"New Class of US Navy Battleship" Topic

Well… this is in another level…

Armand

For those with name issues:

"Yes, George Washington had things named after him while still in office, most notably the capital city, Washington, D.C., which was officially named in his honor by the commissioners in September 1791, during his first term, as well as the Washington College receiving significant support and a name change in 1796, while he was president"

I know, "but it's George!!"

Ok

"Things named after Nancy Pelosi include the Speaker Nancy Pelosi Caucus Room in the Cannon House Office Building and the Speaker Nancy Pelosi Federal Building (formerly the San Francisco Federal Building), a significant government office tower in her home city, both designated in her honor for her extensive service in Congress. "

With research you can find more. 😉

Is Trump an egoist? Of course. 😂
Are most politicians? 😉

"But it's the Trumpsies preciousssss and we hates the Trumpsiesssssss! Golem, Golem" 😡

Let's not forget the king!

"While still in office, over 30, and likely many more, things in West Virginia—including highways, dams, bridges, research centers, and schools—were named after Democrat Senator Robert C. Byrd, a result of his massive success in directing federal funds to his home state, with names like the Robert C. Byrd Highway, Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam, and Byrd Health Science Center common.

Examples of Places Named After Senator Byrd (Before or During His Tenure):
Robert C. Byrd Drive: A major road in WV.
Robert C. Byrd Highway (Corridor H): A section of the Appalachian Highway System.
Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam: On the Ohio River.
Robert C. Byrd Health Science Center: At West Virginia University.
Robert C. Byrd National Technology Transfer Center: At Wheeling Jesuit University.
Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope: A major radio telescope facility.
Robert C. Byrd Bridge: Linking Huntington, WV, and Chesapeake, OH.
Robert C. Byrd Institute (for Advanced Technologies): Focused on technology and manufacturing.

Why So Many?
Byrd's powerful role as the longtime Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee allowed him to steer billions in federal money to West Virginia for public works, leading to numerous projects bearing his name as a tribute to his success in bringing "pork" to the state. By the time he passed, this roster of named projects was extensive and constantly growing. "

I guess the difference is that Trump has nothing to do with the Kennedy, did not get it funded or get it off the ground. He also has been attaching his name to Biden infrastructure projects,a la Byrd.

I do not think we could or should build these ships. Many reasons. I am not an expert, but capabilities are already covered by other means, it appears. I would like to have seen what the navy says it needs….then design the ship. Fuel seems a bit retro. I am not against oil as part of fuel strategy, but this feels like adding sails to HMS Dreadnought(1906)

Lengthy build times. Huge expensive. Why prop up the ship building industry with so many tax dollars. Feels like socialism. It won't work. There will be delays, deficits, dejavu re the LCS fiasco.

Then there is the pace of technology. How fast is naval warfare changing? What will it look like by the time the first Trump completes trials? Will it just be a big target in a drone vs laser world for surface ships?

Tort, from CNN

"The December 18 off-site meeting and Trump-centric events underscore how the president has sought to put his mark on the country's most prominent cultural institution: reshaping its leadership, securing multimillion-dollar congressional funding for renovations, and reimagining its programming. The moves have led to profound internal upheaval and drawn scrutiny from Democratic lawmakers, members of the arts community and former Kennedy Center staffers."
..

"And as Trump imposes his aesthetic taste on Washington, DC, the Kennedy Center has been no exception. His "One Big, Beautiful Bill" included $257 USD million for "necessary expenses for capital repair, restoration, maintenance backlog, and security structures." Trump has touted restoration of the exterior marble, the interior chairs and "fully" renovated stages, which he says will be complete within a year."

Now we know anything positive in that statement via CNN, would be like getting milk from the teats of a boar hog and since it does read like he did "something", then we can assume it was bigger. 😉

Everything you say about the new ships is exactly what happens today with all other projects, except more is done outside the U.S. So if you are right, no change from the last 40 plus years.

