"New Class of US Navy Battleship" Topic

Subject: "So Let It Be Written So Let it Be Done" – YouTube


YouTube link

, but this is to counter what threat?

CHINA. They are track for a 400 ship navy by 2030, including 4-6 carrier groups.

@35th !

The interest actually paid on the National Debt in FY 2025 exceeded $ 1 Trillion, a figure larger than the entire defense budget. In FY 2025 the US added $1.8 USD Trillion to the National Debt.

We cannot afford this $8 USD-12 billion unit cost weapons program at all but if we decide to try, something else be it carriers, subs, aircraft, land force upgrades or nuclear modernization will be sacrificed.

The greatest threat to the United States isn't Islamic Extremism, Russia, China or Antifa, it is the National Debt and if it isn't addressed however painful, the defense we can afford in 2050 will be pathetic.

I really think we have to refine the definition of "Battleship". 🙄

Irrelevant, John. As long as they look good, they'll be fit for purpose.

Navy's New Frigate Will Not Have A Vertical Launch System For Missiles

link

Armand

I see one of the earlier posts said a carrier was going to be named after Clinton? Surely a submarine would be more apt. After all it's cigar shaped…

Dal a lot of what is being posted in here, is more anti Trump sarcasm.

It's not just one side, mate, it's a two-way range.

The comment about senators and rep's having ships named after them surprised me. But when I checked Wiki (I know little about any navy, except how to upset a CPO with little effort) there's a whole slew of boats with ex-presidents, secretaries, senators, etc, names on 'em. Surely there's enough MoH awardees and battles they can use for names, rather than chair-polishing camera hoggers?

Still, it's your navy and none of my hypercynical business.

(There's even one called "Canberra"! I assume named after the cruiser sunk at 1st Savo Island, and not the political cesspool and corruption convention that's 150km +/- up the track from me?)

Dal they even named ships with peoples names in previous administrations for DEI purposes. 😱

And they changed the name of ships with the names of famous battles, just for DEI purposes too. 😱

And many here complaining did so rejoice.

"And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs, and sloths, and carp, and anchovies, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats, and large…"

Ship naming here has always been political.

😉 Merry Christmas mate

In Egypt's sandy silence, all alone,
Stands a gigantic Leg, which far off throws
The only shadow that the Desert knows:—
"I am great OZYMANDIAS," saith the stone,
"The King of Kings; this mighty City shows
The wonders of my hand."— The City's gone,—
Naught but the Leg remaining to disclose
The site of this forgotten Babylon.

We wonder — and some Hunter may express
Wonder like ours, when thro' the wilderness
Where London stood, holding the Wolf in chace,
He meets some fragment huge, and stops to guess
What powerful but unrecorded race
Once dwelt in that annihilated place.

— Horace Smith, "Ozymandias"

I really think we have to refine the definition of "Battleship"

Yep -- as stated, other more accurate names for what I see proposed are "Arsenal Ship" or "Sea Control Ship" -- basically a CinC ship armed with a shite-ton of VLS missile arrays, drones, ASW, Sensors, point defense layers and possibly capable of accepting a rail-gun if and when it's practical to do so. A Surface Battle Group with one of these at the core supported by DDGs and SSNs would more than handily trash a Chinese CV Group, and be highly survivable in the "First Island Chain" defense of Taiwan and Japan and the Philippines.

BUT -- it does have to be built. I think a primary purpose of this announcement is as a way to jumpstart the reconsitution of American ship building capacity.

SB agree, and so much depends on a Congress (both parties), who bicker, back bite, stall, get rich, fight for power, sit on their as#es and take too many and too long of, vacations.

About as useless as ti#s on a boar hog!

Tort,

BB's they are not. Enhanced large cruisers are more like it.
USN needs:
better and more missile deployed in a war zone
command and control ships
replacements for the Tico class
better deployed anti-ballistic missile defense
better defense against drones and missiles

The Defiant meets all the requirements. Remember high end/low end. These are the high end. The low end will be the new frigates.

Will 20 be built, I do not think so. I think the USN really needs 8.

But I'm just an old retired guy that told the Task Force Excel leader that the LCS were not good ships and were undermanned. A broken clock is right twice a day.

Did anyone see an estimated cost for these "battleships" I put a ballpark guess at $8 USD+ billion for early estimates. Also where are they going to get the manpower for these ships? You are looking at complement of 1000+. Oh and another 10 to 15 years of development time. If we are lucky it will only end up like the Zumwalt and not the LCS money pit. Assuming the first keel gets laid.

