Trumpian Trump Class Battleships

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
30,728
11,240
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
You would think, diplomatically, threats & stupidity about the “51st State” would then be something that wouldn’t exist if this was actually part of a negotiation…& the whole fentanyl/immigration/whatever type excuses would never have happened if this was “really” what the negotiations where over… instead of the cluster fuck that we’ve witnessed for the last six months.
In hindsight, this is so Venezuelan Greenlandish.
Never show your hand is his style of negotiation. Canadians should be told what is being negotiated. We know the whole golden shower dome thing is coming so what involved in that and Greys Bay/NWP.
Sort of like a modern future Panama Canal?
Funny how the liberals couldn't find a business case to export Canadian energy to Europe, despite European leaders practically begging for our products, the US all of a sudden becomes a major supplier. Almost like it was paid for.
Trump is Always showing his hand, all eleventeen of them, from every angle, and then he takes them back and then he throws them out and then he flips them over, and then it’s his feet, as he throws shit at the wall to see what sticks, and how gullible and stupid people really are.

That could just be my impression from the outside looking in though.
President Donald Trump announced on Monday plans to build a new “Trump-class” of battleships — larger, faster and “100 times more powerful” than any before — aimed at cementing U.S. naval dominance, starting with two vessels as part of an expanded “Golden Fleet.” Bigly.
1766491438860.jpeg
He said the project would eventually be expanded to encompass 20 to 25 new vessels.
1766491495830.jpeg
The planned build-out of warships will ultimately result in "more tonnage and firepower under construction than at any time in history," U.S. Navy Secretary John Phelan said, adding that components would be built in every U.S. state. A U.S. chicken in every pot, & a Volkswagen something American-ish in every garage.
1766491711027.jpegHe said the battleships would not only feature the "biggest guns" ever carried on a U.S. warship but also would carry nuclear-armed, sea-launched cruise missiles. The first of the new battleships will be christened the USS Donald Trump Defiant.

In addition to the new battleship class, the Golden Fleet envisions an increase in the number of other types of war vessels, including a smaller, more nimble frigate class previously announced by the U.S. Navy, Trump said.
1766491559433.jpeg
1766492197298.jpeg
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
30,728
11,240
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Battleships? Like the Yamato?

Well, they make good targets. Not cheap though.
Like the Yamato, but larger, faster and “100 times more powerful” than any before, and covered in gold leaf…well not covered, but tastefully accentuated like a golden fleet of huge targets navel supremacy for 1000 years, etc…& I’m still waiting for someone to make the connection and start calling these Argonauts.
(YouTube & Trump unveils ‘Trump-class’ battleships for US Navy’s ‘Golden Fleet’)
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
30,728
11,240
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Yeah, and modern fighter-bombers are larger, faster, and 100 times more powerful than the Grumman F6Fs that took Yamato off the board.
And there’s probably gonna be some low-(or not so low) tech, comparatively low cost, something or another coming down the pipe, defence against these things, because technology and innovation accelerates dramatically during times of war it seems, but we’re gonna have to wait and see. Something like a rubber boat with a suitcase nuke, etc…but time will tell.

I wonder how much rare earth minerals & elements will go into a golden fleet Trumpian battleship and where they’ll come from, or be refined, before their use in these things?
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
61,074
9,873
113
Washington DC
And there’s probably gonna be some low-(or not so low) tech, comparatively low cost, something or another coming down the pipe, defence against these things, because technology and innovation accelerates dramatically during times of war it seems, but we’re gonna have to wait and see. Something like a rubber boat with a suitcase nuke, etc…but time will tell.

I wonder how much rare earth minerals & elements will go into a golden fleet Trumpian battleship and where they’ll come from, or be refined, before their use in these things?
Hyper-velocity missiles might do it.

We had a plan on the boards a while back for semi-submersible arsenal ships. Wonder what happened to those?

Not Trumpy enough, I guess.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
30,728
11,240
113
Regina, Saskatchewan

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
30,728
11,240
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Hyper-velocity missiles might do it.

