"New Class of US Navy Battleship" Topic
44 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article Another episode of Identity That Figure!
Current Poll
Featured Book Review
Featured Movie Review
|
| svsavory | 22 Dec 2025 11:52 p.m. PST |
|
| RittervonBek | 23 Dec 2025 2:52 a.m. PST |
|
79thPA  | 23 Dec 2025 3:29 a.m. PST |
I didn't see anything about construction time. I agree that we need to improve our ship production capability. |
 John the OFM | 23 Dec 2025 3:46 a.m. PST |
Can we still make 16" guns? |
| Kuznetsov | 23 Dec 2025 4:26 a.m. PST |
she's gonna ship a lot of water over that railgun |
 Murphy  | 23 Dec 2025 5:16 a.m. PST |
"Can we still make 16" guns?" Don't need 'em. The missiles and railgun make up for the ancient shells and powder bags that the previous wagons were still using. This is an interesting design, and a production order of 20-25 of them, makes some pretty strong signals. If these contracts are approved, and the projects begin there's going to be a lot of "Help wanted – Welders" signs going up in shipyards. If you have a kid that wants a vocation and not want to spend four years and debt going to college for a degree that gives them a job as a cashier at a coffee house, now's the time to introduce them to welding, electrician, and ship building trades. |
| 35thOVI | 23 Dec 2025 5:26 a.m. PST |
16 inch guns? 🤨 "30,000 to 40,000 displacement (the Iowa class battleships had displacements of around 57,540 tons with a full load). Roughly three times the size of an Arleigh Burke class destroyer, the current workhorse of the Navy's surface fleets, according to the service (this appears to be based at least in part on the stated displacement of the newest Flight III Arleigh Burke subvariant). Intermediate-Range Conventional Prompt Strike (IRCPS) hypersonic missiles, electromagnetic railguns, and laser directed energy weapons will be part of the ship's armament package. The Trump class ships will also be armed with a new nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile, or SLCM-N, now in development. Renderings displayed at the event at Mar-a-Lago show a design with three large Vertical Launch System (VLS) arrays, two at the bow end and one at the stern.
One of the renderings, seen below, depicts the ship firing what looks to be an IRCPS missile, a Tomahawk cruise missile, and a member of the Standard Missile family. They also show what look to be multiple turreted 5-inch naval guns and other conventional guns. In addition to their extensive armament, Trump class ships will also be command and control platforms, overseeing crewed and uncrewed platforms.
Unspecified artificial intelligence-driven capabilities will be part of the design, according to Trump." 16 inch guns? You must have confused that compact new figurehead on each of these ships. Looks something like this ..!.. the middle being the middle digit of a fist, pointing straight up (16 inches). The other 4 digits bent in half. I believe it for symbolic purposes. 😉 |
| LostPict | 23 Dec 2025 5:36 a.m. PST |
We could Resurrect 16 inch guns at need. We could harvest the ones from the memorial ships and we have gun barrels at various places. We still have projectiles and propellent. We still have engineers with the know-how. We would need new turrets, fire control, etc. But, we never got very far with long range 16" guns. We have shifted to precision strike, high velocity projectiles fired at high rates of fire. We developed the ~155mm Advanced Gun System for DDG 1000 class destroyers, but when the class size was reduced to 3, the cost of fabricating the ammo was too high. The APGS round is a long ranged, guided Projectile. The Hyper Velocity Projectile (HVP) was developed for the 32 megajoule railgun and is a very long range, guided Projectile. Since it is a discarding sabot round, we can shoot them out of the 5" gun, the army Paladin 155mm, the APGS, as well as the large caliber railgun. link As to green water, the APGS has a watertight shroud that encloses it except when it shoots. Railgun would likely have the same type configuration. I am excited to have a bunch of battlewagons back in fleet with high tech weapons. |
| Tortorella | 23 Dec 2025 5:36 a.m. PST |
A diesel powered battleship! Let's build 25 of these so we can project power… Trump helped design it… Two 5 inch guns for supporting Marine ops ashore… burns massive amounts of fuel at 30 knots. We'll be creating lots and lots of money to pay for each of these… The Golden Fleet! The decor will be the goldenest in our history, I bet. I hope the new subs won't be cancelled, but I get it. You can't even see them! Like they are not even there! Too quiet… Named for places. No gold… literally dragging America down… |
| John the OFM | 23 Dec 2025 6:07 a.m. PST |
|
| 35thOVI | 23 Dec 2025 6:10 a.m. PST |
Tort, I assume you did not watch the speech yesterday, (I doubt most did). Submarines were a main topic, with the President lauding our submarine fleet and the amount of new subs coming out. So don't worry about those.