Let us be honest, if he had proposed any new ships, the usual people would find fault with it. If he did nothing, the usual people would find fault with it.

Curious, how much you are seeing about the massive fraud, much by asylum-seekers like the Somalis? Not just in Minneapolis. Columbus Ohio, Washington State, California……… billions and billions of "our" money. 💰 Also some politicians benefiting, either by ignoring it going on and obtaining the votes in return…. or worse.

Give me the new ships using "our" money any time over "our" money giving us "nothing" and going home to places like Somalia and funding terrorists

OVI +1

Tort +1/2

Well, I am always happy with 1/2 here, Legion! 😁. I guess Trump gets the same for some renovations at the Kennedy. But this should not buy him top billing. There have been major renovations before. We don't see Bush's name above Kennedy's, or Clinton's. It's an American institution, not a vanity project.

I have been a lifelong amateur naval history enthusiast, even wrote a thesis on tech development and impact on the Imperial Japanese Navy in college. Not an expert historian, but I am fascinated by Victorian navies and the tactical evolution of guns and armor, and the strategic significance of the battleship over time. In this case I just don't agree that a new class of variants is necessary or cost efficient. Trump seems to be fascinated with the Teddy Roosevelt era. Rather than a new Great White Fleet, we need to keep looking ahead. Never has tech change moved quite this fast. No turning back the clock or the Chinese really will get the drop on us eventually.

I think Trump is just channeling his inner Ramesses II.

So let it be written!! So let it be done!!

😉

Never has tech change moved quite this fast. No turning back the clock or the Chinese really will get the drop on us eventually.

But isn't this a re-examination of how we structure our Navy in a high Drone and Missile threat environment, incorporating new tech to meet change as opposed to continuing on the Carrier Group track? China's racing to close the Carrier gap, this could help the US move beyond that.

Maybe, I don't know. The Chinese aren't building these to compete with us. They want carriers, but they need time and resources to match us, if they can.

I disagree with the primary mission statement, vague as it is at this point:
The Ford can project power far more readily. Range/endurance, flexibly,etc. Protect the carriers? WW2 is over. We relegated battleships to this role then. We have systems already.

Moving beyond is fine, as long as we are moving beyond. Maybe there are other reasons for this, not yet explained.

35th, I am seeing today that there are major questions about child care fraud reports, being used for political leverage, and no evidence yet. Under-funded already, the child care system teeters on the verge of collapse from year to year. It is well regulated and audited, but so under capitalized that it cannot have much of a future. Now all funds to states are frozen. A lot of parents won't be showing up for work. Let the regular investigative teams handle this as they have the Somali welfare fraudsters. Why punish low income wage earners across the board. Child care teachers themselves earn poverty level wages.

Tort you want a load of stories? I have the links I'll place here. This is deep and spreading.

Interestingly, at least out of Minnesota. The politicians and MSM have used two conflicting narratives:

"The "Mainstream Media" Narrative: The primary narrative from many mainstream news outlets focuses on the response to the allegations, portraying them as a politically motivated attack on the Somali community. This narrative often highlights that the fraud claims were amplified by a right-wing social media influencer and subsequently seized upon by the Trump administration. It emphasizes the harassment, threats, and vandalism that Somali-owned businesses faced in the wake of the viral video and criticizes the broad, nationwide funding freezes that resulted, arguing that existing legal cases were already being handled by authorities.

The "Democratic" Narrative: The narrative coming from Democrats, including Minnesota's Governor Tim Walz and Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, often acknowledges that fraud is a serious issue that will not be tolerated but accuses the Trump administration and its conservative allies of politicizing the issue and using it as a cudgel for political gain and anti-immigrant sentiment. They emphasize that state and federal officials, including the Biden Justice Department, have been investigating fraud for years (citing the "Feeding Our Future" case as an example) and argue that the recent federal actions and rhetoric constitute "state-sanctioned racial profiling" and a "war on immigrants". "

The first obviously the tried and true liberal rebuttal to everything when things are exposed: "It's racist"

The second I call the "Barbrady Defense" " Nothing to see here folks!! Just move along"

When these appear, you know the problem IS REAL. 😉

The stories are many, varied and popping up all over the U.S. even in my state in Columbus. Our Rhino Governor is also trying to use the Barbrady defense and I believe he is just as corrupt as Tim, Omar and many others are.