We had a plan on the boards a while back for semi-submersible arsenal ships. Wonder what happened to those?

Not Trumpy enough, I guess.
1766768446840.jpeg
1766767574698.jpeg
1766767594192.jpeg
1766767650002.jpeg
1766767689069.jpeg
1766767710454.jpeg
(YouTube & Longer than Yamato, the Navy's new $15B Super Battleships sets a new record and is the Most Genius, etc…)
1766767794304.jpeg
{YouTube & The Trump Class "Battleship" is a Lie (But It's Railgun Isn't)}

If the Golden Trump Fleet of Battleships are going to be gas turbine and diesel powered…where would the sheer volume of electricity needed for a rail-gun come from?
1766768951837.jpeg
{YouTube & sharks with laser beams attached to their heads}
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
119,346
14,668
113
Low Earth Orbit
View attachment 32424
View attachment 32418
View attachment 32419
View attachment 32420
View attachment 32421
View attachment 32422
(YouTube & Longer than Yamato, the Navy's new $15B Super Battleships sets a new record and is the Most Genius, etc…)
View attachment 32423
{YouTube & The Trump Class "Battleship" is a Lie (But It's Railgun Isn't)}

If the Golden Trump Fleet of Battleships are going to be gas turbine and diesel powered…where would the sheer volume of electricity needed for a rail-gun come from?
View attachment 32425
{YouTube & sharks with laser beams attached to their heads}
What are the reasons not to update the fleet?

Are we expecting an outbreak of peace anytime soon?
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
30,728
11,240
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
What are the reasons not to update the fleet?

Are we expecting an outbreak of peace anytime soon?
I think there’s a matter of “updating the fleet” & “updating the fleet with useable and functional items that are militarily useful” sorta thing. Again, I’m from the prairies and I’m totally on the outside of nautical everything, but that’s the general impression I’m receiving from several directions.

The Trump-class battleship (specifically the proposed USS Defiant BBG-1) is a 2025 proposal for a massive, 30,000–40,000 ton surface combatant designed to carry hypersonic missiles, electromagnetic railguns, lasers, and nuclear-capable cruise missiles.

While proposed to serve as a flagship for a new "Golden Fleet" in the 2030s, experts and military analysts are highly skeptical of its utility in a modern navy for the following reasons:
  • Vulnerability to Modern Weapons: Unlike WWII-era battleships designed to withstand armor-piercing shells, the Trump-class would be susceptible to low-cost drone swarms, stealthy submarines, and advanced anti-ship ballistic missiles.
  • Contravenes Current Doctrine: The U.S. Navy is moving toward a "distributed firepower" model (using many smaller, cheaper, dispersed ships). A small number of massive, $9–$15 billion ships would concentrate risk and provide a massive target.
  • Technical Challenges: The integration of unproven technologies like railguns and advanced lasers on a single platform is considered highly complex. Furthermore, the planned 128 vertical launch cells is relatively low for a ship of its massive size.
  • Budgetary and Logistics Obstacles: The projected $9 to $15 billion per ship cost is considered excessive, and the U.S. shipbuilding industrial base currently lacks the capacity to build such a vessel while maintaining current demands.
  • The proposed design is meant to act as a command-and-control platform for manned and unmanned systems, providing long-range strike capabilities (80x the range of previous battleships, that haven’t been built in more than 80 years) and area denial. Despite this, many analysts believe the program will never sail due to its contravention of modern operating concepts and extreme cost.
Other than those and other obstacles, objections, and factors, it’s the perfect something something.

America's last built battleship was the USS Missouri (BB-63), completed in 1944 for World War II, though the Iowa-class battleships were kept active until the 1990s, serving in the Korean War, Vietnam War, and Gulf War for their powerful shore bombardment, with the last decommissioned in 1992.

