Subject: Re: Those Trump Class "Battleships"
Fair enough. I was going by whose keel was laid down last, and that was the Wisconsin (hence the larger hull number).

Also fair. I suppose I should have been more specific that the Missouri was the last commissioned battleship. Laying the keel, launching, and commissioning won't always line-up (as apparently is the case with the Wisconsin and Missouri).

From what I can tell of the design of this thing, it won't really do in-shore bombardment, either. It's got a couple of 5" guns, and some 30mm cannons. And neither of those are capable of over-the-horizon fire. The rail gun is a nifty idea, but they haven't been able to make it reliable and deployable. Not that they can't, of course. But we know what happens when you design-in something that doesn't work consistently (e.g. the main gun on the Zumwalt).

The one advantage I see to the BBG is that they could squeeze a nuclear reactor in it if they wanted (that isn't in the current plans). A lot more power to use for -whatever-.

We agree on the Arleigh-Burkes. Enormously successful, but they've reached the limit of what we can expect from them. Which is why they wanted to replace them with a new hull. The Zumwalts were supposed to be that hull, but they are mostly a failure. We still need a ~10k ton DDG.

For the frigate they’re just going to use the Legend class design (large Coast Guard cutter) as the base. We already make those.

Yes, I've read that. I'm not up on the Legend class. Coast Guard duties often differ from Navy duties, so it would be surprising if those ships don't need some serious mods to take on the latter. Coast Guard can do (and has done in the past) combat, but that's not really what they're equipped for.