HalifaxAg said:

---

Wasted opportunity...should've built a Jefferson-class starship

---

FIFY

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.

---

My father served with Commodore Arleigh Burke in WWII when he led the 23rd Squadron aka Little Beavers in the once famous Battle of Cape St. George. Destroyers have always been a force multiplier, and recently they have been instrumental in defense against drones and ballistic missile attacks over Israel and in the Red
"Coordinated as a superb fighting team," Destroyer Squadron (DesRon) 23, the "Little Beavers," was the one US Navy destroyer squadron of World War II awarded a group Presidential Unit Citationfor its record under Capt. Arleigh "31-knot" Burke over a 17-week period at the close of the Solomon Islands campaign.

LeonardSkinner said:

---

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.

---

Unfortunately, I think we are falling into the German trap of building very formidable systems that are highly complex and very expensive to build and maintain. A proper force mix would include these weapons, but also many lower tech systems to overwhelm enemy defenses. I think we are becoming to top heavy.

JB!98 said:

---

LeonardSkinner said:

---

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.

---

Unfortunately, I think we are falling into the German trap of building very formidable systems that are highly complex and very expensive to build and maintain. A proper force mix would include these weapons, but also many lower tech systems to overwhelm enemy defenses. I think we are becoming to top heavy.

---

Perhaps. How do you with China?. Talk about top heavy!

Trump said he is going to 'take an active role in their design'?

WTF? it is stuff like that coming out of his mouth that makes a lot of folks concerned about his decision making. Maybe it is just trolling cause he thinks it is funny to troll as POTUS. But if POTUS really wants to help design and approve the cosmetic look of his battleships? Then Again, WTF?

TA-OP said:

---

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

---

Harris, because they go….well, you know the rest.

Sounds like idiocy but he tends to spew verbal vomit over actual good ideas on the regular. The problem lately is that he's had some tard ideas and policies. Hopefully whatever this really is an actual need.

Quote:

---

In G.I. Joe versus cobra, cobra had a flying aircraft carrier.

---

How did it hold up against the USS Flagg?

"Battleships" make it sound like they are going to resurrect Iowa class ships.

jabberwalkie09 said:

---

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.

---

Landing troops should be the bottom of any list.

Until we can 100% say we win night 1, we don't need to worry about night 15.

Rapidly turning into the United States of Trump. Soon we'll be required to have a photo of dear leader in our living room

CharlieBrown17 said:

---

jabberwalkie09 said:

---

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.

---

Landing troops should be the bottom of any list.

Until we can 100% say we win night 1, we don't need to worry about night 15.

---

I didn't have any priority in what I was mentioning in regards to limitations for what subs can do and why they're one of many tools in the tool chest. Looking at WW2 the LHD/LHA would play a significant role in the Pacific theater. Just like air power and submarines would also be important as well but for different reasons.

Frankly, the USN needs an arsenal ship that is cheap (in relative terms) and can be converted from a civilian design in the interim until more ships are built. I would have thought something like the loyal wingman but for ships would also be something for the USN to do since they would be unmanned and probably able to be produced on a shorter lead time with a lower cost. Between dealing with drones on the Red Sea and missiles from Iran, being able to carry a high number of missiles is big consideration in future designs.

Drones, Subs, and Spacecraft if you have to waste OUR money. Not battleships.

Can you imagine how much this will make the libs and TDS never-trumpers' heads explode?

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…

---

Are you French. You sure seem to find every reason to support a modern day equivalent of something as useful as the Maginot Line!

Squadron7 said:

---

TA-OP said:

---

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

---

Harris, because they go….well, you know the rest.

---

Shh.. the natives are confusing sarcasm and humor for TDS.

Eliminatus said:

---

Seems to be legit from what I can tell so far.

Trump's ego is really starting to be a burden on our nation at this point if these don't get cancelled. This is an objectively stupid idea by all measures and accounts. The Navy is is DIRE straights right now in everything from hulls to build power to workforce to even sailors to crew new ships. Now two uber-battleships that are going to suck up soooo much resources and time and tie up build slip space? On old technology and strategies long abandoned due to evolving threats and needs?

These are going to be cost overrun by billions book it. If they are complete in sub 5 years, I'll eat all the crow in the world as well.

Actually rather surprised no one managed to talk him out of this.

TRUMP CLASS BATTLESHIPS ⚓️🇺🇸

President Trump announces Trump Class Battleships, manufactured in the USA, the new class ships will be the fastest, biggest and most lethal ships ever constructed. pic.twitter.com/pWj6IiQEEc

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) December 22, 2025

---

So… we all know Trump says a lot of things. This is the same guy who talked about buying Gaza and building "Trump World," or whatever that was.