They were built because battleships were the ultimate capital ships, powerful gun platforms for projecting force and winning decisive fleet engagements, a role they filled from the age of sail to the age of aircraft carriers, though eventually superseded by air power and missiles, and there’s still air power and missiles, so…
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
119,346
14,668
113
Low Earth Orbit
I think there’s a matter of “updating the fleet” & “updating the fleet with useable and functional items that are militarily useful” sorta thing. Again, I’m from the prairies and I’m totally on the outside of nautical everything, but that’s the general impression I’m receiving from several directions.

The Trump-class battleship (specifically the proposed USS Defiant BBG-1) is a 2025 proposal for a massive, 30,000–40,000 ton surface combatant designed to carry hypersonic missiles, electromagnetic railguns, lasers, and nuclear-capable cruise missiles.

While proposed to serve as a flagship for a new "Golden Fleet" in the 2030s, experts and military analysts are highly skeptical of its utility in a modern navy for the following reasons:
  • Vulnerability to Modern Weapons: Unlike WWII-era battleships designed to withstand armor-piercing shells, the Trump-class would be susceptible to low-cost drone swarms, stealthy submarines, and advanced anti-ship ballistic missiles.
  • Contravenes Current Doctrine: The U.S. Navy is moving toward a "distributed firepower" model (using many smaller, cheaper, dispersed ships). A small number of massive, $9–$15 billion ships would concentrate risk and provide a massive target.
  • Technical Challenges: The integration of unproven technologies like railguns and advanced lasers on a single platform is considered highly complex. Furthermore, the planned 128 vertical launch cells is relatively low for a ship of its massive size.
  • Budgetary and Logistics Obstacles: The projected $9 to $15 billion per ship cost is considered excessive, and the U.S. shipbuilding industrial base currently lacks the capacity to build such a vessel while maintaining current demands.
  • The proposed design is meant to act as a command-and-control platform for manned and unmanned systems, providing long-range strike capabilities (80x the range of previous battleships, that haven’t been built in more than 80 years) and area denial. Despite this, many analysts believe the program will never sail due to its contravention of modern operating concepts and extreme cost.
Other than those and other obstacles, objections, and factors, it’s the perfect something something.

America's last built battleship was the USS Missouri (BB-63), completed in 1944 for World War II, though the Iowa-class battleships were kept active until the 1990s, serving in the Korean War, Vietnam War, and Gulf War for their powerful shore bombardment, with the last decommissioned in 1992.

They were built because battleships were the ultimate capital ships, powerful gun platforms for projecting force and winning decisive fleet engagements, a role they filled from the age of sail to the age of aircraft carriers, though eventually superseded by air power and missiles, and there’s still air power and missiles, so…
Rail launchers and lasers make sense. As for size and defendabilty how is it harder to defend than a carrier?
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
30,728
11,240
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Rail launchers and lasers make sense. As for size and defendabilty how is it harder to defend than a carrier?
Carriers have built in/on fighter air support. Trumps Battleships can carry some helicopters I guess.

Rail guns and lasers are power hungry, so you would think a nuclear reactor would make sense to support them, but that doesn’t sound like it’s in the cards a Trump Class boat even for its own propulsion.

Then the DDG-51 class flight III (the current version of this destroyer class) displaces 9,000 tons and costs $2.8 billion each. A ship (like a Trumpian Battleship) four times as large would not cost four times as much, but would still be much more expensive.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that a future destroyer of 14,500 tons would cost $4.4 billion or $300,000 per ton. That would imply a battleship cost of about $9.1 billion, allowing for some economies of scale. Lead ships are typically 50 percent more expensive than the average, so BBG 1 would likely cost $13.5 billion, about as much as an aircraft carrier…& why build a Trump Class Boat when for the same dollar figure you could build another aircraft carrier?
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
119,346
14,668
113
Low Earth Orbit
Carriers have built in/on fighter air support. Trumps Battleships can carry some helicopters I guess.

Rail guns and lasers are power hungry, so you would think a nuclear reactor would make sense to support them, but that doesn’t sound like it’s in the cards a Trump Class boat even for its own propulsion.

