- 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 10:53 pm to northshorebamaman
Posted on 12/22/25 at 10:53 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
A battleship, big or small, doesn’t suddenly gain unique capability.
This is unknown.
0
Posted on 12/22/25 at 11:02 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:Just to clarify your argument: are you saying we should support a multi-billion-dollar program in the 11 figure range (per ship) based purely on hope that defensive capabilities have advanced enough to negate the risks being discussed, even though those capabilities aren’t something we can evaluate or weigh, if they exist at all?
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?
Posted on 12/22/25 at 11:12 pm to hawgfaninc
Bigger targets for submarines.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 11:24 pm to northshorebamaman
Give us 2 big beautiful battle wagons packed to the brim with long range missiles, high tech sensors, drones by the thousands, and at least one big gun. Just because.
Walk softly but carry a big stick.
The "Pride of the fleet" has a meaning. And a purpose.
Then churn out 50 more missile destroyers. And 2 more super carriers. And maybe 5 more icbm subs.
We can never ever let our global naval superiority slip from our grasp.
Naval building=American industry
Walk softly but carry a big stick.
The "Pride of the fleet" has a meaning. And a purpose.
Then churn out 50 more missile destroyers. And 2 more super carriers. And maybe 5 more icbm subs.
We can never ever let our global naval superiority slip from our grasp.
Naval building=American industry
Posted on 12/22/25 at 11:32 pm to Sticky37
I’m broadly with you on where naval dominance actually comes from: subs, missiles, sensors, drones, logistics, and shipyard capacity. That’s real power, not cosplay.
The part I’m skeptical of is layering an entirely new, eleven-figure surface platform on top of that when we’ve already struggled to build existing classes on time and on budget. Zumwalt, Ford, Constellation, even Virginia production rates all say industrial capacity is the bottleneck, not platform.
If the concern is maintaining superiority, it's more realistic to fix throughput on platforms we already know work than to bet big on a prestige hull that competes for the same yards, crews, and dollars.
The part I’m skeptical of is layering an entirely new, eleven-figure surface platform on top of that when we’ve already struggled to build existing classes on time and on budget. Zumwalt, Ford, Constellation, even Virginia production rates all say industrial capacity is the bottleneck, not platform.
If the concern is maintaining superiority, it's more realistic to fix throughput on platforms we already know work than to bet big on a prestige hull that competes for the same yards, crews, and dollars.
This post was edited on 12/23/25 at 2:53 am
Posted on 12/22/25 at 11:36 pm to hawgfaninc
Am I missing something? Won't drones (for a tiny fraction of the cost and effort) make things like battleships completely obsolete?
This post was edited on 12/22/25 at 11:40 pm
Posted on 12/22/25 at 11:40 pm to Sticky37
quote:
Give us 2 big beautiful battle wagon
They're not battleships. Even at 35k tons displacement, they're not a lot more than a large SSGN. The railgun and lasers could be interesting, and the most likely use of this line is to field test the tech to figure out how to get it on DD/CG sized boats in the future. It can't work out much worse than most of the USN's farking around with the Italian FFG, or myriad other programs they have screwed up for the last 40 years.
But more destroyers, always.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 12:10 am to hawgfaninc
"Trump-Class" carries is such an unbelievably hard flex 
Posted on 12/23/25 at 1:50 am to hawgfaninc
Somali pirates had better look out!
Posted on 12/23/25 at 11:05 am to northshorebamaman
quote:
northshorebamaman
You're a rockstar. Every post is dead-on.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 11:10 am to northshorebamaman
quote:
Just to clarify your argument: are you saying we should support a multi-billion-dollar program in the 11 figure range (per ship) based purely on hope that defensive capabilities have advanced enough to negate the risks being discussed
So for clarity, the U.S. military should all new tech through you before implementing anything?
My assumption is that we would not allocate that type of funding for WW2 era battleships.
My assumption is that the U.S. military would like to be on the cutting edge of advanced technology.
My assumption is that one battleship in the Atlantic and one in the Pacific would be priceless in a geo-political sense IF it has next gen capabilities.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 11:12 am to hawgfaninc
Great, build something new. That should keep the MIC satisfied.
This post was edited on 12/23/25 at 11:13 am
Posted on 12/23/25 at 11:15 am to jimmy the leg
quote:
My assumption is that one battleship in the Atlantic and one in the Pacific would be priceless in a geo-political sense IF it has next gen capabilities.
How though?
Posted on 12/23/25 at 11:16 am to hawgfaninc
Refit the ones we already have.
USS MISSOURI
USS MISSOURI
This post was edited on 12/23/25 at 11:17 am
Posted on 12/23/25 at 11:22 am to Allister Fiend
quote:
A large caliber projectile isn’t going to be stopped by some technological jamming device.
The "big gun" would be a railgun which is electromagnetic.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 12:55 pm to rmnldr
quote:
How though?
In much the same way that a carrier group does.
Saber-rattling takes all forms, and can be quite effective at times.
Again, it depends upon its capabilities (which aren’t fully known at this time).
Posted on 12/23/25 at 1:43 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
Such a huge waste of money wtf. We found out battleships were obsolete almost 100 years ago.
Everything we used 100 years ago is obsolete today, thought the B-52 may actually be in service for 100 years if continues to be useful. The destroyers we use today are 5-10 times the size of the ones we used in WW2, they are actually larger than most cruisers we used in WW2, but their armament is totally different except that they do still use a 5" gun.
They are referring to this ship as a guided missile Battleship, the designation would be BBG, the old battleships were BB, the last one being BB-64 or 65 depending on if the USS Kentucky, which was never finished, got a number.
This idea has been around since the 1990's. Back then, it was the Arsenal Ship that was a large platform for cruise missiles that could pack massive firepower with a relatively small crew. That was cancelled by Clinton.
The Battleship faded away because it was no longer strategic. The seas were ruled by Aircraft Carriers, and today, submarines.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 1:58 pm to BabyDraco1499
quote:
"Trump-Class" carries
Posted on 12/23/25 at 2:33 pm to jimmy the leg
The only thing that makes sense for the LSC is to have the longer strike length VLS which can fit the big hypersonics but at that point we’re talking about an arsenal ship instead of what the navy originally wanted in distributed lethality. Railguns aren't going to be used.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 4:05 pm to rmnldr
quote:
The only thing that makes sense for the LSC is to have the longer strike length VLS which can fit the big hypersonics but at that point we’re talking about an arsenal ship instead of what the navy originally wanted in distributed lethality. Railguns aren't going to be used.
I didn’t mention rail guns.
I said unknown tech.
Unknown…
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News