We also know that when he does this, it's usually not about the literal idea he's tweeting. It's about provoking a reaction or forcing attention onto some other issue.

And MAYBE just maybe given that we don't actually need battleships, that large capital ships are of limited relevance in modern warfare, and that Trump isn't that stupid MAYBE he's trying to get someone's attention rather than outlining a procurement plan.

Why he operates this way, I have no idea. But historically, it tends to move things for him.

So perhaps don't take it at face value until we see something concrete you know, a signed contract, a laid hull, or a christened ship.

BigRobSA said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

You gotta be a special kind of narcissist to name a US Navy ship class after yourself.

---

Even worse, this narcissist dodged the draft by claiming bone spurs after being a high class athlete.

---

This ship can't get underway due to hull spurs

Yes, you have to hope this is Trump just trolling and trying to
Provoke a reaction for some other purpose, whereby he does not actually mean or believe his own words.

It IS a bit nutty way to operate as a leader and a CEO of any company operating like this would no doubt have employees raising eyebrows and there would be plenty of 'WTF?' water cooler conversation and lost productivity trying to parse through all the smoke and mirrors in chat rooms.

Regarding the topic of 'Battleships' my WW2 history professor had beat into my head that the era of large capital ships being the way to project naval power ended on December 7th, 1941.

I'm not a navy guy but John Konrad seems to know roughly what he is talking about on these subjects and has been pushing the 'modern battleship' notion all year (as well as merchant marine/ship yard investments).

Honestly, Europe, we spent trillions defending you for decades.

The LEAST you could do is STFU & let us enjoy a battleship announcement for ONE damn day before you start whining again.

Be happy for us. The next Dem POTUS will probably rename it USS Zelensky or Merkel or anyway.

— John Ʌ Konrad V (@johnkonrad) December 23, 2025

He seems to be…enthused with the idea:

Don’t fast forward to 33 minutes to watch me freak out like a 10 yea old on Christmas. Don’t do it!

WE’RE GETTING BATTLESHIPS!!!!! https://t.co/9EcRutrS79

— John Ʌ Konrad V (@johnkonrad) December 23, 2025

I dunno, and am skeptical (but not as cynical as many seem to be about this). The navy hasn't been able to procure anything that floats efficiently/quickly in decades (LCS, Fremm-based frigates, etc). CDRSalamander is going to have a piece up later this am on it, I believe.

Since I have seen ZERO specs on these "battleships", I am going to withhold judgement until I know more. Honestly, Trump has been in the spotlight for a decade and people still **** their pants every time he says something off the wall. For all we know this is the 2025 version of Star Wars.

I dont know much about this yet. Are we expanding our ship yard capacity as well? If not these will eat into other boats production output, but quite a lot i would imagine. Not sure that's a good idea. Especially with China ongoing ship building pace.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a future admin drop this project. I'd open to being wrong though, maybe they'll come up with an amazing design, etc

My initial reaction was to roll my eyes. Everyone knows the strategy is to decentralize, smaller cheaper ships and drones but the more I thought about it, the more going back to heavy battleships may make some sense.

Drone strategy is to overwhelm with hundreds if not thousands of cheap small and smart munitions, with the thought that even if the success rate of these drones is .01%, one success can inflict outsized damage.

Sure our ships need great anti-drone capabilities, but at a certain level of saturation every anti drone system will have its limit. The best answer is to up armor so they can take a punch.

This is also just as much about projecting power as it is capability.

ReelAg6 said:

---

My initial reaction was to roll my eyes. Everyone knows the strategy is to decentralize, smaller cheaper ships and drones but the more I thought about it, the more going back to heavy battleships may make some sense.

Drone strategy is to overwhelm with hundreds if not thousands of cheap small and smart munitions, with the thought that even if the success rate of these drones is .01%, one success can inflict outsized damage.

Sure our ships need great anti-drone capabilities, but at a certain level of saturation every anti drone system will have its limit. The best answer is to up armor so they can take a punch.

This is also just as much about projecting power as it is capability.

---

In warfare, thinking outside the box almost always wins.

A pretty good sized ship that has the ability to carry lots and lots of munitions and also has the ability to discharge an EMP that disables sophisticated weapons systems, and is adequately shielded to withstand an EMP, could take out an entire navy by itself.

If you were the US and that was your real intention, would probably wouldn't make that public either.

Not saying that is what we are doing, but, not saying we aren't either.

