- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trump has approved two new battleships to be built
Posted on 12/22/25 at 6:46 pm to hawgfaninc
Posted on 12/22/25 at 6:46 pm to hawgfaninc
quote:Yes. But that's a two-way street.
Has tech changed & improved over 100 years?
Has technology improved more for defending large surface ships, or for finding and killing them at longer ranges?
Clearly the latter. Sensors, satellites, ISR networks, submarines, precision missiles, and targeting have all advanced far faster and further than shipboard defenses. It is now much easier to detect, track, and target a large surface hull from hundreds or thousands of miles away than it is to reliably defend one against everything that can reach it.
Defenses help at the margins, but naval offense scales better. A missile, torpedo, or drone swarm costs a fraction of the ship it threatens, and you only have to get lucky once. That's exactly why navies abandoned armored capital ships and moved toward dispersion, subsurface platforms, and airpower.
So yes, technology changed. But it changed in the direction that punishes big, visible, high-value surface ships.
0
Posted on 12/22/25 at 6:48 pm to Tantal
quote:
We don't need big battleships. We need a shitload of destroyers.
You guys get way too caught up in the names of things. It’s just gonna be a big boat that can shoot lots of big weapons.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 6:51 pm to CapnKangaroo
quote:What's the advantage of concentrating so much firepower on one target as opposed to distributing it out over several smaller cheaper platforms?
You guys get way too caught up in the names of things. It’s just gonna be a big boat that can shoot lots of big weapons.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 6:52 pm to Tantal
quote:
Unfortunately, Rihanna stays pregnant all the time lately.
Well, ya know..
This post was edited on 12/22/25 at 6:54 pm
Posted on 12/22/25 at 7:22 pm to northshorebamaman
There isn’t one.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 7:37 pm to Hateradedrink
quote:Doesn't seem to be. I've posted the same question to a half dozen posters and none have had a response.
There isn’t one.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 7:43 pm to northshorebamaman
We cant get anything over about 180 feet long built anywhere near on time or budget anymore. Every new gray boat contract in the past 20 years has been a disaster. How will this be any different?
Posted on 12/22/25 at 7:44 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
What's the advantage of concentrating so much firepower on one target as opposed to distributing it out over several smaller cheaper platforms?
It has to be big enough to have a big nuclear reactor capable of powering the big arse rail guns.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 7:52 pm to CapnKangaroo
quote:A rail gun doesn’t require a giant reactor or a battleship-sized hull. It requires high peak power, which is handled with energy storage and power conditioning, not nonstop generation.
It has to be big enough to have a big nuclear reactor capable of powering the big arse rail guns.
The rail gun program wasn’t shelved because ships were too small. It was shelved because of barrel wear, reliability, cost, and because missiles kept getting better and cheaper.
So why build a massive high-value target around a weapon the Navy deprioritized as inefficient, especially when existing platforms can already generate the power and missiles outperform it operationally?
Posted on 12/22/25 at 7:58 pm to hawgfaninc
Austal finna eat.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:00 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
Such a huge waste of money wtf. We found out battleships were obsolete almost 100 years ago.
Are you assuming that this battleship will be equipped the same as WW2 battleships?
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:01 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
So why build a massive high-value target around a weapon the Navy deprioritized
Why assume that you know what the new ships will be capable of?
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:02 pm to hawgfaninc
quote:
It’s probably a safe assumption that the available tech now has made the battleships viable & needed again
Bigger ships seem like easier targets for current tech
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Bigger ships seem like easier targets for current tech
At sea drones...
Puts a lot of fleet tonnage at risk in a single engagement.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:06 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:No. Battleships didn’t become obsolete because their guns or armor were outdated. They became obsolete because the platform itself stopped making sense.
Are you assuming that this battleship will be equipped the same as WW2 battleships?
The problem wasn’t that the weapons failed. It was that aircraft, submarines, long-range sensors, and precision strike made it impossible for a large surface hull to survive long enough to use its weapons. Armor stopped scaling. Detection outran concealment. Offense became cheaper than defense.
You could replace WWII guns with missiles, rail guns, lasers, drones, and the Death Star laser cannon and you still haven’t fixed the core issue: a massive surface ship is easy to find, easy to target, and extremely expensive to lose.
No one is assuming WWII loadouts. The assumption is that the same physics and economics still apply.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
Well, if they are going to have a Battleship designation, they should be named after states and pick up at BB-72.
The completed Iowas were BB-61 to 64.
Kentucky and Illinois were BB-65 and 66 which weren't completed and scrapped.
BB-67 to 71 were the five ships of the cancelled Montana class, Montana, Ohio, Maine, New Hampshire, and Louisiana.
The completed Iowas were BB-61 to 64.
Kentucky and Illinois were BB-65 and 66 which weren't completed and scrapped.
BB-67 to 71 were the five ships of the cancelled Montana class, Montana, Ohio, Maine, New Hampshire, and Louisiana.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:10 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:Because certain vulnerabilities are inherent to massive hulls.
Why assume that you know what the new ships will be capable of?
Size means higher signature, predictable movement, longer construction timelines, fewer hulls, and far greater consequences if one is damaged or lost. Those are structural liabilities that no amount of new sensors, weapons, or software can erase. You can improve defenses, but you can’t make a huge surface ship small, numerous, or easy to replace.
So even if we don’t know every future capability, we do know the physics and economics that come with concentrating power into a single large hull.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:11 pm to hawgfaninc
Better have some killer anti drone tech
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:13 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
the core issue: a massive surface ship is easy to find, easy to target, and extremely expensive to lose.
Yup, considering we have a problem actually building ships...
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:19 pm to northshorebamaman
After doing some reading it appears that the Navy has been trying to acquire larger surface warships for some time but they keep getting canceled. So I guess the Navy wants these ships.
If we’re worried about huge and powerful ships that are too expensive to lose then we should probably start scrapping the aircraft carriers.
If we’re worried about huge and powerful ships that are too expensive to lose then we should probably start scrapping the aircraft carriers.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News