I will withhold my thoughts on the artist rendering till they firm up the design a bit.

OSCS74 +1

OVI, SBm, OSCS +1/ea …

I agree whatever this new class of warship is, I'd think the old BC or HC would be appropriate. In this current era. Smaller vessels can pack a lot of firepower. Not many guns, but many high-tech missiles, etc.

Regardless, as I said the USN is outnumbered by about 100 Chicom vessels. And China appears to be on a war footing product level. Plus they want to replace the USA's position in the world. As usual they know how to play the long game. While many in the US gov't, etc. only play as far as the next 4-8 years.

The with Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the Chicoms being on what looks like a war footing, Iran support islamic terrorisms and still trying to develop deployable WMDs/Nukes. Plus the GWoT still hanging around. The USA[and NATO] has to realize [and is] there are clear and present dangers everywhere.

As our enemies took full advantage of the previous POTUS, his DEI, etc. Admin, many in Congress's weakness, foolishness, not living in the real world, etc. Has just made emboldened the enemies at the gate, and the 5th Column within.

The bottom line is … well … the bottom line … The US Gov't especially in the past Admin wasted billions of $. USD On initiatives, actions, etc. that took funds from the more important realistic priorities. E.g. Open border policies, Go Green, PC "feel good" woke progressive concepts, ideas, etc. i.e. CEI, CRT, LGBTQ, etc. that only effects a small overall number of US population. As well as wasting similar initiative worldwide. Their priorities couldn't have been more off target.

Again, "While Rome burned Nero played the fiddle". Again this agenda, narrative, initiatives, etc. made the US weaker plus in many cases cost thousands of US citizens their lives.

And the predators saw this. Like on the Serengeti, the predators go after the weak …

Plus WDF does the old poem Ozymandias have to do with the current situation ? Are some trying to create a paradigm about a long dead king in the poem with today's leadership. If so … it is big stretch, IMO …

Surely there's enough MoH awardees and battles they can use for names, rather than chair-polishing camera hoggers?

So very true … names of past warships, great leaders of the many wars, battles, states, Military heroes, or even the classic more aggressive more macho names, terms, etc. Those ship names are few …

So, has Revell made the model yet?

rustymusket LOL! Good one!

Right OSC, the last iteration of a BB ws an all big gun warship for primary armament. This ship is pretty big tonnage-wise for an enhanced cruiser, but I defer to your judgement.

SB – I don't think the Chinese will get to six CV groups by 2030. The old Soviet conversion included. But they will keep trying. Their first nuke powered CV is building now, but it will take a while for them to get the hang of it and the more advanced other features. And then there are the air groups. They need time to develop their pilots and bring new fighters on board.

I never like comparing hull numbers. Its an old Congressional trick to bring home some district bacon, as with the LCS program being continued.

has Revell made the model yet?

I'm betting GHQ will be them to it …

FWIW … again the US has funds to upgrade the USN. They just have to stop wasting so much of it on useless … No need to list some of those again.

Post-Doge total discretionary non-defense was $711 USD Billion . Everything else was either interest on the debt, defense or entitlements, mostly Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Discretionary includes infrastructure, FEMA etc. and yes , there were some silly stuff worrying about folks identifying as purple mermaids or whatever but that isn't one big weapons procurement traunch.

The point is that if you cancel every single discretionary dollar the deficit will still grow by over $1 USD Trillion before adjusting for inflation and borrowing costs.

We need to get our fiscal house in order before spending money we don't have.

Tort
I never like comparing hull numbers. Its an old Congressional trick to bring home some district bacon, as with the LCS program being continued.

So true!

I remember when congress would not allow any more cruisers to be built. The Navy created the DLG (destroyer leader guided missile) and DLGN (nuclear) classes. All later to be changed to CG and CGN.

Go back through this thread and read the stories in the MSM

History does repeat

😏

The primary political opposition to Theodore Roosevelt's expansion of the Navy came from the Democratic Party.