I'll say too, this goes deeper than the theft of yours and my money (which is bad enough), yes deeper.

Tort I have to post this one. I saw this live.

His is one of the daycares in question, for which investigators wanted "the documents" from.

Amazingly "racists" broke in and stole all the documents. He claims they are the real victims. 😂😅

The police don't even believe him!
I'm sure the Somali pirates use that same excuse when picked up:

"Us? Why we are just a score of innocent fishermen, out trying to make a living and feed our many children. The rifles and RPG? Why we use them in place of nets and lines. It is more humane for the fish." 🐟 💥

"That flag? 🏴‍☠️ Oh! Just death to the fish." 🤥

Subject: Katie Miller on X: "Who still has physical important documents?" / X


link

Maybe, I don't know. The Chinese aren't building these to compete with us. They want carriers, but they need time and resources to match us, if they can.

Of COURSE they are! They have been open about this for years, that the US is their existential enemy against which they benchmark their military expansion. They have announced their goal of being able to defeat the US Navy and project power across the Indo-Pacific.

Oh -- as a side note, the welfare fraud exposed in Minnesota ($9 Billion) and California ($80 Billion) alone would pay for 10-15 Trump class BBGs…OR, FOUR complete Surface Action Groups comprising each a BBG, x4 DDGs, x2 SSNs and x1 Lewis & Clark supply ship.

Not aware of Chinese BB class building, maybe I was unclear about what I was referring to. We all know what China's strategic goals are. The size of frigates has expanded, but they are not BBs. I think in today's world tonnage does not equate to combat power as it once did. I think the Trump class has potential to be a white elephant. The size of these ships as a measure of ability to project power seems dated. But I am a complete outsider and defer to our resident vets with specfic experience.

I admit I am not following the allegations on X about the scope of the fraud, only that there are questions about the sources and verifiable evidence for this huge scale fraud.

35th, I have to say that your well written description of media managed political theater is a staple of the right as much as the left.

Minnesota is a hot mess for alleged and proven fraud related to social services. Other sources have refuted Shirley's no children in care video evidence. But there are plenty of other problems whether empty programs exist or not, major problems with quality of service fraud there. Parent and taxpayers are rightfully outraged. The state needs to clean house or the feds should do it for them.

Tort, not just Minnesota. So far Pennsylvania, Ohio(specifically Columbus, home of the second most Somalis in the U.S. after Minneapolis), Washington state, California (of course), Maine, NY, Georgia… and on and on

From local news in Minnesota

"The Brief

First Assistant U.S. Attorney Joe Thompson said Minnesota is "an outlier in a bad way" during Thursday's press conference about fraud in the state.

Several other states have seen billions of dollars stolen through similar schemes that have also been uncovered in Minnesota.

This year, $10.6 USD billion dollars in Medicare and Medicaid fraud was found in New York in one case."

That was just the top snip of their article.

The graft is not new. But now people are seeing it.

What the MSM and politicians are trying so hard now to discount is that video. A video "people" understand, because they see it, especially when it is on the areas most of them watch to get their news(tic Tok, Facebook, YouTube…). Now it's front and center in their faces. Now politicians and individuals are trying to cover their 🫏's.

As I said, I've seen stories back as far as 2023, but most people don't read the sources or watch the news.

Sadly we have too many who trust TikTok and the others for their news.

Of course, that makes independent sources like the gentleman taking that video, important.

All the things those billions and billions could be used for more wisely. 🤔

Not aware of Chinese BB class building, maybe I was unclear about what I was referring to.