"Subs like you have never seen before!" 😉 He wants all built here. He wants the new jobs here. He wants the companies pushed to produce faster and stop cost overruns. He insinuated companies rewarding their executives and doing stock buybacks, while running construction delays and cost overruns, will be punished. He wants drones made here, as opposed to foreign made. This is only a bare nutshell of the speech. In other words, America first. Can this be accomplished? Who knows. Especially if he loses the Congress next year. 🤔I heard they were going to try a "Biden Class" first, but the prototype kept going in circles and wondering off toward China. Couldn't resist😉 |
| John the OFM | 23 Dec 2025 6:18 a.m. PST |
Seriously though….
We don't have the shipyards to make them.
We don't have the skilled labor.
We can't even do routine maintenance on what we have. How many of our carriers are down for refitting? Usually a quarter or a third of them.
Conservatively, I can't see anything coming down the slipway for at least 10 years. How long did the Gerald Ford take? Oh, by the way. That'll cost money. Congress will not appropriate the BILLIONS of dollars needed for even the first one. History has shown there will always be a treble cost overrun on the first one. Then a new Congress and different party as POTUS to cancel this pipe dream.
|
| John the OFM | 23 Dec 2025 6:23 a.m. PST |
I heard they were going to try a "Biden Class" first, but the prototype kept going in circles and wondering off toward China. That's pretty good. 😄 I laughed, because I kind of sort of agree. And it safeguards my "anti you know who" ones from being deleted. Fair is fair. If mine are pulled, so should yours be too. 😄 |
| troopwo | 23 Dec 2025 6:30 a.m. PST |
Far more curious how the USCG hull designs works out for a new frigate replacement prograam? Might be a good thing in forcing the navy to remember that frigates are not air/surface/subsurfce all in one, combatants, but usually only task oriented to a role or two if need be. |
| 79thPA | 23 Dec 2025 6:31 a.m. PST |
Very true, John. We went from building 1.5 Liberty ships a day to not being able to maintain what we have now. It took 11 months to build a Fletcher class destroyer during WW II. It takes twice as long to build an AB class destroyer now. Who knows how long it will take to build this design. |
| John the OFM | 23 Dec 2025 6:52 a.m. PST |
The most important question of all is "Whose congressional districts will these be built in? And how many ships will be named after these Congress persons? And of course Senators?" If it's built in New York, I can see the 7th one in the class being named the USS Alexandra Ocasio Cortez.
San Francisco? How about the USS Nancy Pelosi?
The USS Chuck Schumer
The USS (fill in the name of a congressman with shipyards in his/her district.) Why not? We have aircraft carriers named for John Stennis and Carl Vinson.
Bill Clinton has been attached to a future one. |
| John the OFM | 23 Dec 2025 6:54 a.m. PST |
@79th Pa
Particularly since it's a brand new design. |
| 35thOVI | 23 Dec 2025 6:55 a.m. PST |
John glad you enjoyed that, I wrote it specifically for you. 🙂 Now to you and 79th. Again you couldn't have watched the speech. "Everything" you question, was specifically addressed in it.., even the carrier, time taken and overrides. Maybe you can find a full transcript. But good luck, it won't be on the MSM feeds. 🤔 They probably didn't even broadcast the speech. Everything? Ok John i have to admit there was no mention of 16 inch guns. But Christmas is around the corner, and if wish hard enough, Santa might bring them. 🎅 🤔 But wait!! You have to be a good boy, don't you. Ok John, never mind. 😉 |
| 35thOVI | 23 Dec 2025 7:01 a.m. PST |
Being a martyr to my own generosity.. I may have found it. I did not verify this, but it's 40 plus minutes, which is around what I saw yesterday. I assume unedited. Subject: Trump Unveils ‘Golden Fleet', Says New US Battleships Will Be 100 Times More Powerful – YouTube
YouTube link |
| 35thOVI | 23 Dec 2025 7:17 a.m. PST |
"Trump said the Navy would immediately start procuring two ships, working up to 10 and eventually 20 ships to 25 ships in total, and would aim to have the first two within two and a half years."
