Invite ye felawes and frendes desirous in gold to enter the gates of Shrewd'm, for they will thanke ye later.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 2
Such ridiculous exaggerations:
Donald Trump has announced a plan for the US Navy to build two new "Trump Class" battleships.
Aimed at cementing US naval dominance, the president said the vessels will be "the fastest, the biggest and 100 times more powerful than any battleship ever built".
Constructed in America, made of steel and complete with missiles, guns, lasers and hypersonic weapons, the vessels will be the "centrepiece" of the US Navy's Golden Fleet initiative, he said.
Starting with two vessels, Mr Trump said the project would eventually expand to include 20 to 25 new ships.
The first will be christened the USS Defiant, with the US leader personally involved in how it looks.
...
On the planned battleships, Mr Trump said: "There's never been anything like these ships. These have been under design consideration for a long time.
"Each one of these will be the largest battleship in the history of our country. The largest battleship in the history of the world.
"We haven't built a battleship since 1994. These cutting-edge vessels will be some of the most lethal surface warfare ships... other than our submarines." https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-unveils-pl...And, uh, aren't all navy ships already made predominantly of steel, rather than aluminum as Trump implied in his announcement?
No. of Recommendations: 17
"We haven't built a battleship since 1994. These cutting-edge vessels will be some of the most lethal surface warfare ships... other than our submarines."No, they won't be cutting-edge or the most lethal surface warfare ships. Because they're
battleships, and battleships are obsolete technology. Which is why we haven't built any in decades. Which is why
no one is building any. Which is why no navy on earth have any battleships in service, or even in reserve. They've all been scrapped, used as target ships, or used as museum ships.
Besides the rise of aircraft carriers as the preeminent naval striking force, the advent of nuclear weapons influenced the decision to abandon large battleship fleets. In 1946, Nagato, which was seized by the US, and four American battleships were used during the Operation Crossroads nuclear weapons tests, though three of the American ships survived the two blasts and were later sunk with conventional weapons.
* * *
When the last Iowa-class ship was finally stricken from the Naval Vessel Registry, no battleships remained in service or in reserve with any navy worldwide. A number are preserved as museum ships, either afloat or in drydock. The U.S. has eight battleships on display: Massachusetts, North Carolina, Alabama, Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Texas.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship#Cold_War:...I cannot imagine how this ever happens. Trump is trying to set naval strategy based on nostalgia, rather than what modern naval combat actually involves. Hopefully someone in the Navy (not Hegseth, obviously, but someone lower down who knows something about something) can put enough sand in the gears of this so that too much money isn't wasted before we have a new President that might actually learn something about what the Navy needs....
No. of Recommendations: 5
I cannot imagine how this ever happens. Trump is trying to set naval strategy based on nostalgia, rather than what modern naval combat actually involves. Hopefully someone in the Navy (not Hegseth, obviously, but someone lower down who knows something about something) can put enough sand in the gears of this so that too much money isn't wasted before we have a new President that might actually learn something about what the Navy needs....
It truly is a Trump class ship then. And if any are built, they will be symbols of the stupidity of MAGA, reminiscent of a bygone era.
No. of Recommendations: 6
It truly is a Trump class ship then. And if any are built, they will be symbols of the stupidity of MAGA, reminiscent of a bygone era.
I've got some ideas for the names of these new ships:
The U.S.S. D.J.T. Grift
The U.S.S. D.J.T. Duplicitous
The U.S.S. D.J.T. Flimflam
...etc...
No. of Recommendations: 1
No, they won't be cutting-edge or the most lethal surface warfare ships. Because they're battleships, and battleships are obsolete technology. Which is why we haven't built any in decades. Which is why no one is building any.
This is certainly true of the historical battleships which were massively armored behemoths, boasting turrets with 20 inch guns. Such huge guns were made obsolete by guided missiles, and hard to maneuver armored ships were made obsolete by aircraft dropping bombs.
But the concept pictures of the new ships Trump revealed showed what looked more like a conventional guided missile destroyer.
Trump no doubt loves the name "Battleship" since it sounds so manly.
No. of Recommendations: 6
but someone lower down who knows something about something) can put enough sand in the gears
Aren't those experienced and dilige... errm, obstructive individuals who routinely sabotage righteous policy choices by the elected president exactly the ones that are in the administration's cross hair?
From the net sifter:
Trump and his allies have portrayed career civil servants and experts — including in federal agencies — as obstructive or resistant. That narrative centers on the idea that these officials:
- Deliberately slow-walk or block policy implementation unless loyal to Trump’s agenda.
- Are part of an entrenched “administrative state” resistant to change.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Hopefully someone in the Navy (not Hegseth, obviously, but someone lower down who knows something about something) can put enough sand in the gears of this so that too much money isn't wasted before we have a new President that might actually learn something about what the Navy needs....