Then the DDG-51 class flight III (the current version of this destroyer class) displaces 9,000 tons and costs $2.8 billion each. A ship (like a Trumpian Battleship) four times as large would not cost four times as much, but would still be much more expensive.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that a future destroyer of 14,500 tons would cost $4.4 billion or $300,000 per ton. That would imply a battleship cost of about $9.1 billion, allowing for some economies of scale. Lead ships are typically 50 percent more expensive than the average, so BBG 1 would likely cost $13.5 billion, about as much as an aircraft carrier…& why build a Trump Class Boat when for the same dollar figure you could build another aircraft carrier?
Carriers don't use aircraft for defense, the Battle Group protects the carrier the same way it'll protect the battleship.

Why wouldn't the ship be nuclear?

China is 8 years ahead on seaborne rail guns, are they backing off? No.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
30,728
11,240
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Why wouldn't the ship be nuclear?
Yes, why wouldn’t the Trump Class Battleship be nuclear? It would be the largest (non-Aircraft Carrier) surface ship yet Trump has already stated that it would be gas or diesel turbines, etc…
1766961542515.jpeg
Carriers don't use aircraft for defense, the Battle Group protects the carrier the same way it'll protect the battleship.
Carriers “also” use aircraft for defence as well as offensively, and you’re correct in that they do “not exclusively” use aircraft for defence. Yes the battle group provides protection, and the Carrier isn’t itself unarmed by any means.
China is 8 years ahead on seaborne rail guns, are they backing off? No.
Could America not outfit its current Destroyers or Cruisers with rail guns? Perhaps modify one of the above to be longer (& thus bigger)? Can they only be outfitted only Trump Class Battleships? I ask as a prairie boy with zero nautical experience.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
119,346
14,668
113
Low Earth Orbit
Yes, why wouldn’t the Trump Class Battleship be nuclear? It would be the largest (non-Aircraft Carrier) surface ship yet Trump has already stated that it would be gas or diesel turbines, etc…
View attachment 32473

Carriers “also” use aircraft for defence as well as offensively, and you’re correct in that they do “not exclusively” use aircraft for defence. Yes the battle group provides protection, and the Carrier isn’t itself unarmed by any means.
Battle Groups aren't fully US either. Our frigates are on the flanks of the Battle group when we sail with them. CWIS, cannons and sparrows before an American weapon is fired.
Could America not outfit its current Destroyers or Cruisers with rail guns? Perhaps modify one of the above to be longer (& thus bigger)? Can they only be outfitted only Trump Class Battleships? I ask as a prairie boy with zero nautical experience.
Where do you store enough missiles and capacitors for a shit tonne of HELIOS lasers on a cruiser to be able project serious game changing power lasers and hypersonic missiles provide.