…
"He pointed to World War II-era shipbuilding as a model, noting that the U.S. once produced multiple ships per day, compared with what he described as today's slower production pace."
…
"Trump also tied the battleship announcement to a broader push to accelerate U.S. defense production. He said he plans to meet next week with major defense contractors to demand faster delivery timelines, increased capital investment in new factories, and limits on stock buybacks and executive compensation.
…
"We make the best equipment in the world, but they don't make it fast enough," Trump said, arguing that companies should reinvest profits into production capacity rather than dividends and buybacks. "I mean, I have sold more planes than any president by far times, probably 20. So every time I go someplace, I sell 100 planes," he said. "And I'm always having to say five years, six years, seven years helicopters, Apache helicopters, many years." The announcement comes at a time when the Trump administration has elevated shipbuilding to a White House–level priority, establishing a dedicated office to oversee maritime industrial policy and signaling a broader push to expand U.S. naval capacity. …
"In April, Trump signed an executive order declaring the erosion of America's shipbuilding and maritime workforce a national security risk, directing a government-wide overhaul aimed at expanding domestic shipbuilding, stabilizing long-term funding, strengthening the workforce and countering China's dominance in global ship production."
…
"Inside the Navy, Phelan has echoed that urgency, warning that the service must "act like we're at war," with shipbuilding and weapons production speeds. He has moved to overhaul the Navy's acquisition culture, launching a new Rapid Capabilities Office designed to cut development timelines, enforce accountability and push new technology into the fleet faster than traditional Pentagon procurement allows." Again, can it be accomplished? Who knows. Especially if he loses Congress in 26. Will self serving politicians try and impede the above? You know they will! Power and money. With no thought to an expanding China and her Navy. But so many said the border could not be closed down.
Inflation brought down.
Gas prices to go back to 2020 lows.
Etc etc etc Would it be better to sit on one's a#s and say: "it can't be done."? FYI, I view these more as the new class of Frigates on steroids. Case in point and just off the web: U.S. economy grows by 4.3% in third quarter, much more than expected, delayed report shows
PUBLISHED TUE, DEC 23 20258:40 AM ESTUPDATED 18 MIN AGO |
| Tortorella | 23 Dec 2025 7:32 a.m. PST |
35th – no I missed the speech – I find it not the best way to get clear info.. That said, the new subs were designed – pre Trump. It takes a long time to put these projects together. Its not fair to compare WW2 production. Outside of the obvious design complexities and the amount of tech today. And a fully mobilized population in a total war economy. If you think this will revitalize shipyards swarming with workers, I suggest you watch a video of robots working an Amazon warehouse. It's not just China taking manufacturing jobs, which we again lost this year, but good old automation…er, like you've never seen it. By the time this class reaches the yard, tech will have advanced even more. But I have a feeling this whole thing will never fly…er, sail. Anybody hear the Navy crying out for such a class of ship? This came from one source, IMO. Timed with the release of other less cheery news for a reason, but mostly well intentioned, I think. Reality will get in the way. |
| 79thPA | 23 Dec 2025 7:33 a.m. PST |
Thanks for that. I am in bed by 8 PM since I get up at 0300 for work. Personally, that sounds like a pretty ambitious time line, but we shall see. |
| Tortorella | 23 Dec 2025 7:46 a.m. PST |
35th – they build ships for missions as you know. The "Gerald Ford" can project power anywhere on earth for extended periods of time, accessing remote areas on land and sea, the best pilots and aircraft, experienced, functional, part of a long tradition. I can think of a lot of other things America will be doing instead when/if ever comes time to appropriate funds for the Golden Fleet.