Did some defense contractor whisper in Trump's ear?
What a huge WASTE OF MONEY these worthless dinosaurs would be.
No. of Recommendations: 9
Trump no doubt loves the name "Battleship" since it sounds so manly.
Good point. Given his penchant for exaggeration and renaming stuff just to aggrandize himself (like renaming Congressionally approved housing funds as "Warrior Dividends"), I should have considered that he might simply be calling it a battleship even if it isn't.
No. of Recommendations: 3
I cannot imagine how this ever happens. Trump is trying to set naval strategy based on nostalgia, Set policy based on size envy. The Soviets built the Kirov class in the 70s and 80s. The "Trump" is an update of the Kirov class.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirov-class_battlecr...The concept is not entirely without merit. General Van Riper, 20 years ago, showed how a mass attack by cruise missiles or drones can easily overwhelm a carrier group's defenses. A larger hull can accommodate more armament. There is a name, which slips my mind at the moment, for the mathematical rule that states that internal volume increases at a greater rate than the increase in overall size of a ship. The Kirov has a three layer SAM armament, a mix of long, medium, and short range missiles, as well as several CIWS mounts. That dense of a defense could raise the bar on how large a mass attack would need to be to saturate the defenses. What I don't see in the specs for the Kirov is a large capacity for launching chaff.
The next question is how to pay for it? What to take away from the Proles, to pay for the ships, after giving more tax cuts to the "JCs"? The thought crossed my mind: funding it by public subscription. The Grifter in Chief has been hawking Bibles, sneakers, watches, guitars, and other assorted garbage, for years. Now he can offer the clueless a "chance to make American sea power great" by paying for his latest monument to himself. I have seen numbers in the $5B range per ship. Lessee....77M votes in 24, that's only a $65 "donation" by every Trump voter. That is cheap,buy Trump crap standards. Then add in all the "donations" by school children in red states.
Will they actually be built? Considering the track record of recent USN programs: Zumwalt, LCS, Constellation, I expect Billions to be spent on "development", and maybe some steel cut, before it's cancelled, and the "donations" disappear into his nibs' pocket.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 2
everyone knows you cannot take trump seriously unless he is using actual numbers. or astrology.
way to get owned again libs !
No. of Recommendations: 8
Putting the "Trump" in context, there was a proposal in the 70s for a "Strike Cruiser": nuclear powered, about 17,000 tons. The strike cruiser were rejected for cost, and the navy built the Ticonderoga class cruisers, using the Aegis combat system, instead. The Ticos are now over 30 years old and most have been retired. So, it can be argued there is a gaping hole in USN capability, that the "Trump" could fill. In the past, the Navy would cringe at the cost. But God and Savior Trump is expert at conning people out of their money.
Strike cruiserhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_cruiserTiconderoga-class cruiserhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga-class_cr...Steve
No. of Recommendations: 1
Good point. Given his penchant for exaggeration and renaming stuff just to aggrandize himself (like renaming Congressionally approved housing funds as "Warrior Dividends"), I should have considered that he might simply be calling it a battleship even if it isn't.
It isn’t. At about 35,000 tons it’s more like a heavy cruiser. The USS Alaska was about that tonnage and was a battle cruiser.
No. of Recommendations: 3
I cannot imagine how this ever happens. Trump is trying to set naval strategy based on nostalgia, rather than what modern naval combat actually involves.
1. Trump’s been in office less than 1 year. You think the Navy came up with this in the last 11 months given the glacial procurement pace?
2. The Arleigh Burkes have been stretched as far as that hull design will go.
3. The Navy needs an in-shore support capability that’s not missile based. In other words, good old-fashioned Naval gunfire support.
4. It’s highly likely that there’s more to this than meets the eye with respect to capability.
5. The ship will also be paired with a lighter weight aircraft carrier.
6. Symbology is important in Navies.
No. of Recommendations: 2
7. The ship isn’t nuclear powered because the US doesn’t have enough yards that can make them. The ones we have are being purposed for subs and carriers.
8. The ship isn’t 40k tons because the US doesn’t have enough yards that can build ships of that size. The ones we have are for carriers.
9. Someone on this board has written about the lack of capability of the US to build warships. That reality is asserting itself now and this ship is a compromise.
10. Missiles are expensive, you can’t carry very many of them to sea and they’re hard to reload at sea. The rail gun solves that and the Japanese may have figured them out…
No. of Recommendations: 3
11. “Defiant” and “Trump class” don’t follow the normal Navy naming philosophy at all. “Defiant” is more how the Brits name their warships (Repulse, Vanguard, Warspite, Valiant, Revenge and the class name is also always the name of the lead ship. As a President Trump would have an aircraft carrier named after him (Jimmy Carter is the exception because he was a former submariner and JC wanted it that way).