I didn't say that, I said they are building a carrier fleet with a stated goal of 4-6 Carrier Battle Groups by 2030.

China is clearly building a carrier fleet and benchmarking itself against U.S. carrier operations. That's precisely why claims that we are "moving beyond carriers" should be treated cautiously. You don't abandon a capability your primary competitor is still racing to master unless you already have something demonstrably better in service.

What seems to be happening instead is force diversification, not replacement. Carriers remain central for sustained air power, logistics, C2, and political signaling. New surface combatants or arsenal ships, if they materialize, would complement that structure by absorbing missile loads, extending reach, and complicating adversary targeting.

That's evolution, not rupture.

The Houthi attacks are useful precisely because they're real, not theoretical. After months of persistent drone and missile launches in the Red Sea, no U.S. carrier has been mission killed, forced off station, or rendered ineffective. The strikes have been absorbed by layered defenses, escorts, EW, deception, and distance.

That doesn't mean drones aren't a threat. It means the carrier strike group, not the carrier alone, is the unit of analysis. Treating a CV as a solitary target is a category mistake.

What the Red Sea actually demonstrates is cost asymmetry and magazine depth, not obsolescence. Inefficiency in intercept economics is a real problem, but inefficiency is not the same thing as vulnerability. Navies adapt by adjusting layers and costs, not by declaring platforms obsolete.

If carriers were genuinely nearing obsolescence, China would not be investing decades and enormous resources trying to replicate them. They would be skipping ahead. The fact that they are not tells us something important.

The real question isn't whether carriers are over. It's whether the Navy can expand capacity, adjust fleet composition, and absorb new technologies without pretending that one announcement ends an era.

History suggests eras don't end that way. They overlap for a long time, usually at great expense.

Incavart77 +1

This was my point exactly . China is not wasting time and money on large surface units.

Tort,

I think that reflects the strategic difference between the US Navy (global reach) and a regional Navy where most of the launchers are shore based. These new ships plus the DDG1000 which are also being converted to carry CPS missiles will provide mobile launchers for long-range conventional missiles in addition to the submarines and shore-base launchers on the 1st and 2nd island chains. They further the PLAN deploys forces from their land-based missile umbrella the less effective they become. In a future war between PLAN and USN over Taiwan, it is definitely a home-game for China. I suspect there is a lot of undescribed defensive capability that makes up the tonnage difference between DDG1000 and the proposed USS Defiant that focuses on survivability. These vessels could be the center of a surface strike group or combine with existing carrier battlegroups to add more strike capability big missiles and significant air defense capability with the 32MJ EMRG and 5" guns firing HVP projectiles.

inca77 +1

LostPict +1

Stop Building Battleships, Start Building Fear

link

The New Arteries of Power

link

Armand

Lost Pict…I have great respect for your experience and position on this and I am an amateur.

I have spoken before about the limitations the PLAN faces regarding its current inability to operate as a global power projection force. They are logistically tied to the mainland for now. But their push for modern carriers remains paramount for them.

I think they will not try to match the Trumps. I guess it's not so much that the Trumps could not serve a significant strategic and tactical mission. It's also cost and building time, oil for fuel, and the use of resources that might be diverted from other tech development. Weapons are evolving quickly.

The end of wood and sail and the development of the first true all big gun battleships beginning with ships like HMS Warrior through to the first British and American dreadnought designs, involved an incredible number of rapid innovations in a highly competitive armor vs big gun arms race that changed the history of naval warfare. We are now in a the most rapid tech revolution ever..one that could mark the next era, leaving the Trumps a less than cutting edge platform using too many resources.

All my amateur opinion. Set me straight where you must.

+1 Armand.

Oil is a vulnerability , IMO, and I have been saying that a relatively few USN units could interrupt the current Chinese oil imports in the Indian Ocean and hurt both the national economy and the PLAN in a matter of weeks. Eventually enough Russian oil may get to China via pipeline, but this could also be cut by various AI driven weapons of the future.