I don't think 2.5 years is for real on this. It would make a cool movie however – USN vs Chinese carriers, suddenly the battleships charge in, maybe line abreast. All the Chinese naval militia boats blasted by lasers and 5in guns. Then everyone runs out of fuel but our carriers. Everybody still loves battleships, including me. |
| goibinu | 23 Dec 2025 7:54 a.m. PST |
"I mean, I have sold more planes than any president by far times, probably 20. So every time I go someplace, I sell 100 planes," he said. "And I'm always having to say five years, six years, seven years helicopters, Apache helicopters, many years." Is that word salad verbatim? Because if it is, you have no grounds for condemning Biden's alleged senility without condemning his. |
| 35thOVI | 23 Dec 2025 7:59 a.m. PST |
Tort, Pie in the skies? Maybe. But if just some is accomplished, is it not better than nothing? Even if some jobs are robotic, some won't be. Is that not good.
What about the smaller industries involved here? More jobs.
Is increasing shipyard building here again, better than not having it here?
We have allowed ourselves to become too dependent on other countries. That is NEVER smart nor secure.
Can we produce like WW2? Of course not! And he knows that, it was an example. Will Congress and media support him and these projects? You know the answer, I've already said it here and elsewhere. Power, money and control is all most care about. If he is successful, as quickly as he was with the border and illegals, their pet politicians may never achieve control again. The deep state money Spickets 💰, Will dwindle and die. Worst of all, agenda and a new world will collapse.
Some sub quotes from yesterday:
"Technological Superiority: Trump boasted that the U.S. is "at least 15 years advanced ahead of anybody else in submarine development" and that rival nations like China and Russia "can't come close" to the U.S. Navy's technology. He referred to them as "super-duper subs"." "New Construction: He stated the Navy is working on building "12 to 15 brand new submarines" as part of the overall fleet expansion."
..
"We will invest smartly in the cornerstones of American seapower—carriers, destroyers, amphibs, and submarines but we also need new ships," he wrote in a Dec. 7 social media post. "A new frigate, based on an American design, with flexible capability tailored to requirements from our warfighters and @USNavyCNO, and built on a timeline faster than the program we cancelled." |
| 35thOVI | 23 Dec 2025 8:12 a.m. PST |
Gob, Maybe concern yourself with your own navy and country and not others. You are in deep crap 💩 if anyone invades and one of us doesn't come to your aid. The Irish Naval Service has a fleet of 8 commissioned vessels, consisting of 4 Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs), 2 Large Patrol Vessels (LPVs), and 2 Inshore Patrol Vessels (IPVs); however, due to maintenance and crewing issues, typically only 2-4 ships are operational at any given time, with a plan to expand to 9 ships by 2030. Current Fleet Composition
4 Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs) (P60 Class)
2 Large Patrol Vessels (LPVs) (P50 Class)
2 Inshore Patrol Vessels (IPVs) (P70 Class) Operational Status
While there are 8 ships in total, staff shortages and maintenance often limit the number actively patrolling. As of mid-2025, only about 3 of the 4 OPVs might be available, with one undergoing planned maintenance. |
| goibinu | 23 Dec 2025 8:27 a.m. PST |
Sure, and you don't need to be fretting after us. Ireland will declare itself neutral again. We don't lie to ourselves that we have a viable blue water navy like the English do. Although it's a puzzle why anyone would want to invade us in the first place, unless you lot can see we have a 'strategic advantage' for ye like Canada and Greenland do? Perhaps you're deflecting, did I hit a nerve? |
| svsavory | 23 Dec 2025 8:35 a.m. PST |
I lack the expertise to comment on the viability of this new class. I do think the schedule is grossly optimistic. I keep wondering about the apparent obsession with gold. Golden Fleet, Golden Ballroom, Gold Card Visas, Golden ornamentation in the oval office. What's up with that? |
