- 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 8:26 pm to northshorebamaman
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:26 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
You can improve defenses
Go on…
1
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:31 pm to VolSquatch
I would assume swarms can be detected at range. Stay far enough offshore and they become easily detectable and eliminated. Sharks with lasers and shite. Rail gun is where it is at. Cheap as hell and we can launch hot lead at you with no regard. Let it fly.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:35 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:I did. You left it out of your quote for some reason.
Go on…
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:37 pm to northshorebamaman
We should go ahead and scrap all the aircraft carriers since we can’t afford to have them sunk in combat.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:38 pm to hawgfaninc
Maybe powered by TMTG / TAE fusion reactors
quote:
*Military Relevance*: TAE's origins involved Naval Research Lab peer reviews, and recent $6 billion merger with Trump Media & Technology Group (announced December 2025) could accelerate funding for dual-use tech under a defense-friendly administration. While not explicitly naval, the modular design suits "fleet" deployments, potentially extending to maritime forces.
In summary, yes—TAE's fusion plants could provide the necessary power, with Da Vinci's 250 MW output enabling multiple weapon systems simultaneously. Real-world adoption would depend on successful prototypes, cost reductions (already 50% from breakthroughs), and Navy collaboration, but the tech's compactness and density make it a promising fit for future all-electric warships.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:42 pm to hawgfaninc
Ballistic ammunition’s are cheaper than multimillion dollar smart bombs and missiles. A large caliber projectile isn’t going to be stopped by some technological jamming device.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:46 pm to CapnKangaroo
quote:That only works if you pretend carriers and battleships are interchangeable, and they aren’t.
We should go ahead and scrap all the aircraft carriers since we can’t afford to have them sunk in combat
Carriers are expensive and vulnerable, but they provide a unique capability: mobile airpower that can project force hundreds of miles inland without relying on foreign bases. There is no substitute for that. That’s why every major navy that can afford it still builds and protects carriers despite the risk.
The argument against battleships isn’t “they’re too valuable to lose.” It’s that they don’t add a unique capability to justify that risk. A massive missile or drone-armed surface ship does things we already do with destroyers, subs, and carriers, just with more concentration, slower turnaround and higher costs.
So no, the logic doesn’t lead to scrapping carriers. It leads to asking a simple question: what does this platform do that smaller cheaper platforms can't? Carriers have an answer.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:50 pm to hawgfaninc
quote:
"Trump-class"
Jesus...tell me this isn't real.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:51 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
So no, the logic doesn’t lead to scrapping carriers. It leads to asking a simple question: what does this platform do that smaller cheaper platforms can't? Carriers have an answe
It can carry hundreds or even thousands of missiles, which you pointed out were cheap. If anything aircraft carriers are obsolete now. Why send an airplane into enemy airspace when you can send a hypersonic missile with even more range than a fighter jet?
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:52 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Go on…
quote:
I did
You mentioned tech/military hardware that has yet to be seen?
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:58 pm to CapnKangaroo
quote:That argument explains why missiles are valuable. It doesn’t explain why they need to be concentrated on a massive surface ship.
It can carry hundreds or even thousands of missiles, which you pointed out were cheap. If anything aircraft carriers are obsolete now. Why send an airplane into enemy airspace when you can send a hypersonic missile with even more range than a fighter jet?
If the advantage is “hundreds or thousands of missiles,” why put them on one giant, visible hull instead of distributing them across submarines, destroyers, mobile launchers, and air platforms that are harder to find and harder to neutralize all at once?
Missiles are cheap relative to ships, not cheap to lose in bulk. Losing a salvo is acceptable. Losing the single platform carrying a huge chunk of your inventory isn’t. That’s why modern doctrine spreads missile capacity instead of centralizing it.
Carriers aren’t justified because they carry weapons. They’re justified because they carry aircraft: reusable, flexible, capable of ISR, dynamic targeting, loitering, aborting, and returning. A missile does one thing once.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:59 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:Make your argument.
You mentioned tech/military hardware that has yet to be seen?
Posted on 12/22/25 at 9:01 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
No one is assuming WWII loadouts. The assumption is that the same physics and economics still apply.
Physics…yes.
Economic…that depends.
We don’t know the capabilities.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 9:02 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Make your argument.
quote:
yet to be seen?
I’m not in skunk works.
I simply noted that you can’t assume based solely on past issues and concerns (legit that they were).
Posted on 12/22/25 at 9:09 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:I addressed this directly in that same post:
I simply noted that you can’t assume based solely on past issues and concerns (legit that they were).
quote:
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 9:14 pm to hawgfaninc
Posted on 12/22/25 at 9:15 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Carriers aren’t justified because they carry weapons. They’re justified because they carry aircraft: reusable, flexible, capable of ISR, dynamic targeting, loitering, aborting, and returning. A missile does one thing once.
Fair. But by your logic we need to stop building super carriers and build dozens of smaller aircraft carriers.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 9:15 pm to Kjnstkmn
Posted on 12/22/25 at 9:23 pm to CapnKangaroo
That’s also fair, and yes, to a point smaller carriers can do many of the same things. That’s why the Navy already uses amphibs and light carriers alongside supercarriers. Size there is a tradeoff between sortie rate, endurance, survivability, and command-and-control, not a binary “big or useless” choice.
But notice what didn’t change in that discussion? The platform is still an aircraft carrier. The debate is about how to size and mix carriers, not whether to replace them with something else.
None of that logic transfers to battleships. Whether you build one huge carrier or several smaller ones, the justification is still airpower. A battleship, big or small, doesn’t suddenly gain unique capability. So even if you agree on more distributed carriers, that still doesn’t argue for reviving huge hulls that bring no new capabilities while regurgitating old vulnerabilities.
But notice what didn’t change in that discussion? The platform is still an aircraft carrier. The debate is about how to size and mix carriers, not whether to replace them with something else.
None of that logic transfers to battleships. Whether you build one huge carrier or several smaller ones, the justification is still airpower. A battleship, big or small, doesn’t suddenly gain unique capability. So even if you agree on more distributed carriers, that still doesn’t argue for reviving huge hulls that bring no new capabilities while regurgitating old vulnerabilities.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 10:51 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
I addressed this directly in that same post:
Partially, yes.
What I noted is that you don’t have any idea how much defenses have improved.
What if they have improved to a point that mitigates all that you noted?
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News