12. The design they’re using is very likely the DDG(x) design. The Burkes just don’t float enough firepower down range and with the retirement of the Ticonderogas the Navy has recognized the need for something like this for a long time.
No. of Recommendations: 1
13. The US Navy’s shipbuilding strategy in the years immediately following WW2 was to re-purpose a lot of hulls…which saved money at the time but helped accelerate the down fall of America’s shipyards.
No. of Recommendations: 4
7. The ship isn’t nuclear powered because the US doesn’t have enough yards that can make them. The ones we have are being purposed for subs and carriers.
8. The ship isn’t 40k tons because the US doesn’t have enough yards that can build ships of that size. The ones we have are for carriers.A lot of good questions. Here's a few answers.
The former Philadelphia Navy Yard, has been operating under civilian ownership. That yard has been building Aloha class container ships: about 854 feet long, with a beam of 114', almost exactly the size projected for a "Trump". A South Korean company bought that yard last year. As part of his "arty" trade deal with South Korea, Trump promised to transfer nuclear propulsion technology to the Korean company, so they could use the Philly yard to build a nuclear powered sub for the Korean Navy. Reportedly, the Koreans were in Philly a few weeks ago, looking at needed improvements in Drydock #3. Dock #3 has been used for ship overhaul. The new construction has been going on in Dock #4. So, hypothetically, if enough skilled labor can be found, the yard could build a Korean Navy sub in #3, and a "Trump" in Dock #4.
Philadelphia Shipyard to Build South Korean Nuclear Submarines After U.S. Technology Deal
President Donald Trump announced last month on social media that the United States will share its nuclear submarine propulsion technology with South Korea, which plans to construct its submarines at the Philadelphia Shipyard, writes Justin Katz for Breaking Defense.https://philadelphia.today/2025/11/philly-shipyard...Meanwhile, Newport News can continue plodding along building huge carriers.
Reportedly, the replacement frigates for the cancelled Constellation program will be built by Ingalls, in Mississippi. Ingalls also builds other fleet auxiliaries in the 40,000 ton range, like the America class LHAs, but their ships are all conventionally powered.
Bath Iron is more of a DDG shop, and will continue building Burkes.
The "Trump" replaces the former, proposed, DDG(X) program.
What questions did I miss?
Steve...watching images of MAGA school children donating their lunch money for "USS Trump", dancing in his nibs' mind
No. of Recommendations: 2
Reportedly, the replacement frigates for the cancelled Constellation program will be built by Ingalls, in Mississippi. Ingalls also builds other fleet auxiliaries in the 40,000 ton range, like the America class LHAs, but their ships are all conventionally powered.
Yup. The LHA yards will likely shift to making light carriers of about the same tonnage. Being able to host, say, 15 or so F-35s is a pretty good ouu up much to pack.
No. of Recommendations: 2
No, they won't be cutting-edge or the most lethal surface warfare ships. Because they're battleships, and battleships are obsolete technology.
That's what I (and pretty much everyone else with any knowledge about naval power) has been saying. Also, we haven't built a battleship since the 1940s, not 1994 (I'm assuming the Felon made that claim? He's wrong again.). In fact, the Mighty Mo was the last battleship we ever built, and that was 1944.
Hopefully someone in the Navy (not Hegseth, obviously, but someone lower down who knows something about something) can put enough sand in the gears of this so that too much money isn't wasted before we have a new President that might actually learn something about what the Navy needs....
Naval procurement is its own mess, but I'm pretty sure POTUS can't just dictate what gets built. For one, Congress has to approve the funding, which will be part of a larger defense bill (usually). And the Navy has a set of requirement for their ships which have to be met (and, sometimes, creates problems as it did with the FREMM/Constellation).
I think all that has to occur is Congress saying "no", which is likely if the Navy says they don't want it. Which they don't. Of course, I suppose the Felon could fire all Navy personnel until he finds one that agrees with him.
No. of Recommendations: 3
11. “Defiant” and “Trump class” don’t follow the normal Navy naming philosophy at all.
I am pretty sure the SecWar and SecNav will announce a name change to "Trump", and his nibs will profess surprise and delight, just as he did when his hand picked Board of bootlickers at the Kennedy Center added his name, ahead of Kennedy's.