 McKinstry  | 23 Dec 2025 8:37 a.m. PST |
Likely never built. 3+ year design and contracting, likely an 8-12 billion cost, unlikely budget room around 2028. At best a Zumwalt/Constellation number of units as deficits loom larger every year. Nice idea but not worth the trade off of other more needed systems such as SSN's, DDX's and FFG's. Talking about building new SSN's and actually building them are two different beasts. We have existing capacity for two SSN's and one SSBN and are still behind schedule due to a lack of skilled labor. Ramping up any added capacity is probably years in the future although it is good to finally see the US trying to ramp up. |
| 35thOVI | 23 Dec 2025 8:49 a.m. PST |
Gob "Perhaps you're deflecting, did I hit a nerve?" You never do. 😏 Because of the thread subject and you commenting, I was checking out your navel defenses. Concern about those Russians looking for a new warmer water location for their fleet, or the Chinese, a less defended Island than Taiwan to experiment with an amphibious invasions. Always the chance a Fundamentalist Muslim nation might take the opportunity to unite with those already in country and form a new Muslim nation. I mean the Iranians have over 100+ vessels and over 18,000 personnel. As I said: I am a martyr to me own generosity and I probably still have distant relatives there. Might have even stepped on the grave of one, on the grounds of the Rock of Cashel, last time I was there. I particularly would hate to see anything happen to the Connamara. |
| 35thOVI | 23 Dec 2025 8:57 a.m. PST |
To all the nay sayers: I doubt the Chinese ever said "it can't be done" in 1990. …
In 1990, China's People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) was a large but aging "green-water" force, primarily using Soviet-derived designs like Romeo-class submarines and Luda-class destroyers, focused on coastal defense with a gradual shift towards "offshore defense" and modernization, lacking modern carriers or advanced combat systems, though beginning its long journey toward becoming a blue-water navy, notes this Wikipedia article and this U.S. Naval Institute article, as detailed in this Naval Encyclopedia article.
Key Characteristics of the 1990 PLAN Fleet:
Submarines: The bulk of the conventional submarine force consisted of approximately 78 Romeo-class (Type 033) submarines, built domestically after Soviet designs, according to the Naval Encyclopedia.
Surface Ships: The fleet relied heavily on older designs, including Luda-class destroyers and various frigates, often based on 1950s Soviet blueprints.
"Green-Water" Navy: The PLAN operated in coastal waters, with a strategic focus shifting towards "offshore defense" in the 1990s, aiming for limited sea control in the First Island Chain.
Limited Modernization: While modernization efforts began, ships were often equipped with basic weaponry, lacking advanced anti-air and electronic systems common in Western navies.
Aircraft Carriers: China did not possess aircraft carriers in 1990; the acquisition of the Varyag (later Liaoning) began in the late 1990s, but it arrived much later, notes the U.S. Naval Institute. Today
…
8
China's navy commissions new-generation frigate as …
China has the world's largest navy by ship count, with over 370 to 400 active vessels (excluding small patrol craft) as of late 2024/2025, including destroyers, frigates, submarines, and carriers, with projections to grow to around 435 by 2030, far surpassing the U.S. fleet numerically, though the U.S. maintains an edge in tonnage and some technological aspects.
Key Figures & Projections
Current Size: Over 370 to 400 ships, making it the world's largest navy by number.
Projected Growth: Expected to reach about 435 ships by 2030.
Ship Types: Includes destroyers, frigates, submarines (nuclear & diesel), aircraft carriers, and amphibious ships.
Context & Comparison with U.S. Navy
Numerical Lead: China surpassed the U.S. in ship numbers around 2015-2020.
Tonnage/Capability: The U.S. Navy still leads in total displacement (tonnage) and overall capability, but China's fleet is rapidly modernizing and expanding.
Focus: China is rapidly developing its "blue-water" (ocean-going) capabilities and power projection.