Opposition to Theodore Roosevelt's naval expansion came primarily from members of Congress (especially those from inland districts), fiscal conservatives, and anti-imperialists/pacifists, who argued that the large expenditures were extravagant, unnecessary in peacetime, and potentially a provocation for war.
Key arguments from the opposition included:
Financial Concerns: Critics pointed to the high cost of building modern battleships (known as "dreadnoughts") and argued the money was better spent elsewhere, especially during times of recession. Senator Eugene Hale, a Republican from Maine, was a prominent opponent who tried to block funding for the fleet, calling it a waste of money.
Provocation of War: Pacifists and some anti-imperialists felt that building up the military put the U.S. on a war footing and that a large navy was a provocation rather than a deterrent. Roosevelt countered this by arguing that a strong navy was the "surest guarantee of peace" and the best insurance against war, allowing the U.S. to "speak softly and carry a big stick".
Isolationism/Anti-Imperialism: A significant strand of American political thought at the time was anti-imperialist and isolationist, viewing global power projection and involvement in foreign affairs with suspicion. This group, which included former President Grover Cleveland and industrialist Andrew Carnegie in the Anti-Imperialist League, believed that the U.S. should not act as a "regional policeman" or seek a global destiny.
Domestic Focus: Members of Congress from inland districts often had little interest in naval affairs and favored policies that focused on domestic issues like agriculture, making them generally hostile to the Navy's requests for funds.
Cronyism and Corruption: There were accusations of corruption, with claims that certain U.S. steel companies received lucrative armor contracts and overcharged the government compared to what they charged foreign nations.
To overcome this persistent congressional opposition, Roosevelt often bypassed the legislature by rallying public opinion through speeches, articles, and high-profile events, such as the world cruise of the "Great White Fleet".

So, has Revell made the model yet?

link

The point is that if you cancel every single discretionary dollar the deficit will still grow by over $1 USD USD Trillion before adjusting for inflation and borrowing costs.

We need to get our fiscal house in order before spending money we don't have.

All true … and from what I understand the WH is trying to do just that. But we know with the split in congress this just makes it harder … But I feel strongly if most of the worthless, PC, woke, progressive, soft, etc. priorities, initiatives, agendas, etc. that the last POTUS and many in Congress supported. That would go a long way.

If you don't cut entitlements, the deficit will grow.

Yes, definitely.
Let's cut the funding for all programs that we politically disagree with!

90% of discretionary spending is not controversial or politically divisive and entitlements, in particular Social Security and Medicare are not going to get cut,.Raising revenue must occur or the deficit will rise with the interest on the debt rapidly reducing our ability to fund defense.

Usually those who most advocate for the cutting of entitlement programs are the same ones that then add "but don't cut the ones I get."

Well here is an unnecessary cost.

From a liberal source

"The estimated net annual cost to U.S. taxpayers for supporting illegal immigrants is approximately $150.7 USD billion. This figure, primarily from a 2023 report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), accounts for the total government expenditures (gross cost) minus the taxes paid by illegal immigrants."

From a non liberal source

"House Homeland Security Committee: A 2023 report estimated that the total cost could be as high as $451 USD billion annually, using data from the Center for Immigration Studies and including a broader scope of costs related to the recent border crisis."

Some billions we could sure use.

Should also add the billions in fraud by those like the Somalis in Minneapolis and Columbus and others here in the United States, of taxpayer money.

More billions we could sure use.

If you don't cut entitlements, the deficit will grow.

Certain entitlements needed to be looked at regardless.

90% of discretionary spending is not controversial or politically divisive and entitlements, in particular Social Security and Medicare are not going to get cut,.Raising revenue must occur or the deficit will rise with the interest on the debt rapidly reducing our ability to fund defense.

Yes I agree … Like I said certain entitlements may need to be looked at more closely.

Let's cut the funding for all programs that we politically disagree with!

What if they just cut funding based on economics, without the politics. Well as we know that will be almost impossible. Regardless there is still a lot of waste, fraud and abuse.

E.g. IMO, the money, perks, etc. that have anything to do with 20 million illegal aliens should be gone. They are just costing the taxpayer too much. While there are US citizens that could use some of that assistance.

OVI +1

McKinstry +1

Usually those who most advocate for the cutting of entitlement programs are the same ones that then add "but don't cut the ones I get."

And that's the rub …

The Ripley analogy is clever, but it misses the mark.

Ripley objected to repeating rifles because they challenged existing habits and discipline. What's being questioned here isn't innovation, it's sequencing and capacity. Conflating the two is a category error and historically a costly one.

Not arguing against rebuilding the industrial base, modernizing the fleet, or taking China seriously. The question is whether announcing a 20 to 25 ship "battleship" class before the shipyards, skilled labor, supplier base, or doctrinal role actually exist creates capability, or just treats intention as execution.

China didn't just do it by declaration. It spent decades aligning political continuity, yard expansion, workforce training, and design discipline. Jumping from China in 1990 to China today without lingering on that middle work is convenient but evasive and lacks accurate analysis.