It's also cost and building time, oil for fuel, and the use of resources that might be diverted from other tech development.

Hmmm…so having a drone complement, laser AA and a possible rail gun isn't other tech development? I would not be surprised if the first BBGs that launch are as much test bed as operational ship and could be followed by the BBG-N class.

Today:

"All United State Defense Contractors, and the Defense Industry as a whole, BEWARE: While we make the best Military Equipment in the World (No other Country is even close!), Defense Contractors are currently issuing massive Dividends to their Shareholders and massive Stock Buybacks, at the expense and detriment of investing in Plants and Equipment. This situation will no longer be allowed or tolerated!

Also, Executive Pay Packages in the Defense Industry are exorbitant and unjustifiable given how slowly these Companies are delivering vital Equipment to our Military, and our Allies. Salaries, Stock Options, and every other form of Compensation are far too high for these Executives. Defense Companies are not producing our Great Military Equipment rapidly enough and, once produced, not maintaining it properly or quickly. From this moment forward, these Executives must build NEW and MODERN Production Plants, both for delivering and maintaining this important Equipment, and for building the latest Models of future Military Equipment. Until they do so, no Executive should be allowed to make in excess of $5 USD Million Dollars which, as high as it sounds, is a mere fraction of what they are making now. Additionally, the maintenance and repair of Equipment, once sold, is far too slow, and must be immediately enhanced. As President, I am demanding that maintenance be "spot on, on time."

Therefore, I will not permit Dividends or Stock Buybacks for Defense Companies until such time as these problems are rectified — Likewise, for Salaries and Executive Compensation. MILITARY EQUIPMENT IS NOT BEING MADE FAST ENOUGH! It must be built now with the Dividends, Stock Buybacks, and Over Compensation of Executives, rather than borrowing from Financial Institutions, or getting the money from your Government. Longer term, this is good for both Executives and Shareholders, because it will be GREAT for our Country! Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

DONALD J. TRUMP
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"

Really? Sentiment is good, but you would need to socialize the industry to meet these demands. Like taking personal control of Venezuelan oil for the benefit of the people. So it's a negotiating tactic? I think bringing up Austin does not answer any questions here. You cannot force these changes on industry leaders by threats they know are not legal.

And no mention of the role of the Pentagon and Congress in cutting bad deals, hindering implementation. What about the lobbyists and Congressional pork projects? Insider trading in Congress and the admin?

"I will not permit…" Okay, tackle these inside deals where you might exercise legitimate authority.

So, How Bad do You Really Want a Battleship?

link

Armand

Good discussion Armand, thanks. I ‘d go with more Burkes, no BBs. They cost too much, are tactically and logistically backward. Find the CinC another project to hang his name on.

Glad you enjoyed it my friend… I agree with you…

Armand

I ‘d go with more Burkes, no BBs. They cost too much, are tactically and logistically backward.

More destroyers don't automatically equal more combat power.

Modern naval warfare is about how many missiles you can carry, how much power you can generate, and how long you can stay in the fight. A Burke only has 96 VLS cells, and in a high-end fight those get used up fast. On top of that, Burkes are basically maxed out on electrical power, which limits lasers, electronic warfare, sensors, and future upgrades.

A BBG or large surface combatant is built to solve those problems. It carries three to four times the missile load, has massive power for lasers, EW, and drones, and is designed to keep fighting even after taking hits. That's why it acts as the anchor of a fleet, not just another shooter.

And there's a reality people ignore: shipyards. The U.S. only has two yards that build Burkes, and they're already at capacity. You can't just decide to build a bunch more without pushing everything else back by years. That's why Trump's proposal tagged Ingalls Shipbuilding in Mississippi since it's capable of producing large surface combatants with *conventional* propulsion.