Key Takeaway: While the U.S. Navy remains formidable, China's People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) is the largest in the world by hull count, adding new, more capable vessels at a rapid pace |
| goibinu | 23 Dec 2025 10:26 a.m. PST |
I have no defences for me navel, it's as defenceless as the day I was born. As for our lack of naval forces, I'll panic as soon as the Oireachtas does. They seem not too bothered at the minute, so I'll not be worried until New Year at the earliest. Maybe not even then. |
| SBminisguy | 23 Dec 2025 10:50 a.m. PST |
I've read other articles on proposed designs, I like this one:
> What a "modern battleship" would actually look like
Imagine an 80,000-ton, nuclear-powered surface combatant — not big guns, but missiles, drones, lasers, and command power. • Unlimited range & endurance (nuclear, 25–30 yr refuel)
• 300–350+ MW power for always-on sensors, EW, and megawatt-class lasers
• 320–384 missile cells (AAW, hypersonics, land attack, ASW)
• Major drone carrier: 24–36 strike UCAVs, 100+ attritable drones
• Heavy ASW & anti-drone defenses
• Crew ~950 — far smaller than WWII battleships, vastly more capable Bottom line: this wouldn't replace carriers — it would anchor fleets inside missile threat zones as a missile magazine, drone mothership, and command hub.
If built, it'd be the most powerful surface warship ever fielded — essentially a 21st-century battlecruiser. |
| Tortorella | 23 Dec 2025 10:53 a.m. PST |
The US fleet is not standing still and waiting for China, however. We have many advantages, which I have brought up in other posts. The Chinese bear close watching, but they are not catching up to us as rapidly as Congressmen in shipbuilding districts want us to think. Counting hulls.. Their two to three effective carriers still need to operate within land based range for logistics and supply. They are considered to have about a 1500 mile effective range. They cannot project as the US does due to fuel constraints, among other things. As you know, we could possibly cut off their oil supply in the Indian Ocean with only a few units. And we can stay at sea for far longer. We know how to manage supply, rotation, etc. A large part of a Taiwan invasion fleet would still need their naval militia of private boats for transport. We are our hull counters on this? They are working on transport, but not there yet. They have a lot of frigates because they are easier to build than capital ships. They are not the largest navy for firepower. Their crews have limited to no combat or related experience. Their top commanders are political picks by Xi. Corruption is rife in the Chinese military at the higher levels. A recent purge addressed some of this. We cannot underestimate them. But we are not standing still and have not been. |
| Tortorella | 23 Dec 2025 10:57 a.m. PST |
Now you are talking SB! This addresses many questions. Except for finding the money and spending a long time to develop and build. And this does not help the hull count, if you are in Congress |
 StoneMtnMinis | 23 Dec 2025 11:15 a.m. PST |
35th OVI  "wandering off toward China leaving a trail of white powder in the wake" fixed it for you. |
| Incavart77 | 23 Dec 2025 11:30 a.m. PST |
There's a quiet sleight of hand happening in this discussion that's worth flagging. What's being described—320+ missile cells, megawatt-class power generation, drone mothership functions, command-and-control dominance—is not a "battleship revival." It's a speculative floating systems hub whose capabilities are being reverse-engineered from PowerPoint requirements rather than doctrine, budgets, or shipyards that actually exist. A few sober points, offered without hysteria: Shipbuilding capacity is the constraint, not imagination.The U.S. Navy is currently unable to meet SSN production targets that have been funded, authorized and doctrinally prioritized for years. Adding a brand-new, ultra-complex surface combatant class does not fix that; it competes with it. Missile magzines don't solve survivability. Packing hundreds of VLS cells into a single hull creates an exqusite target. Distributing firepower across more hulls—especially submarines and smaller surface combatants—is not an accident of modern doctrine; it's a response to precision targeting reality. Nuclear power on surface combatants isn't a magic wand. It brings crewing, regulatory, maintenance, and political complications the Navy has deliberately avoided outside carriers and submarines for decades. There's a reason for that restraint. "WWII production analogies" are rhetorical, not analytical. Total war mobilization, radically simpler designs, and a different labor economy are doing most of the work in those comparisons. They don't transfer cleanly to 2025, however much one might wish otherwise. None of this means the impulse—rebuilding industrial capacity, disciplining procurement, restoring seriousness to naval power—is wrong. Quite the opposite. It means that ambition without sequencing tends to produce Zumwalts, not fleets. If a modern surface combatant eventually emerges that functions as a missile arsenal, drone hub, and C2 node, it will do so after years of incremental force design, congressional buy-in, and industrial expansion—not via a sudden rediscovery of "battleships," golden or otherwise. Serious naval power isn't announced. It's built—slowly, expensively, and usually far more quietly than its advocates would preffer. |
| 35thOVI | 23 Dec 2025 12:06 p.m. PST |
Many of the counter arguments sound a lot like James Riley. 😉
General James Wolfe Ripley, the Union Army's Chief of Ordnance during the American Civil War, was famously opposed to issuing repeating rifles to the general infantry. In his view, these weapons were "newfangled gimcracks" that would cause the "waste" of ammunition.