To put it an easy way, its like having high ground on the water.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
30,728
11,240
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Could America not outfit its current Destroyers or Cruisers with rail guns? Perhaps modify one of the above to be longer (& thus bigger)? Can they only be outfitted only Trump Class Battleships?
Where do you store enough missiles and capacitors for a shit tonne of HELIOS lasers on a cruiser to be able project serious game changing power lasers and hypersonic missiles provide.
By stretching an existing platform like a Cruiser or Destroyer to accommodate the infrastructure to incorporate a rail gun?
To put it an easy way, it’s like having high ground on the water.
Sort of like the role an aircraft carrier plays, actually giving the actual high ground, for about the same cost as a Trump Class Battleship, and aircraft carriers are currently things that exist.
I ask as a prairie boy with zero nautical experience.
I bow to your (& Donald Trump’s) nautical knowledge as the biggest boat I’ve ever been on also had a mariachi band and travelled back-and-forth between Cozumel and Playa Del Carmen.
1766974582733.jpeg
Stretching or modifying the design of existing American destroyers (like the Arleigh Burke-class) to accommodate an electromagnetic railgun (EMRG) is generally considered technically unfeasible due to critical power, space, and weight constraints, though the much larger Zumwalt-class was designed with the potential for such upgrades. 🤔 Huh, and it’s a thing that…actually exists.
1766974520929.jpeg
Key Limitations for Retrofitting Existing Ships
  • Insufficient Power Generation: Current Arleigh Burke-class destroyers lack the electrical power margin needed for a 32-megajoule railgun, which requires tens of gigawatts during the 10ms launch duration.
  • Space and Weight (SWaP): A destroyer has only a 20-ton payload capacity for such a weapon, while the infrastructure required (pulsed power supplies, capacitors) is too massive for a standard DDG hull.
  • Structural Damage: The magnetic fields and thermal stresses generated by the railgun can damage ship electronics and the hull structure itself.
Potential Candidates and Solutions:
  • Zumwalt-Class Destroyer (DDG-1000):This class is the only operational candidate, as it was designed as an all-electric ship capable of producing 78 megawatts of power, leaving a 58-megawatt surplus that could support a railgun. However, this plan was shelved in favor of hypersonic missiles.
  • Future DDG(X): Future destroyer designs are being developed with integrated power systems specifically to support high-energy weapons like railguns and lasers.
  • Alternative Vessels: The Navy initially tested railgun prototypes on Joint High-Speed Vessels (JHSV) due to their large deck space and 600-ton payload capacity.
Beyond just fitting the gun, the railgun requires a 30-foot barrel and a mounting system that can withstand immense thermal stress and recoil. The barrels themselves currently wear out after very few shots, making operational deployment difficult.
1766974289662.jpeg
Hmmm….Originally built for large naval gunfire support, now being removed for hypersonic missiles for some reason.🤔
The Zumwalt-class destroyer is a class of three United States Navy guided-missile destroyers designed as multi-mission stealth ships with a focus on land attack. The class was designed with a primary role of naval gunfire support and secondary roles of surface warfare and anti-aircraft warfare.

The class design emerged from the DD-21"land attack destroyer" program as "DD(X)" and was intended to take the role of battleships in meeting a congressional mandate for naval fire support. The ship is designed around its two Advanced Gun Systems (AGS), utilizing unique Long Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP) ammunition.

LRLAP procurement was canceled (Ahhh….) rendering the guns unusable, so the Navy re-purposed the ships for surface warfare. In 2023, the Navy removed the AGS from the ships and replaced them with hypersonic missiles.

(Now, a very enjoyable science fiction novel I read a while back, based around mercenaries, had monstrously large portable fusion powered battle hovercraft-tanks, equipped with something like rail guns, and their barrels were made out of a synthetic diamond Iridium cooled by liquid nitrogen, I believe.

"The primary breakthrough was the development of portable fusion power plants...the fusion's unit's almost limitless output was required to move the mass which made the new supertanks viable. Fusion units were bulky and moderately heavy themselves, but loads could be increased on a fusion-powered chassis with almost no degradation of performance. Armor became thick- and thicker.”

“With the whole galaxy as a source of ores, iridium replaced the less effective steels and ceramics without regard for weight. "...Now that power was no longer a factor, even the armored bulk of a tank could be mounted on an air cushion. "The air cushion principle is a very simple one. Fans fill the plenum chamber, a solid-skirted box under a vehicle, with air under pressure. To escape, the air must life the edges of the skirts off the ground - and with the skirts, the whole vehicle rises...The vehicle skims over surfaces it does not touch.")
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
119,346
14,668
113
Low Earth Orbit
By stretching an existing platform like a Cruiser or Destroyer to accommodate the infrastructure to incorporate a rail gun?

Sort of like the role an aircraft carrier plays, actually giving the actual high ground, for about the same cost as a Trump Class Battleship, and aircraft carriers are currently things that exist.