I read somewhere , maybe here or an article posted here, that the Navy ships are such a slow build because they build them to original spec (including 1980s-1990s electronics and technology ; and then after completion, commissioning, and acceptance; they immediately go into retrofit and upgrade for another 1-1.5 years to modernize...

It's asinine.

not expecting these to be WW2 style gun boats. could be wrong but I would imagine they will be more suited to the modern war environment while also filling a role that we need

AgBQ-00 said:

---

not expecting these to be WW2 style gun boats. could be wrong but I would imagine they will be more suited to the modern war environment while also filling a role that we need

---

https://news.usni.org/2025/12/22/trump-unveils-new-battleship-class-proposed-uss-defiant-will-be-largest-u-s-surface-combatant-since-wwii





Gonna have rail guns and lasers

ReelAg6 said:

---

My initial reaction was to roll my eyes. Everyone knows the strategy is to decentralize, smaller cheaper ships and drones but the more I thought about it, the more going back to heavy battleships may make some sense.

Drone strategy is to overwhelm with hundreds if not thousands of cheap small and smart munitions, with the thought that even if the success rate of these drones is .01%, one success can inflict outsized damage.

Sure our ships need great anti-drone capabilities, but at a certain level of saturation every anti drone system will have its limit. The best answer is to up armor so they can take a punch.

This is also just as much about projecting power as it is capability.

---

My understanding is this ship will have a lot of anti-drone defense but also have a lot of drone capabilities itself (not just about be ground but surface and subsurface). They are calling it a battleship (probably at Trump's behest to make leftists heads explode) but other than being fairly large it won't be anything like the historical notion of a battleship.

Regardless the key to me is to reinvest in shipyards. If this just gets that started I will be happy.

the navy has been developing both capabilities for a while. iirc Japan just went into sea trial with a rail gun armed ship.

Yes, as to the Japanese.

Quote:

---

Railguns use electrical energy to launch hypervelocity projectiles instead of conventional gunpowder. In previous trials conducted by ATLA, a projectile fired from a 6-meter-long, 40-millimeter-caliber barrel reached a hypersonic speed of 2,297 meters per secondnearly Mach 7surpassing the roughly 1,750 meters per second achieved by a tank gun, the fastest conventional artillery system. Railguns can do rapid-fire and fire at lower cost compared to conventional interceptor missiles, making them a promising next-generation defense system against hypersonic weapons exceeding Mach 5 developed by China, North Korea, and Russia.

One major challenge, however, is their enormous power requirement. A high-capacity power supply is essential, and miniaturization remains a hurdle for deployment on ships and other platforms.

---

Plausibly, a rail gun makes more sense on a larger ship, given the power requirements.

Rogoway, whose naval acumen is probably only marginally greater than mine, is not a fan fwiw.

We are choosing to lose. https://t.co/ObImBC7hRx

— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) December 22, 2025

Prediction: President Trump will leave office with his name on fewer items than did Senator Byrd.

FobTies said:

---

Drones, Subs, and Spacecraft if you have to waste OUR money. Not battleships.

---

My takeaway is that this isn't really a battleship in the classical definition, that being the Iowa class and older ship designs, but more analogous to what would be comparable to say the Kirov class the Soviets/Russians made. We did make two nuclear powered cruisers too with the Long Beach and Bainbridge but they were quite expensive to maintain. If these are nuclear powered, which I haven't read much on these admittedly, then it would make sense because the conventional power fuel requirements would be enormous to power these and nuclear power would make more sense imo. Reactor design seems to have improved over the years given the Columbia class subs will have reactors that are supposed to last the life of the ship.

And don't worry, we're still building Virginia class, the Columbia is being built, and the various services are looking at buying drones. We just launched a drone from an LCS.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Yes, you have to hope this is Trump just trolling and trying to
Provoke a reaction for some other purpose, whereby he does not actually mean or believe his own words.

It IS a bit nutty way to operate as a leader and a CEO of any company operating like this would no doubt have employees raising eyebrows and there would be plenty of 'WTF?' water cooler conversation and lost productivity trying to parse through all the smoke and mirrors in chat rooms.

Regarding the topic of 'Battleships' my WW2 history professor had beat into my head that the era of large capital ships being the way to project naval power ended on December 7th, 1941.

---

well that is historically false

American battleships participated in the landings at Iwo Jima, Normandy, Sicily, Morocco, Kwajelien, Tarawa, Okinawa, Phillipines

American battleships sunk Japanese Battleships in the battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944

I suspect we are in a transitionary phase of rearmament. we are going to see some hybrid things that will be steps to the next iteration of theater dominance systems.