Ripley's primary objections to repeating rifles were based on the following logistical and tactical concerns: Ammunition waste: He believed that a higher rate of fire would encourage soldiers to fire their weapons too quickly and indiscriminately, thus wasting ammunition. Logistical strain: The increased ammunition consumption would place an impossible burden on the logistical supply chain, which relied on horse-drawn wagons at the time. He felt the supply system could not keep up with the demand of an order of magnitude higher rate of fire. Cost and complexity: Repeating rifles were significantly more expensive and mechanically complex than the standard single-shot, muzzle-loading muskets then in use. Tactical doctrine: Ripley and many other high-ranking officers were influenced by Napoleonic-era tactics, which emphasized disciplined volley fire from tight formations. They felt that a slower-loading, single-shot weapon was better for maintaining order and discipline among green troops, ensuring controlled and aimed volleys rather than a chaotic individual rate of fire. Standardization: The Ordnance Department already faced challenges in managing a wide array of small arms and ammunition calibers. Introducing more new weapons would have complicated this situation further. |
| SBminisguy | 23 Dec 2025 12:12 p.m. PST |
I consider this to be Presidential statement of intent. The stated overall goal is rebuilding US ship construction capacity, and this ship is the hook. I don't think there's a final design, but they have announced the shipyards and suppliers. |
| 35thOVI | 23 Dec 2025 12:16 p.m. PST |
Tort, Did my comments say anything about the Chinese Navy being better than ours? No. The point is, they didn't say it couldn't be done. They just did it, between 1980 and today, they shaved off a 20 year technological deficit. The West contributed immensely into their ability to do so. How?
By building new plants in China.
By employing Chinese workers in those plants.
By giving the Chinese government loads of cash in exchange for China allowing them to do so.
By allowing China easy access to our technology, by hacking it, having direct access to it and or spying.
By our government hiring the Chinese to build some of our military parts.
Meanwhile allowing our industry and ship building to stagnate or disappear. For what?
Basically slave labor, cheap production and cheap products. Allowing them to pad their pockets with the costs saved and increase their stock prices. Yes our businesses and government were our own worst enemy and what was started in the late 70's may go down as one of the worst mistakes on history. |
 ochoin | 23 Dec 2025 12:22 p.m. PST |
Ozymandias
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
|
 Dal Gavan | 23 Dec 2025 1:09 p.m. PST |
"Whose congressional districts will these be built in? And how many ships will be named after these Congress persons? And of course Senators?" What happened to the US practice of only naming naval ships after battle casualties, battles, states or state capitals? Why would you want to name them- or even your ablutions block, which would be more appropriate- after politicians, regardless of what snazzy title they choose to give themselves? |
| 35thOVI | 23 Dec 2025 1:17 p.m. PST |
Dal a lot of what is being posted in here, is more anti Trump sarcasm. 😉 The first ship is to be named: USS Defiant (BBG-1) The class of BB is currently being called "the Trump class". |
| 35thOVI | 23 Dec 2025 2:13 p.m. PST |
Back to China: This just came out. As long as westerners are willingly to work for them, they will close the gaps quickly.😡 Subject: How China built its ‘Manhattan Project' to rival the West in AI chips
link |
| ochoin | 23 Dec 2025 2:22 p.m. PST |
Δίκη δὲ σβέσει Κόρον ὕβριος υἱὸν Divine Dike will extinguish mighty Koros the son of Hybris. |
|