As you said, a class of ships is named after the lead ship. Can't have a "Trump" class, when the lead ship is named "Defiant". Ford class carriers are already named, going out several years.. The Miller, Clinton, and Bush have not even been laid down yet, and News can only build one at a time. It's no fun having a ship named after you, if you are dead, so you can't wallow in the adulation at the ceremonies. Of course, maybe his nibs will declare naming CVN-81 after Miller "woke", and rename the ship, due to be laid down next year, after himself.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 2
That's what I (and pretty much everyone else with any knowledge about naval power) has been saying. Also, we haven't built a battleship since the 1940s, not 1994 (I'm assuming the Felon made that claim? He's wrong again.). In fact, the Mighty Mo was the last battleship we ever built, and that was 1944.</iL
The Wisconsin was the last battleship, not the Missouri.
You two also are wrong on the ‘cutting edge’ tech thing.
I think all that has to occur is Congress saying "no", which is likely if the Navy says they don't want it. Which they don't.
Incorrect.
The Navy recognizes that when the Ticos were retired there was a gap in terms of fleet capabilities. If you read more about this subject you’ll learn 3 things:
1. While the Arleigh Burkes are fantastic designs, there’s only so much they can do and so much you can modify that existing hull design before it becomes a new ship.
2. Aegis radars and laser/rail gun capabilities require tons of power. There’s only so much juice you can squeeze out of a Burke’s power plant.
3. The Navy has had the DDG(x) design on the drawing board for years. That’s what this is.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yup. The LHA yards will likely shift to making light carriers of about the same tonnage. Being able to host, say, 15 or so F-35s is a pretty good ouu up much to pack. The problem I have with an LHA-like light carrier, is it can't begin to defend itself, because the flight deck takes up so much space.
I would think a Kiev analog would be more capable.
Kiev-class aircraft carrierhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev-class_aircraft_...Steve
No. of Recommendations: 2
The problem I have with an LHA-like light carrier, is it can't begin to defend itself, because the flight deck takes up so much space.
There’s a mindset shift going on right now with the Navy - they want as many hulls in the water, FAST.
That’s why the “new” frigate is just going to be an up-gunned version of the Coast Guard’s LegendM/i>-class cutters already being built in US yards. The Legends already have CIWS capability.
They’ll keep building Burkes and it’s very likely the new light carrier will be essentially an LHA minus the amphibious bits like well decks (for hovercraft assault vehicles). We have the Wasp class design already in production.
So this new design isn’t particularly revolutionary because we need more steel on the high seas, and quick. Folks haven’t noticed, but the US Navy is no longer the world’s largest.
The PLAN is.
No. of Recommendations: 2
This is certainly true of the historical battleships which were massively armored behemoths, boasting turrets with 20 inch guns.Quibble: 16" guns.
Yes, obsolete because they only have ~24 mile range. When built, that was tremendous. Now, anti-ship missiles (air or sea launched) can reach out and touch a ship from far beyond that range.
I went and looked up the proposal. It's already got a wiki page. From this image, I agree it appears to be a large destroyer, or possibly a heavy cruiser. I would like the rail gun idea if it worked. However, the Navy has given up (mostly) on the rail gun because of integration and durability issues; preferring laser development. Which is probably more practical for counter-drone (maybe as an augment to Sea Whiz). Reading the wiki, it is proposed to have multiple lasers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump-class_battlesh...I note it has a very British name. We usually name our ships after cities, states, and dead people. The Brits usually name their ships with adjectives (e.g. Indomitable, Courageous, etc). Not a hard-and-fast rule (e.g. British HMS Hood, US Intrepid). But it mostly holds.
An Arleigh-Burke has 96 Mk41 VLS cells. This thing is calling out 128. It is bigger than an Arleigh-Burke (35K tons vs about 9900 tons), and is designated "BBG" which is "guided missile battleship". Aegis, obviously. For comparison,
Iowa class was ~57K tons. Not much detail about survivability (armor). Just eye-balling it, it looks like a
Kirov class equivalent.
So, it really isn't a big-barrel battleship. The VLS cells make it relevant to today's Navy. They'll probably have to ditch the rail gun. For its size, it doesn't have that many more VLS cells than an Arleigh-Burke. It has a decent top speed, assuming this becomes a reality.
Just first impressions. As I have time, I may dig up some more on it. The Navy needs new ships, and at first glance this isn't a hopeless boondoggle. Though, my first reaction is "we need a new destroyer class, and this ain't a destroyer".
No. of Recommendations: 3
Trump did make a big mistake with this, though: he put his name on it.
That means that every democrat will view the ship as a target to destroy rather than something the Navy has needed for 20 years. Instead of thinking through what we need at sea they’ll rush to cancel it just to stick it to The Bad Orange Man.
And btw big radars —> tall superstructures —> more instability at sea unless you increase the draught to accommodate them. This is what I mean when I say the Burke hull design has reached its limits.
