Not too long ago I read that the battleship is obsolete and the days of naval battles involving battleships is over. I am not questioning Trump but would like a comment from someone in the Naval industry concerning this issue.

He doesn't want to make new battleships in the traditional sense of a huge armored ship with many large naval guns firing massive projectiles. As you said, those are obsolete.

The new Trump class "battleships" are effectively just large guided missile cruisers.

They're going to be 2x-3x the size of our current Ticondergo and Zumwalt guided missile cruisers, but equivalent in size to former large cruisers like the Alaska class, and smaller than the size of traditional battleships like the Iowa class ships you're imagining.

So according to this, that's not totally true: USS Defiant will have, in theory, guided missiles, hypersonic missiles, railguns and lasers and bigger than the Iowa class. That's not just a "large guided missile cruiser".

Whether/when any of this pans out, I don't know. I'm not familiar enough with railgun technology to know if we are any better at it since the Zumwalt class failures.

They're not bigger than the Iowa class battleships...

They're similar in length (slightly shorter) compared to the Iowas, but comparative ship size is measured by displacement.

These are about half the displacement of a traditional battleship.

See the papers written by Alfred Thayer Mahan. The concepts are valid. Control the sea lanes of communication.

I think much of this is posturing to defend an island republic in the crosshairs of a behemoth dictatorship.

Ships today are likely to face drone swarms, submerged drones, and other modern munitions. Large battleships remain an attractive target, particularly if docked, as they did in 1941.

Given our current naval ship creation evidence (where the President effectively publicly shamed the Norfolk Naval Shipyard) of delays, performance shortfalls (Ticonderoga, Zumwalt), and poorly conceived mission requirements (littoral), this announcement is unlikely to strike fear into the hearts of any potential adversary.

The President spoke of the fully-deployed manufacturing might of the USA during WW2, and referenced the cargo ship build rate. Warships are not built like the inexpensive freighters, but he is right to challenge the naval shipyards to improve on speed of delivery.

One could argue that the free world must offensively defend the sea lanes around the oligarchs and other ne'er do wells. Allowing enemy combatants to build sites, reinforce against attack, upgrade muinitions, and take small terroristic actions must be stopped. The type of ship needed to project sea power on critical chokepoints is in one man's view moderately sized, extremely maneuverable, fast as fast can be, and easily resupplied with beans bullets and bandaids.

Looking back at the history of big battleships, we can't forget the ease of their destruction. Yamato, Mushashi, Hood, Bismarck, and many other surface combatants are entombed. At the time of their demise, their armaments were world class and cutting edge. The President spoke of lasers, rail guns, and massive missiles on this new battleship, just like decades ago the WW2 battleships and battlecruisers had state of the art equipment. I can see no way for a modern battleship to survive on its own merits or capabilities. If folded into a carrier strike group, as a vanguard or a rear guard, the battleship might work well. Imagine a carrier in range of shore defenses, necessary to get aircraft close to a landlocked target (think the Black Sea). Those pesky coastal miscreants would be minimally effective with the firepower of a battleship deployed on the shores.

If we look at land warfare results from WW2, in Europe, we can see that the "battleships" of the German army, the Tigers, King Tigers, etc. were defeated by "cruisers" of the Sherman tank. Armor advantages were reduced by focusing on ending the Tiger maneuverability, then pounding the weaker areas with multiple hits. I'm worried that a US battleship fleet could rely on technology and size, rather than effective arms and tactics.

I'm glad the President wants to rebuild the Navy. Bring back 600 ships, active duty, with motivated sailors and marines.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
They're not bigger than the Iowa class battleships...

They're similar in length (slightly shorter) compared to the Iowas, but comparative ship size is measured by displacement.

These are about half the displacement of a traditional battleship.

And a bit more than three and a half times the displacement of the Ticonderoga class.

Much of the displacement on the Iowa is armor (cladding, plating, and turret), which is missing from this design. So I stand by my argument that this just is not a "large guided missile cruiser".