WWII production analogies fall into the same trap. They're emotionally satisfying, but they outsource the hard thinking to nostalgia. Total war mobilization, simplified designs, and a different labor economy are doing most of the work in those comparisons, not speeches.

If the real purpose of this concept is to act as a forcing function for rebuilding shipbuilding capacity, that's a defensible strategy. But then it should be discussed honestly as industrial policy with a naval wrapper, but not as a fleet that will materialize because history supposedly demands it.

Urgency is not the same thing as planning, and confusing the two is how navies end up with prototypes, canceled hulls, and very impressive artist renderings.

Serious naval power isn't willed into existence. It's assembled slowly, expensively, and usually in ways that frustrate timelines, sensationalism, and speechwritters alike.

Rewatching the Trump announcement -- this is literally a sea change in naval strategy. Trump basically just announced the era of the Aircraft Carrier is OVER. Trump does this kind of thing ALL the time – he makes an announcment to frame what he wants and focus intent, and then he leaves to the "experts" to figure it out. It's often done from a "gut sense" and that's what he's done here. "Gut sense" says drones are blowing ships up in the Ukraine War, and China has been announcing it's anti-Carrier ballistic missiles and drones, and we need to rethink our naval strategy. AND we need to start building ships again.

-- this is literally a sea change in naval strategy.

I don't know if the pun was intentional, but it's a good one! :)

We can see the result of drone attacks in the Ukraine, and we hear from China regularly about their latest copies of US aircraft, ship building, the number of frigates they outnumber us by.

But CVs are not defenseless, the US is not idle in drone development and defensive measures. The Ford can turn into an island base anywhere, tremendous range, endurance, firepower, etc. But warships have their eras, and CVs will be no exception.

The Trump class mission is not clearly evolved for now. Its capabilities seem somewhat redundant. Any large new class that runs on oil is not exactly the "wave" of the future, in my opinion.

Trump concerns me with the word derailments, and he is not known for his grasp of historical and technical details. "Nobody knows how magnets work". Yes they do, and EMALS works for launching aircraft. CVs are not over. But some version of these Trump ships is possible. . I don't think they will happen, given the amount of time and money their development represents. Tech in weapons development,including defensive measures against drones, will move too fast.

CVs are not over

They still have a critical role, but the US has no plans at present to build new CVs. Can you image how vulnerable a CV would be if an enemy were able to hit one with a drone swarm attack?

Boy, lots of opinions about this new class. In my recent past, I worked on surface weapon R&D within NAVSEA including many of the systems slated for these vessels. The way ship and weapons acquisition works is straightforward process. DOD and DON develop lists of "needs" from various sources to address current and projected threats. A need could be something like "conventional deep strike capability capable of rendering an Airfield inoperative for 100 hours". These needs are prioritized and allocated to existing and future air / surface / undersea platforms. In turn existing and new technologies are used to address the needs which sometimes results in a new weapon / vessel / plane program. These are then submitted to the congress via the POM process. OpNav develops the POM submission for this stuff. If you had the access, you could find the needs that this ship is to address and the technical capabilities that enable these. Those things then define how big, fast etc. a new platform will be. Also may turn out that the new vessel can meet some other existing needs with a few tweaks – things like Naval Gunfire Support. When I was still working earlier this year, OpNav drove the bus and still does. Could we build a smaller or larger new vessel, sure but this proposal is focused on the OpNav Goldilocks solution given resource constraints and meeting the "ilities" that all systems must meet (affordability, survivability, habitability, maintainability, etc.). Its clear that the primary battery is focused on deep strike from bluewater where it is much harder to attack the ship. The 5" and railgun weapons primary use is air intercept using Hyper Velocity Projectiles, although these cannons can perform surface engagement against over the horizon long range targets. The VLS cells complement with both more strike weapons and exquisite air defense missiles. Last the 30mm guns provide short range surface warfare capabilities and point defense options. There is probably a lot more under the hood not advertised.

In my opinion it's a battleship because the USN says it is. Is it as big as the Mighty MO, no. But she is as big as the treaty battleships such as USS North Carolina. Battleships were developed to control chokepoints in accordance with Alfred Thayer Mahon's "seapower" doctrine. They evolved with heavier armor and bigger guns to deal with enemy battleships. This vessel could certainly assert sea control over the world's chokepoints with the advantage of doing it a substantial standoff range. Not in the description is how much armor she carries, but I would posit it will be substantial given her tonnage. At 3 times the tonnage of the DDG1000 and the same tonnage as the biggest battle cruisers ever, I think she probably is the first BBG. Maybe it will start a new naval arms race?