Can anyone think of a reason why you’d need a really big radar on board a blue water naval vessel? A radar that can see (and target) objects in outer space at the height of their trajectories?
No. of Recommendations: 1
That’s why the “new” frigate is just going to be an up-gunned version of the Coast Guard’s LegendM/i>-class cutters
That is what they were thinking with the Connies, "modified" FREMMs, built by the company that has been building FREMMs. What could go wrong? Typical Pentagon procurement. That is what "went wrong".
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 1
The "Trump" is an update of the Kirov class.
As we used to say on TMF: "greeked!"
Yeah. Close to a Kirov.
I'm thinking (as are others) that we need a new class of destroyers. We could probably build three of four of those for every one of these.
Maybe just buy them from the South Koreans. They seem to have it figured out. :-|
No. of Recommendations: 2
Of course, maybe his nibs will declare naming CVN-81 after Miller "woke", and rename the ship, due to be laid down next year, after himself.
Dorie Miller is an absolute hero and deserves a ship named after him…but he was never a US President and never should have had his name on an aircraft carrier.
The Arleigh Burke class’ naming convention is perfect for guys like Dorie Miller: Naval heroes.
For reference, the current Navy naming convention:
Aircraft carriers - US Presidents (Ford class).
Submarines - US states (Virginia class)
Amphibious warfare - Classic US ship names (Wasp, America
No. of Recommendations: 3
I don't care what they call them, as long as they keep blowing up Venezuelan fishing boats.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Maybe just buy them from the South Koreans. They seem to have it figured out. :-|
Fincantieri had the FREMM figured out. Then Pentagon procurement happened.
A lot of those South Korean frigates were built by Daewoo, which has been bought by Hanwha, owner of the Philly yard. But they have not built for the Pentagon before, just like Fincantieri had not.
The other variable is God and Savior Trump is probably in a yank to get the program going. I forsee a flood of change orders, when initial designs turn out to be impractical, but they have already been cutting and welding steel.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 0
but he was never a US President
Neither was Forrestal, or Vinson, or Ike, or Nimitz, or Stennis.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 1
The Wisconsin was the last battleship, not the Missouri.Nope. Not wrong. The
USS Missouri was the last battleship to be commissioned by the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Missouri_(BB-63)
Wisconsin was commissioned in April of 1944.
Missouri was commissioned in June of 1944. Looked it up because I wasn't sure of the exact dates.
Also, I didn't really mention "cutting edge tech", so I'm not sure what you're referring to.
I do agree that we have a gap in our fleet capabilities, and that the Arleigh-Burkes are maxed-out in terms of their capabilities. We need a new DDG hull. This isn't a DDG(x), it is a BBG. Significantly larger than a DDG. Power plant likely won't be an issue on a new design (if it is, someone screwed up). That, however, does not make me incorrect about the Navy not wanting this. This isn't a replacement for the Ticos. They were only about the size of the Arleigh-Burkes (~9K tons). This is a completely different class of ship that arguably won't fill the gap in capabilities. With only a few more VLS cells than the much smaller Ticos. They need fires, and a lot of them. You could build 4 DDGs for one of these things, giving you a lot more "bang for your buck", and filling the gap left by the Ticos very nicely.
I'm not saying a BBG is a bad idea. But it's not really what the Navy is worried about at the moment. They need new frigate hulls (which is why they were entertaining the FREMM/Constellation), and new DDG hulls (which the Zumwalt was supposed to be, but ended up falling flat).
No. of Recommendations: 2
I don't care what they call them, as long as they keep blowing up Venezuelan fishing boats.
Heh. These ships are meant to be dragon killers.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Aircraft carriers - US Presidents (Ford class).
Submarines - US states (Virginia class)
Amphibious warfare - Classic US ship names (Wasp, America
This is getting off the main topic, but it's interesting how this changes. Back in the day the BBs were named for states (Arizona, Iowa, etc). Fast forward 40 years, and we named our boomers (SSBNs) after states (Ohio-class). SSNs were named for cities (Los Angeles class). Now we're naming fast attack subs (SSNs) after states (Virginia). The LCS is being named after cities now (e.g. Pierre, Detroit, etc).
The Nimitz-class was a mix. Nimitz was an admiral. But of the same class are ships like the Theodore Roosevelt (POTUS).
Seawolf also was a mix, the few that we ever built. One is named the Jimmy Carter. By all accounts, and awesome boat.
No. of Recommendations: 2
No. of Recommendations: 11
No. of Recommendations: 2
Wisconsin was commissioned in April of 1944. Missouri was commissioned in June of 1944. Looked it up because I wasn't sure of the exact dates.
Fair enough. I was going by whose keel was laid down last, and that was the Wisconsin (hence the larger hull number).