I bow to your (& Donald Trump’s) nautical knowledge as the biggest boat I’ve ever been on also had a mariachi band and travelled back-and-forth between Cozumel and Playa Del Carmen.
View attachment 32479
Stretching or modifying the design of existing American destroyers (like the Arleigh Burke-class) to accommodate an electromagnetic railgun (EMRG) is generally considered technically unfeasible due to critical power, space, and weight constraints, though the much larger Zumwalt-class was designed with the potential for such upgrades. 🤔 Huh, and it’s a thing that…actually exists.
View attachment 32478
Key Limitations for Retrofitting Existing Ships
  • Insufficient Power Generation: Current Arleigh Burke-class destroyers lack the electrical power margin needed for a 32-megajoule railgun, which requires tens of gigawatts during the 10ms launch duration.
  • Space and Weight (SWaP): A destroyer has only a 20-ton payload capacity for such a weapon, while the infrastructure required (pulsed power supplies, capacitors) is too massive for a standard DDG hull.
  • Structural Damage: The magnetic fields and thermal stresses generated by the railgun can damage ship electronics and the hull structure itself.
Potential Candidates and Solutions:
  • Zumwalt-Class Destroyer (DDG-1000):This class is the only operational candidate, as it was designed as an all-electric ship capable of producing 78 megawatts of power, leaving a 58-megawatt surplus that could support a railgun. However, this plan was shelved in favor of hypersonic missiles.
  • Future DDG(X): Future destroyer designs are being developed with integrated power systems specifically to support high-energy weapons like railguns and lasers.
  • Alternative Vessels: The Navy initially tested railgun prototypes on Joint High-Speed Vessels (JHSV) due to their large deck space and 600-ton payload capacity.
Beyond just fitting the gun, the railgun requires a 30-foot barrel and a mounting system that can withstand immense thermal stress and recoil. The barrels themselves currently wear out after very few shots, making operational deployment difficult.
View attachment 32477
Hmmm….Originally built for large naval gunfire support, now being removed for hypersonic missiles for some reason.🤔
The Zumwalt-class destroyer is a class of three United States Navy guided-missile destroyers designed as multi-mission stealth ships with a focus on land attack. The class was designed with a primary role of naval gunfire support and secondary roles of surface warfare and anti-aircraft warfare.

The class design emerged from the DD-21"land attack destroyer" program as "DD(X)" and was intended to take the role of battleships in meeting a congressional mandate for naval fire support. The ship is designed around its two Advanced Gun Systems (AGS), utilizing unique Long Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP) ammunition.

LRLAP procurement was canceled (Ahhh….) rendering the guns unusable, so the Navy re-purposed the ships for surface warfare. In 2023, the Navy removed the AGS from the ships and replaced them with hypersonic missiles.

(Now, a very enjoyable science fiction novel I read a while back, based around mercenaries, had monstrously large portable fusion powered battle hovercraft-tanks, equipped with something like rail guns, and their barrels were made out of a synthetic diamond Iridium cooled by liquid nitrogen, I believe.

"The primary breakthrough was the development of portable fusion power plants...the fusion's unit's almost limitless output was required to move the mass which made the new supertanks viable. Fusion units were bulky and moderately heavy themselves, but loads could be increased on a fusion-powered chassis with almost no degradation of performance. Armor became thick- and thicker.”

“With the whole galaxy as a source of ores, iridium replaced the less effective steels and ceramics without regard for weight. "...Now that power was no longer a factor, even the armored bulk of a tank could be mounted on an air cushion. "The air cushion principle is a very simple one. Fans fill the plenum chamber, a solid-skirted box under a vehicle, with air under pressure. To escape, the air must life the edges of the skirts off the ground - and with the skirts, the whole vehicle rises...The vehicle skims over surfaces it does not touch.")
You completely left out the HELIOS Lasers and the capacitor banks that could power a small city to destroy multiple incoming missiles and drones. It's the ultimate defense nobody else has and dirt cheap to operate. A $20 shot of light Vs a single $4.2M SAM missile is an extremely justifiable cost difference in capital and operation cost to shoot down a $5000 shithed drone while firing hyper sonic missiles all day long without blinking while under attack. That makes the big boat part of defense for the entire battle group.


No, an aircraft carrier isn't high ground. Nobody parks a jet on a hilltop to use as an artillery or launch platform.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron in Regina