And that's also why it would be a BBG and not BBN since the only yard we have that can build big nukes is Newport News in Virgina, maxed out on CVN-79, CVN-80, and some boomers and attack subs. You'd have to cancel an already in construction CVN of SSBN to build a BBN there.

Burkes are excellent escorts. They're just not designed to be the fleet's magazine, power plant, and command hub. A BBG doesn't replace destroyers — it gives them something worth escorting.

Counting hulls is easy. Sustained combat power is what actually wins wars.

Read an article about China's Type 004 aircraft carrier under construction — and this thing is no joke. China is aiming to field up to nine carrier groups by 2035, and the Type 004 (which is expected to be nuclear-powered and launch planes with electromagnetic catapults) shows they're serious. This isn't just talk — it's already being built.

If China is ramping up big, powerful carriers, the U.S. Navy can't just tweak what we already have and call it good enough. Modernizing has to mean thinking bigger — more long-range firepower, more unmanned systems, better coordination across ships, and the idea of the next-generation of high intensity threat survivable BBGs.

Bottom line: the balance of power in the Pacific is changing in real time. Our strategy needs to move as fast as their shipyards.

First of all +1 on this SB. You have to watch them carefully..even with their corrupt system and corrupt military leaders, they are going to make progress. These ships will take a while from start to in service, and the aircraft and pilots as well. But they know they cannot have a world class fleet without nuclear propulsion.

They also love sharing their latest prototypes and artist renditions with the world, but what will actually appear in combat could be different- not as good, or maybe way better.

The Ford was built with mounts for laser weapons, as an example, and I don't think we are standing still while the Chinese hustle to catch us. Who knows what the role of AI will be in ten years? Or what other new weapons will appear? I am more concerned about what's in development that we don't know than, say, clouds of drones. Not that drones are not a challenge.

Our sub fleet is critical in the coming years, I think. The large surface units may gradually become less important than aircraft and subs, satellites, and robotic units, etc. Considering how fast tech is moving, critical decisions need to be made in how we invest in the next generation of war machines

Tortorella +1

This wouldn't be of more than passing interest if China didn't regularly and openly discuss defeating the US to become the world's dominant power. And PLAN has openly discussed their own plans for dominating the South Pacific and isolating Australia. Hint -- sounds a lot like Imperial Japan's WW2 plans.

I HOPE the CCP will collapse under the weight of its internal problems…but we should PLAN as if we will be in conflict with them at some point. That's why I also hope current POTUS can remove some Chinese allies from the board -- Venezuela, Panama has ejected Chinese control of the Canal, the US is making progress in other Latin American states, Cuba could fall, and Iran could fall.

Just as aircraft carriers ended battleships I am thinking that drones will be the death of AC's. We will see.

Just as aircraft carriers ended battleships I am thinking that drones will be the death of AC's. We will see.

Could be, but swarming type drones have a short range and cannot challenge a ship at sea past say, 10-20km -- and they would need targeting. Perhaps a "drone carrier" mothership drone could carry a swarm close enough, but then it's vulnerable to SAMs and countermeasures. So a CV would be much more vulnerable to a sabotage strike in port like the Ukrainans did to that Russian bomber base.

As naval combat evolves, there will be few ‘safe havens' in a future war

link

Armand

We also need to consider the role of the People's Armed Force Maritime Militia would play in war. China uses mass fishing fleets to stripmine the oceans already using coordinated swarming tactics, causing many countries to file suit against them with no hope of recovery. They recently did a coordinated "wall" exercise near Japan with 2000 Chinese fishing ships. It is likely they will use these fishing fleets AND cargo ships to disrupt operations, form a "civilian blockade" of ports and operations and even scuttle themselves in key chokepoints like a port or even in the Panama Canal.

link

link

YouTube link

AND we know that China has also been ARMING cargo ships with containerized weapon systems to present yet another naval threat.

So IF there's conflict with China we'll have to sink everything flying a Chinese flag…

Including pleasure cruises?…

JUst kidding…

Armand