This isn't a DDG(x), it is a BBG. Significantly larger than a DDG. Power plant likely won't be an issue on a new design (if it is, someone screwed up). That, however, does not make me incorrect about the Navy not wanting this. This isn't a replacement for the Ticos. They were only about the size of the Arleigh-Burkes (~9K tons). This is a completely different class of ship that arguably won't fill the gap in capabilities. With only a few more VLS cells than the much smaller Ticos. They need fires, and a lot of them. You could build 4 DDGs for one of these things, giving you a lot more "bang for your buck", and filling the gap left by the Ticos very nicely.
The Burkes don’t haul enough stuff to sea. They’re not big enough. For in-shore bombardment you need something with over the horizon capability to make the aerial drone problem harder. That normally means missiles, but they’re bigger and heavier and you can only carry so many. That’s why the rail gun concept keeps coming back, because it’s needed.
Blue water operations call for ships that can stay on station for weeks or months on end. The Burkes are fantastic ships but we’re never designed for some of the jobs they’re being asked to do.
I don’t particularly care what Trump calls them: they’re not battleships. Battle cruiser is more apt, but whatever. They’ll carry an Osprey or two which means they have some airlift capability along with the enhanced firepower. They’ll also carry multistage hypersonics in addition to the larger number of vertical cells.
The rail gun + laser + bigger radar combo == much bigger power plant than the Burkes have. They’ll probably repurpose/modify the one in the America-class LHD designs.
For the frigate they’re just going to use the Legend class design (large Coast Guard cutter) as the base. We already make those.
No. of Recommendations: 2
The largest battleship in the history of the world. <i/>
--------------------
The biggest battleship ever built is the Japanese battleship Yamato, which had a full load displacement of nearly 72,000 tons and was armed with nine 46 cm (18.1 in) main guns, the largest ever mounted on a warship. It was designed to counter the U.S. Navy's battleship fleet during World War II.
Some of the passenger cruise ships I have been on are in excess of 100,000 tons. They are probably even bigger these days.
No. of Recommendations: 2
It truly is a Trump class ship then. And if any are built, they will be symbols of the stupidity of MAGA, reminiscent of a bygone era.
------------
Ya think there will be a lot of gold trim everywhere, maybe a marble flight deck?
No. of Recommendations: 1
Ya think there will be a lot of gold trim everywhere, maybe a marble flight deck?
And every ship will have a fully stocked McDonald's restaurant.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Ya think there will be a lot of gold trim everywhere, maybe a marble flight deck?
Maybe :)
But like the F-47 (which has been flying for >5 years, and the idiot Biden didn’t green light it), this is an existing thing that Trump is putting his name on.
If he hadn’t named it after himself nobody on this board outside a couple of Navy geeks like me would care. But since he did, the left will say the boats are meant to be that big so they can fly the new Nazi Pirate flag the left will claim that Trump wants to replace the US flag with.
No. of Recommendations: 2
BTW rail gun slugs are only about pounds each.
A V-22 Osprey can carry 10,000lbs+ of cargo.
That’s a crap ton of firepower per load from a very long range bird that can resupply these ships at sea.
No. of Recommendations: 3
And with regard to arming this new ship with nuclear war heads on cruise missiles, Tom Nichols explains why that idea was abandoned 30 years ago:
During the Cold War, U.S. surface vessels carried all kinds of nuclear munitions for use against other ships, submarines, and land targets, because such was the logic of the Soviet-American standoff: World War III would be a final confrontation of two immense military forces, including nuclear duels at sea. In 1991, with the Soviet Union on its last legs, President George H. W. Bush ordered the removal of all such weapons from the surface fleet. Many Navy officers were relieved: I know from speaking with several at the time that they regarded nuclear weapons on their ships as a useless burden.
Today’s Navy is not going to get into a nuclear showdown with the Soviet fleet. Nor, for that matter, is it likely to trade mushroom clouds at sea with the Chinese or Russian fleets. Carrying nuclear weapons on surface vessels—big, slow, exposed platforms—is not only strategically pointless but also a needless risk. George H. W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, both defense hawks, knew this more than three decades ago. More at the link (gift link to the Atlantic article, shortened to shield it from the errant link processing code here).
https://tinyurl.com/yh75nvvz
No. of Recommendations: 0
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.
No. of Recommendations: 1
The other variable is God and Savior Trump is probably in a yank to get the program going.
The more I think about it, the more I like the subscription model. Each subscriber will receive an autopen signed "Certificate of Patriotism" for donating to the ship project. And the donation fund would be a great way of laundering bribes (do we still need to launder bribes, now that they are legal?) MAGA put this buffoon in charge. Let them pay for his monuments to himself, as the cost spirals out of control, because he says he will "help" with the design. He will probably demand the keel be laid on his birthday: June 14th, regardless the bind that puts designers and vendors in.
