-missile destroyers could each field up to a dozen hypersonic missiles, with the first ship ready for testing in 2025, USNI News has learned. The service has determined that the hull can accommodate four 87-inch missile tubes that can each hold...
news.usni.org news.usni.org

Plus, the planned/in-production Block V/VI Virginia-Class SSNs will have the same CPS capability in an albeit more stealthy platform.

So, riddle me this why spend taxpayers $$USD on a platform when more pressing & tangible needs exist. More of the cheaper platforms can do the same job and are in production.

Plus, DJT wants the Trump-Class ships to look "pretty". If he wants a "pretty" ship have him work with Carnival Cruise Lines on a Trump cruise ship.

1767130574064.png


BTW - The main carrier of sheer firepower is the CVN aircraft carrier.
 
Talyn said:
The three Zumwalt's are each being converted to carry the same number (12) of Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) missiles that a Trump-Class ship would, so that capability will already exist for no extra billions of taxpayers USD.

news.usni.org

Navy Details Hypersonic Missile Plan for Zumwalt Destroyers, Virginia Submarines - USNI News

ARLINGTON, Va. – The trio of Zumwalt-class guided-missile destroyers could each field up to a dozen hypersonic missiles, with the first ship ready for testing in 2025, USNI News has learned. The service has determined that the hull can accommodate four 87-inch missile tubes that can each hold...
news.usni.org news.usni.org

Plus, the planned/in-production Block V/VI Virginia-Class SSNs will have the same CPS capability in an albeit more stealthy platform.

So, riddle me this why spend taxpayers $$USD on a platform when more pressing & tangible needs exist. More of the cheaper platforms can do the same job and are in production.

Plus, DJT wants the Trump-Class ships to look "pretty". If he wants a "pretty" ship have him work with Carnival Cruise Lines on a Trump cruise ship.

View attachment 100664

BTW - The main carrier of sheer firepower is the CVN aircraft carrier.
Click to expand...
www.19fortyfive.com

The U.S. Navy's Zumwalt-Class Destroyer Problem Is Embarrassing

The Zumwalt-class destroyers were envisioned to replace several aging U.S. Navy ships and excel in land-attack and surface combat with novel stealth and advanced technologies.
www.19fortyfive.com www.19fortyfive.com
The Zumwalt has been a spectacular failure and money pit.
 
Onewolf426 said:
www.19fortyfive.com

The U.S. Navy's Zumwalt-Class Destroyer Problem Is Embarrassing

The Zumwalt-class destroyers were envisioned to replace several aging U.S. Navy ships and excel in land-attack and surface combat with novel stealth and advanced technologies.
www.19fortyfive.com www.19fortyfive.com
The Zumwalt has been a spectacular failure and money pit.
Click to expand...
So will the Trump Class if anything produced will see water under it's keel.

This is what's Trump is reacting to...

www.twz.com

Our Most Detailed Look Yet At China’s Type 055 Super Destroyer

China's Type 055 destroyers, one of which is seen in great detail in these photos, are a symbol of Beijing's drive to modernize its fleet.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

The US DDG(X) that has been in development for awhile, basically matches this CCP ship at 1/3 the price & tonnage as the proposed Trump ship which will only have 8 extra missile cells over the Type 055, and 3X the cost and size of the DDG(X).
 
Last edited:
HayesGreener said:
CNO couldn't have said it better
Click to expand...
The one thing I’ve not seen is an assessment of “survivability”-taking multiple hits and still remaining operational. That imho is the big deficit with current types. If a single “hit” or two places a ship out of action/sinks it, you’ll need a Bunch of ships to still have an effective fleet (and don’t even mention the poor SOB’s going down with their ships. Sitting there behind an inch of aluminum while under attack wouldn’t make ME feel warm and fuzzy😏
 
Shibadog said:
The one thing I’ve not seen is an assessment of “survivability”-taking multiple hits and still remaining operational. That imho is the big deficit with current types. If a single “hit” or two places a ship out of action/sinks it, you’ll need a Bunch of ships to still have an effective fleet (and don’t even mention the poor SOB’s going down with their ships. Sitting there behind an inch of aluminum while under attack wouldn’t make ME feel warm and fuzzy😏
Click to expand...
So you're good with getting rid of carriers then?
 
negolien said:
So you're good with getting rid of carriers then?
Click to expand...
Never said or implied that. Carriers have been the backbone of the Navy force projection since the 40’s. No one “type” has every capability. And the use of million dollar missiles to take out $50k targets is not the answer for all occasions-despite what we’ve been doing for the last few decades, An artillery round will take out a vehicle or similar target just as effectively as an air to ground missile or surface to surface missile for a LOT less. Also a warship “should” be able to not only attack the enemy but also to defend itself AND survive to fight again if something hits them.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top