TA-OP said:

---

Next step, rebrand all submarines as Biden boats since they sink.

---

Honestly, at this point, I wouldn't be surprised if he says something like this.

The ridiculousness of attleships aside, our current build yards are largely aging and decrepit ancient things. A massive overhaul in our yard infrastructure and further workforce investment would have been a MUCH better use of this funding.

Will have Trump overseeing the aft deck.

My understanding is that these will be nothing like an old school battleship. This will be an upsized Arleigh Burke like cruiser. Now we all know how govt procurement works, but it would fill a need considering we only have 7 Ticonderoga class cruisers left in service. 38-40K displacement is still a big boat, but smaller than the 58K displacement of the Missouri.

Wasted opportunity...should've built a starship

Rapier108 said:

---

Trump going full ****** again.

He can't just executive order these ships.

Congress has to appropriate the money, and that's not going to happen.

---

That was the other part I decided to not mention as I didn't want to go deep into the administration side. This really isn't up to him and why I made sure to add my "if they don't get cancelled" part previously. Or funded to begin with really.

We will have to wait and see the numbers for this of course but I don't see it likely to go through. Been wrong before though... Just the sheer absurdity of it even making it to an announcement though is something I wanted to highlight.

Cleary hasn't been watching the ukrianian "navy" sink or damage russia ships

Is this ego driven? I'm not in the Navy nor do I know anything about our Naval needs, but Trump seems in tune with our Nation's long term needs to project military power while saving money.

Do we have above-water needs?

Do those needs surpass our needs for subsurface warfare?

Do we get more bang for the buck by building ships capable of projecting power than building a bunch of $ubmarines?

I don't know the answers, but I'm suspect of accusations of "golden battleships" based on his decisions when it comes to military power and financial responsibility.

I could be wrong, but need more context before we go "Trump Battleships". It sounds so stupid.

FireAg said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

FireAg said:

---

Shame on Trump for creating jobs and trying to bolster our warship fleet before the Chinese overtake us…

---

Didn't register this before but think it needs it's own response.

It's not creating jobs. There is already a massive need for what we already have. The yards can't hire enough as is. Poor work conditions, sub par pay, and the continued cultural snubbing of "tradeswork" and hard honest work already has us years in backlog of ships at this very second.

If anything it's putting an unneeded demand on an already incredibly strained system. Having 100 unfilled jobs tath can't be filled and then adding 100 more unfilled ones of the same kind while declaring that jobs are being creating is so disingenuous that it really only fits in the political realm of speech.

---

Or part of the whole deal is to upgrade the yards and improve the workforce…

But don't give the dude any credit for thinking about that…he's just guessing I'm sure…

---

You have proof of this? I know packages to do so have been shot down repeatedly in the past. Never even got close really.

Hope it's true.

And give Trump the benefit of the doubt for something he says? Eh, not something I do 100% these days. From what I have experienced to date so far.

Eliminatus said:

---

FireAg said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

FireAg said:

---

Shame on Trump for creating jobs and trying to bolster our warship fleet before the Chinese overtake us…

---

Didn't register this before but think it needs it's own response.

It's not creating jobs. There is already a massive need for what we already have. The yards can't hire enough as is. Poor work conditions, sub par pay, and the continued cultural snubbing of "tradeswork" and hard honest work already has us years in backlog of ships at this very second.

If anything it's putting an unneeded demand on an already incredibly strained system. Having 100 unfilled jobs tath can't be filled and then adding 100 more unfilled ones of the same kind while declaring that jobs are being creating is so disingenuous that it really only fits in the political realm of speech.

---

Or part of the whole deal is to upgrade the yards and improve the workforce…

But don't give the dude any credit for thinking about that…he's just guessing I'm sure…

---

You have proof of this? I know packages to do so have been shot down repeatedly in the past. Never even got close really.

Hope it's true.

And give Trump the benefit of the doubt for something he says? Eh, not something I do 100% these days. From what I have experienced to date so far.

---

You have proof it's false? No…

So by all means let's second guess the man once again before knowing all of the facts…

siap
are they gold?
biggest ever?

I voted for the guy , but geesh the over the top promoting.

FireAg said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

FireAg said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

FireAg said:

---

Shame on Trump for creating jobs and trying to bolster our warship fleet before the Chinese overtake us…

---

Didn't register this before but think it needs it's own response.

It's not creating jobs. There is already a massive need for what we already have. The yards can't hire enough as is. Poor work conditions, sub par pay, and the continued cultural snubbing of "tradeswork" and hard honest work already has us years in backlog of ships at this very second.

If anything it's putting an unneeded demand on an already incredibly strained system. Having 100 unfilled jobs tath can't be filled and then adding 100 more unfilled ones of the same kind while declaring that jobs are being creating is so disingenuous that it really only fits in the political realm of speech.

---

Or part of the whole deal is to upgrade the yards and improve the workforce…

But don't give the dude any credit for thinking about that…he's just guessing I'm sure…

---

You have proof of this? I know packages to do so have been shot down repeatedly in the past. Never even got close really.

Hope it's true.

And give Trump the benefit of the doubt for something he says? Eh, not something I do 100% these days. From what I have experienced to date so far.