I should send an e-mail to the White House recommending the subscription model, but I am not confident I could word it in a manner that did not show the sarcasm. ;^)
Steve...where will they install the 30 foot golden statue of God and Savior Trump?
No. of Recommendations: 0
If he hadn’t named it after himself nobody on this board outside a couple of Navy geeks like me would care.
Perhaps. But I think many (like albaby admitted) were envisioning an Iowa class vessel, which is obsolete before you even lay the keel. Because the Felon called it a "battleship". That's what normal people see in their minds. That's what I envisioned. If he had said "battle cruiser", which is more accurate, at least people wouldn't have been jumping to the conclusion that it's obsolete technology. Though mostly geeks like us would have dug into what it actually was.
It clearly is existing in the design stage since one doesn't put out specs (like on wikipedia) in a few days. It takes months to work stuff like that out.
No. of Recommendations: 1
I don't care what they call them, as long as they keep blowing up Venezuelan fishing boats. There is no profit in that. However....
Trump says U.S. will keep the crude oil and tankers seized near Venezuelahttps://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/22/trump-says-us-will...The US will need more tankers to recover "our" oil from Venezuela.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 1
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).That’s what the rail gun is for: the Navy’s early tests were able to hurl projectiles as far as 200nm(!) away. That’s medium-range missile distance at a fraction of the weight, space and complexity of missiles. At only ~40lbs a shot, and at 6 shots/minute, it’s a ton of down range firepower:
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2003/fe...To put things in perspective, our current 5-inch gun has a muzzle energy of 10 megajoules (MJ). ERGM will increase this to 18 MJ, and AGS will press the limits of conventional gun physics by attempting to achieve a muzzle energy in excess of 33 MJ. In contrast, naval rail guns will achieve muzzle energies from 60 to 300 MJ.Speed kills, as they say.
The
Zumwalt designs didn’t go forward because of problems with replacing the barrels. But the Japanese have made some breakthroughs:
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/04/stunning-japan...Japan Has a Railgun
Japan’s efforts to build and develop an electromagnetic railgun, a futuristic weapon that fires projectiles using electricity, appear to have been successful.
The Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) released an image of its state-of-the-art railgun on April 18. It is currently undergoing testing aboard the test ship JS Asuka.
Other points:
-they seem to have solved the barrel problem, and got 120+ shots out of theirs.
-they hit a target ship with it
-they only spent like
$6.5 million on the program!
The breakthrough:
Copper was initially used as the barrel rail material, but it was later changed to a different blend of metals and other materials during the research. As a result, it was confirmed that no significant damage occurred to the barrel rail even after 120 rounds were fired.For the frigate:
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.The main differences are going to be in electronics.
No. of Recommendations: 0
It clearly is existing in the design stage since one doesn't put out specs (like on wikipedia) in a few days. It takes months to work stuff like that out.
NavSea has probably continued what BuShips did before it, working on sketch designs all the time. Ever see the drawings for "Tillman" battleships? iirc, Trump has been blathering about "battleships" for a while now, too, so they had plenty of time to put something together.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 1
It clearly is existing in the design stage since one doesn't put out specs (like on wikipedia) in a few days. It takes months to work stuff like that out.
Yeah, it’s very likely this design has been in the works for at least a few years.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Well, the bottom line is we will definitely need to open up the borders for a lot of illegal invader-grant ultra cheap manpower.
They can make them like triremes with three stacks of illegals with oars sticking out both sides of the ships.
We can build lots more this way instead of using gas turbines or fossil fuels or nuclear power plants.
Plus, if they get sunk who cares? No great loss.
Let's revise the immigration laws to permit full citizenship for any illegal immigrant who signs on for 20 years of servitude while chained to an oar. (If they survive that is.)
But it shouldn't be named the "Trump" class.
The first one should be the "U.S.S. Senile Joe Biden" and they should be called the "Biden" class of ships.
Because he was the President who did the most to make them possible.
No. of Recommendations: 0
The Zumwalt designs didn’t go forward because of problems with replacing the barrels.As I recall, the gun wasn't entirely reliable, as you say the barrels had to be replaced often, and it utilized a very specialized (expensive!) ammo.
If the rail gun is as advertised, and compact enough to fit on a ship, that potentially a field-able weapon.
The main differences are going to be in electronics.More than that. Armaments. A quick check says this cutter has no VLS cells. The FREMM has VLS cells. The cutter is mostly armed with small cannons, which you would expect for domestic coastal duties (e.g. dealing with narco boats, search and rescue, and such). However, this says it is upgradable to larger 57mm, and some other hardware.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legend-class_cutterIt also appears to be good at stealth.