A big, functioning, and deadly Navy is a must. And I am an staunch advocate for getting the technology to fling cheap projectiles from a safe distance a long way to the target ensuring we are not using $1 mil missiles to destroy a $10K tent. Whether this design pans out will depend on the future of some unproven technologies.

From a larger perspective, it appears that the current administration longs for the post WWII days when the US was the world's policeman, and able to deploy strength in unstoppable force to thwart potential and ongoing opponents. This period was also when our economy was at its height (measured by rate of growth), and the US was held in the highest regard. MAGA speaks to this, and a well-equipped Navy is part of that equation.

It gives more options than having to divert a CVG from other necessary duties. This may not be that thing, a vessel that can defend itself (rather than need a flotilla of screening vessels). It/they could prove very useful in many conceivable situations and conflicts. In sufficient numbers, they may even be able to put an end to Somali piracy.

I am a bit stunned by this, someone should have stepped in and told Trump what a bad idea this is. Surface ships will have to contend with 1000-2000 drone swarms all working autonomously or synced using AI. Each drone is about $5000 and it will be virtually indefensible. This ship will not be able to get close enough to a near peer to be a factor.

The SSGN converted boomers a a much better option. Submarines will be what the aircraft carrier became in WWII.

I think it's nuts. In a battle between thicker armor and better projectiles, better projectiles always win.

Stand off capability, active defense capability, and relative stealth capability I believe are far more important in the modern sea space than toe to toe slugging power.

Don't get me wrong, I'm the guy who started the "What's Wrong With Our Navy" thread a few weeks back. I'm glad to see that the administration is engaged and working hard on improving the Navy and it's capabilities.

I just don't think that in a world where the utility of the fleet carrier is being debated that these giant battle cruisers make much sense.

We have to remember also that there are at least two maritime missions to cover. There is the minor power, "from the sea" kind of operation where air assets matched with guided missile cruisers and amphibs get the job done, and then there are long term peer competitor actions, looking 50 years into the future, with the Russians, Chinese, Indians or unfriendly Europeans decide to have a go at our theories of maritime supremacy.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
The new Trump class "battleships" are effectively just large guided missile cruisers.

This.

I'm still trying to make heads or, tails of this whole idea, a new generation of surface action groups would be nice but...

Right now, the Navy is in a deep, DEEP mess with a multitude of problems contributing when it comes to its ships. It's got 5-6 current ship programs and EVERY ONE of THEM is behind schedule to include the next generation submarines, a new rescue/salvage ship, new replenishment ships, the recently cancelled frigate program and its aircraft carriers. Right now, the Surface Navy is 0-4 this century in trying to build a new surface combatant...think about that; the current Arleigh Burke destroyer is a 30+ yr old design. Much of the problems stem from poor planning in not developing a role for the new ships and designing them to meet those goals, constantly meddling with the design, different parts of the Navy not talking to one another, and a poor understanding of how shipbuilding industry works. Right now, they just can't get hulls in the water, meanwhile the 5-6 remaining Tico-cruisers are barely functioning or seaworthy.

Secondarily, if anybody hasn't noticed, our shipbuilding industry in general is nearly non-existent. The US for all the coastline and industry presently available, we as a country barely build any ships, we don't even build luxury yachts for all the gigilionares that live here. There's less than a handful of Congress members from both houses who are remotely concerned or, have any interest in shipbuilding, the jobs they create and the national security implications around shipbuilding.

As for technology, we're also deficient. The rail gun idea was shelved several years ago after two decades of R&D, oddly the Japanese seem to have put one to-sea recently, how it performs and its utility remains to be seen. Naval Aviation reluctantly adopted the F-35C and the 6th generation fighter it wants, isn't being funded or, authorized because they don't have any supporters in government unlike the USAF. As for lasers...just know lasers require ENORMOUS amounts of power, which also means ENORMOUS amount of cooling not to mention, the Navy currently has a couple defensive laser technology systems being used in the fleet and none of them has changed or convinced anybody of their utility...oh, and they don't work when its cloudy or smokey out and it's range is limited.

This whole glorious battleship idea...I think its just that, there's some wishful thinking by POTUS, I certainly hope this just means more funding in-general to get the Navy back on its feet and focused but, right now there's a lot of concerns and the latest defense budget's aren't reflecting an investment in the Navy.