---

You have proof it's false? No…

So by all means let's second guess the man once again before knowing all of the facts…

---

There's plenty of information out there about naval strategy to question this announcement. "Bigger" ships in this era of high-end tech doesn't make sense on the surface. A higher number of smaller, cheaper -- but equally lethal -- naval platforms makes more sense. In that respect, the burden is on Trump/Hegseth to explain why going backwards in time to bigger platforms makes sense.

A speculation war? Nah, not my thing. I thought maybe you actually had some source I hadn't seen or were in the know somehow. My response was not facetious. I was genuinely curious.

And yes, I will second guess Trump when he does things of this magnitude. Not going to deny the truth my eyes have seen. Not sorry about that.

Yeah, the minority party should definitely be jumping up and down screaming how this program is ill-conceived and fiscally irresponsible. That'll get the attention of the executive.

JB!98 said:

---

My understanding is that these will be nothing like an old school battleship. This will be an upsized Arleigh Burke like cruiser. Now we all know how govt procurement works, but it would fill a need considering we only have 7 Ticonderoga class cruisers left in service. 38-40K displacement is still a big boat, but smaller than the 58K displacement of the Missouri.

---

This....this actually makes far more sense. I looked at the Navy's announcement itself and you appear to be right. Go figure to have Trump overplaying the size. "The biggest, fastest...etc". And yet I am supposed to take him at his word blindly, always...

This would be more in the battlecruiser class, no? Especially with the role I imagine it would serve most likely? More of a smash and smother offensive type.

Either way, this would be more in line with the actual needs of the surface fleet. Hell, we need more Burke's as well.

Eliminatus said:

---

FireAg said:

---

Shame on Trump for creating jobs and trying to bolster our warship fleet before the Chinese overtake us…

---

Battleships ain't it. To have so much of our assets and treasure wrapped up into singular baskets like this is absurd in today's world. We need more lighter but no less deadly hulls. We are in a numbers overmatch. Battleships aren't going to do squat against that in the Pacific.

And these things won't be anywhere close to done before the most likely time period of China going aggressive per most analysts.

---

When is China going aggressive and who are they going to aggravate? I havent heard predictions, so I'm honestly asking.

Eliminatus said:

---

JB!98 said:

---

My understanding is that these will be nothing like an old school battleship. This will be an upsized Arleigh Burke like cruiser. Now we all know how govt procurement works, but it would fill a need considering we only have 7 Ticonderoga class cruisers left in service. 38-40K displacement is still a big boat, but smaller than the 58K displacement of the Missouri.

---

This....this actually makes far more sense. I looked at the Navy's announcement itself and you appear to be right. Go figure to have Trump overplaying the size. "The biggest, fastest...etc". And yet I am supposed to take him at his word blindly, always...

This would be more in the battlecruiser class, no? Especially with the role I imagine it would serve most likely? More of a smash and smother offensive type.

Either way, this would be more in line with the actual needs of the surface fleet. Hell, we need more Burke's as well.

---

Yep, cannot stand how he makes everything about him. I despise those type folks. I just look for results. Having the new fighter named the F-47 is just another example of his narcissism, but we need a replacement for the F-22 that is built in significant numbers.

All small hands on deck!

Will the rudder be twitchy?

We need platforms that have massive VLS capability and anti-air capability. Build a fast platform that can launch dozens of TLAMs and bristles with Aegis defenses as well as CWIS, that might be viable.

Ridiculous.

Back in WW2, we were able to build 175 Fletcher class destroyers in four years.

I'm of the belief that we could and should be able to produce dozens of 5,000 ton vessels for both the Navy and Coast Guard.

Bird Poo said:

---

Is this ego driven? I'm not in the Navy nor do I know anything about our Naval needs, but Trump seems in tune with our Nation's long term needs to project military power while saving money.

Do we have above-water needs?

Do those needs surpass our needs for subsurface warfare?

Do we get more bang for the buck by building ships capable of projecting power than building a bunch of $ubmarines?

I don't know the answers, but I'm suspect of accusations of "golden battleships" based on his decisions when it comes to military power and financial responsibility.

I could be wrong, but need more context before we go "Trump Battleships". It sounds so stupid.

---

I'm not navy or military but my understanding is that our surface fleet needs new ships. The submarine fleet also needs more ships to replace the Los Angeles class being retired and the two (not counting the Jimmy Carter since it's special) Seawolf class we have, which we are trying to pump out more Virginia class, in addition to retiring the Ohio class subs for our deterrence patrols.

Subs are good tools to have but you can't launch aircraft from them like carriers or, in the case of LHD/LHA, have aircraft and ability to deploy roughly 2000 marines if needed. Our current LHA's, the America class, are roughly the same size as the French aircraft carrier iirc.

From what I gather, the main concern really revolves around China. They have a high capacity for shipbuilding and their ships with VLS cells are increasing as well as the number of VLS tubes are increasing. They have the potential build more ships with more launch tubes than we could theoretically and the potential threat of the systems they employ is a threat that can't really be ignored. I'm not sure what the current projection time wise is but China has the potential to match the USN tonnage. Not really any other nation can do that presently.

Really, the Trump Class is an iteration of the old arsenal ship concept imo. It's not a new idea but it's a way to basically make a missile carrier for the navy in a similar manner that we use the B-52 now for the Air Force.