No. of Recommendations: 1
The next question is how to pay for it? What to take away from the Proles, to pay for the ships, after giving more tax cuts to the "JCs"? The thought crossed my mind: funding it by public subscription. The Grifter in Chief has been hawking Bibles, sneakers, watches, guitars, and other assorted garbage, for years. Now he can offer the clueless a "chance to make American sea power great" by paying for his latest monument to himself.The UK Royal National Lifeboat Institution has a way you can donate where your loved one's name (or your name if you like) gets put on the side of a lifeboat:
Launch a Memory:
https://rnli.org/support-us/give-money/donate-in-m...Remember a loved one you miss – or celebrate someone still with us – by adding their name to a very special all-weather lifeboatFor only $65 (plus handling fee) you could have your name on a Trump class Battleship! (in 6pt Times New Roman font).
No. of Recommendations: 0
The UK Royal National Lifeboat Institution has a way you can donate where your loved one's name (or your name if you like) gets put on the side of a lifeboat:Funding a warship by public subscription is not unheard of:
Japanese battleship Mutsu
Mutsu, named for Mutsu Province,[31] was laid down at the Yokosuka Naval Arsenal on 1 June 1918 and launched on 31 May 1920.[16] Funding for the ship had partly come from donations from schoolchildren.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_...HMS Erin (which had been built for the Ottoman Empire, and commandeered by the UK)
The takeover caused considerable ill will in the Ottoman Empire, where public subscriptions had partially funded the ships. When the Ottoman government had been in a financial deadlock over the budget of the battleships, donations for the Ottoman Navy had come in from taverns, cafés, schools and markets, and large donations were rewarded with a "Navy Donation Medal". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_ErinGreek cruiser Georgios Averof
When the Italian government cancelled the third ship of the class due to budgetary concerns, the Greek government immediately stepped in and bought her with a one-third downpayment (ca. 300,000 gold pound sterling), the bequest of a wealthy Greek benefactor, Georgios Averof, whose name she consequently received. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_cruiser_Georgi...But how can I hide the sarcasm, when I propose the funding scheme to the White House?
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 3
Ya think there will be a lot of gold trim everywhere, maybe a marble flight deck?
Yes, in little alcoves on each deck with gilded pictures of Trump on daises, and little pillows for their knees so they can worship properly.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Ya think there will be a lot of gold trim everywhere, maybe a marble flight deck?
Your exaggerations are getting less and less unbelievable, Mike.
No. of Recommendations: 3
The U.S. has eight battleships on display: Massachusetts, North Carolina, Alabama, Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Texas.
Battleship New Jersey has a YouTube channel hosted by its curator, Ryan Simanski (sp??). One of the best such channels around. The ship recently went through dry dock, which was well documented in the channel. Fascinating stuff for history buffs.
—Peter
No. of Recommendations: 2
Battleship New Jersey has a YouTube channel hosted by its curator, Ryan Simanski Ryan's piece, today, about the battleships.
He notes a very aggressive schedule to get them laid down....yup, I figured Trump would be in a yank.
He notes every USN ship program, since the Burke, has been an abortion.
So They're Building New Battleshipshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7sfS_9RenESteve
No. of Recommendations: 2
Battleship New Jersey has a YouTube channel hosted by its curator, Ryan Simanski (sp??). One of the best such channels around. The ship recently went through dry dock, which was well documented in the channel. Fascinating stuff for history buffs.
Cool. I've always loved battleships, obsolete though they may be now. So did my dad. He and a childhood friend constructed 6 - 8 inch long battleships by gluing together hundreds of foil liners from cigarette packs in the 1930's. Conning towers, gun turrets, the whole works, painted military green. With multiple hermetic compartments to prevent immediate sinking by a home made nail gun powered by rubber bands! I still have one of the battleships in a box somewhere. I tried to emulate the method myself using regular aluminum foil, but never completed it. Good times.
No. of Recommendations: 2
He notes every USN ship program, since the Burke, has been an abortion.
Still, look on the bright side...in every case some corrupt defense contractor made a bundle of money, and likely some government officials did ok, too.
No. of Recommendations: 4
where will they install the 30 foot golden statue of God and Savior Trump?
On the bow, as the figurehead. His golden locks flowing in the wind, and his ample breasts and overflowing gut shaming the seas into a calm.
No. of Recommendations: 3
On the bow, as the figurehead. His golden locks flowing in the wind, and his ample breasts and overflowing gut shaming the seas into a calm.
I saw a meme on FB; an Iowa class BB, with the entire superstructure gold plated, a gold bust of God and Savior Trump as the figurehead, and the name was "USS Bonespurs".
Steve