LostPict, thank you for your insight.

Maybe it will start a new naval arms race?

I think we are in one now with China. Japan, S Korean, Australia, PI and India are responding.

The USN is not in this race by itself.

The US has funded and is building Ford class CVN's John F Kennedy, Enterprise and Doris Miller ( Pearl Harbor MOH enlisted). Long lead funding has been procured for the Clinton ( as discussed sketchy naming but) and is requesting funding for the G W Bush. Leaving aside the dubious naming for living people, the US (and China and France) are still in the CVN business for the foreseeable future.

I think this is where the rhetoric is running ahead of the reality.

Declaring the "era of the carrier over" confuses threat evolution with platform obsolescence. Every capital ship since the ironclad has been declared obsolete the moment a new weapon appeared, yet carriers persist because they are not just strike platforms, they are mobile airfields, logistics hubs, C2 nodes, and political instruments. No surface combatant replaces that bundle.

Drone warfare in Ukraine is instructive, but it is also highly contextual: constrained airspace, permissive ISR, short ranges, and no blue water maneuver. Extrapolating from that to the open ocean, against layered defenses, escorts, EW, deception, and distance, is not analysis, it's analogy stacking.

What LostPict describes is much closer to how this should be understood: a requirements driven platform filling specific gaps, primarily deep strike and sea control at standoff. That makes sense. What it does not do is invalidate carriers, any more than submarines invalidated surface fleets or aircraft invalidated armies.

As for "gut sense," that's fine as a framing device, but it's not a strategy. Naval strategy emerges from tradeoffs, sequencing, and industrial limits, not from declarations. If this hull becomes an arsenal ship, a C2 heavy combatant, or a Tico successor with far more reach, that's evolutionary, not revolutionary.

Which brings us back to the core issue. If this is meant to catalyze shipbuilding capacity and rebalance the fleet mix, say that. If it's meant to replace carriers, the Navy itself has not caught up to that claim.

Carriers may eventually lose primacy. They will not disappear by announcement. They will fade only when something else demonstrably does their job better, cheaper, and at scale. We are not there yet.

As always, opinions expressed here on TMP are heavily influential in Washington.
So, let's arrive at a reasonable consensus, shall we? 😄

I would give them all the money to build whatever they wanted if they would just STOP naming capital ships after politicians. Alive in particular. What cynical sucking up.
Recycle grand old names, like Wasp, Hornet, Enterprise, Bonhomme Richard.

So John, you have no issues with the "USS defiant" then? Good to know.

Send that money away. 🙂

OVI +1

inca77 +1

As we have seen in the past so will regard certain weapons systems no longer useful on the battlefield of any element. The MBT has been said it was obsolete, etc. Based on reality that is certainly not the true. Again, new tech evolutions mean tactics have to evolve as well.

Of course new tech does make some weapons etc. if not obsolete their tactics and employ must change as well. To be useful and effective. E.g. Horse Cav for one really has little use on the battle. The BBs and BCs became less effective with the advent of aircraft.

But today, with new tech, AI, etc. the BB/BC may once again have regained its place. Plus today with the advanced in tech, ships can defend again aerial weapons systems much better than ever before. And tech will still keep evolving.

OSSC, Senior you are welcome.

LostPict +1
Incavart77 +1

A ‘Trump Class' Folly on the High Seas

link

Armand

Funny – I draw the opposite conclusion, that the lessons of the Ukraine War are being incorporated into a new survivable surface combatant. Besides, the lesson of the Ukraine war regarding naval combat is HAVE BETTER PORT & OPERATIONAL SECURITY! Most of Ukraine's successes have been drone strikes on stationary ships at port, except for Moskva and a tugboat sunk by ASMs and we know know that the Moskva was sailing along fat and happy, not at quarters and it's crew on low watch readiness not thinking that anti-ship missiles were a threat.

So in addition to force projection with a BBG -- how do we defend say, the San Diego fleet base from a couple of containers loaded with Chinese drone swarms that roll up near the base and pour a wave of drones into the air? How do we defend any of our strategic airbases from the same thing? Chinese shipping containers are parked all over the hell and gone and could conceal containerized cruise missiles, IRBMs and drones.

The idea of ​​containers was already used by the Ukrainians… with considerable success…

Armand

We're talking more than just drones…

Chinese Cargo Ship Packed Full Of Modular Missile Launchers Emerges China has packed a deck of a medium-sized cargo ship with 60 containerized vertical launch cells, radar, and close-in weapons.

link

link

No reason not to believe they will do any or all of these.