Maybe this is just a ruse to troll China. It will get cancelled.
Like Patton said about fixed fortifications, Naval ships are large targets, except maybe subs.
Can we defend against hypersonic missiles? And drone swarms?

This. Agreed.

quote:

Originally posted by mrw:
I am a bit stunned by this, someone should have stepped in and told Trump what a bad idea this is. Surface ships will have to contend with 1000-2000 drone swarms all working autonomously or synced using AI. Each drone is about $5000 and it will be virtually indefensible. This ship will not be able to get close enough to a near peer to be a factor.

The SSGN converted boomers a a much better option. Submarines will be what the aircraft carrier became in WWII.

As I identified in the Trump thread, this new ship is a “battleship” as such, based upon its size (length and tonnage). But as others have said, it’s could be thought of as an upscaled guided missile cruiser.

Whether building such a larger surface fighting vessel is a wise decision can be similar to the battleship vs aircraft carrier vs submarine argument.

This decision feels similar to the historical debate of the British Royal Navy Grand Fleet vs the Imperial German High Seas Fleet naval arms race of the early 20th Century. For all the ships built on both sides, the only true naval engagement between them was at Jutland (May 1916).

While the British lost more men and ship tonnage than the Germans, it didn’t change what had been happening between the surface fleets. The German capital ships (battleships and battle cruisers) stayed in port, rusting, until the internment at Scapa Flow in November 1918.

All that time before was that the Imperial German Navy was a “fleet in being”, thus tying up the Royal Navy by having them maintain a blockade of German ports, and preventing the British from effectively using its larger ships.

Today, the carrier battle fleet exists to protect the multi-billion dollar aircraft carrier. Whether a “fast battleship” could be incorporated into fleet battle doctrine is beyond my knowledge as I wasn’t Navy. But as a student of history, WW1 and WW2 gives examples of what might happen, as the loss pf capital ships, to include aircraft carriers, can be very devastating to war planning, and expensive.

There are no modern “battleships” - a heavy weight armored beast designed to slug it out with other ships. Big guns, armor designed to stop other big guns, secondary armament for AA and anti surface work. The very concept is obsolete. If you close to visual range, you’ve probably already lost the fight.

Sounds like these ships, IF they ever get past the design stage, will be ‘large cruisers.’

Ships have gotten bigger and bigger. A modern Arleigh Burke destroyer is the size of a WWII cruiser, and is just a tad smaller then the old Ticonderoga cruisers.

I imagine this will be a Kirov Class cruiser on steroids. Newer weapons, large size for large powerplant for all the power they will need (for rail guns and directed energy weapons).

I doubt they will ever get built. Would be cool to see, though.

I think its all a bluff.
Similar to how Reagan played the Russians efforts to keep up with the USA.

Gunner’s Mate Chief MikeinNC reporting for duty

I swear, some of y'all need to submit your resumes to Trump because you know more of history and modern naval surface warfare requirements than his entire DoN plus the War Dept.

I'm positive, none of them have ever heard of drone swarms, you have to let them know now!

Also, let them know that only you know that we have no shipbuilding capabilities to even start this thing, pretty important piece of information the WH surely needs!

But most importantly, please oh please don't forget to tell Trump loudly and often this is a horrible idea!

Until then, can we keep this forum to the things the collective actually knows, which it always excels at?

Because, I'm pretty sure none of here has been invited to any planning meetings, even to stand against the wall and look dumb. All it does is put cracks into Trump's plan when there isn't any.

Thanks, sooma!

Let's have some faith.

Golden Fleet! Oh brother………

I guess all the ship classes don´t match anymore.

Remember that the Spruance destroyer and the Ticonderoga class were bascially built on the same hull, the only difference back then being the Aegis system on the Tico....which is now present on destroyers and even frigates.

Battleships are pretty much dead since WWII, but as always noise is more important than function.

What I would like to know is how AI is going to help here...will it be used to determine where those ships go to?


Also, USS Defiant?
"tough little ship."
"Little?"