IF, and it's a big, big if, you can get the rail gun to work, then yeah, having a few of these makes sense. Not 20-30. I'd rather make 5 of these and then roll out an extra 50 DDG hulls with a smaller vertical launch cell, lasers and USV defense weaponry.

If you want to think about HUGE capital ships that are targets in a new age that will be incredibly hard to defend, look no further than our beloved carriers. Having further capability to add to the rings of defense around them is a tremendous need.

Fun fact people may have forgotten is that the Missouri and the Wisconsin were used to bombard Iraq in Operation Desert Storm in 1991. The videos from that were damn cool.

Also, the sci-fi movie Battleship based on the game is an underrated badass movie however silly the concept is.

Probably the only good thing anything with the name Wisconsin has done well since WWII.

Well something has to replace the Biden-class battleships.

I assume tens of thousands of naval drones are not as sexy as a single battleship.

Question: How sophisticated have modern torpedoes gotten nowadays? Range? Targeting, etc. Or are they even an important offensive weapon for subs anymore?

CDR Salamander's take is spot on:
https://open.substack.com/pub/cdrsalamander/p/so-we-have-a-uss-defiant-bbg-1?r=tfmfm&utm_medium=ios

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.

---

As I mentioned earlier, WHY he operates this way, I have no idea. Nor will I defend it. I just know he does, so I don't react to things until they happened. He is noisy. Very noisy.

bobbranco said:

---

We need more subs.

---

This.

No one loves battleships more than me, but they are the aquatic equivalent of tanks. Cool AF to look and drool over, yet thanks to modern technology, or in their case, subs, they are better used as target practice for faster and cheaper weapons.

My opinion on this will depend a lot on how they're intending to be used and their capabilities

GE said:

---

My opinion on this will depend a lot on how they're intending to be used and their capabilities

---

Okay, you just reminded me that China has been bragging about their Navy, and seeing as how Trump wants no one to be perceived as being a greater military might than the US, maybe this is Trump wanting to beef up our navy, even if it's in ways that would never have much, if any, of an effect on the outcome of a naval fight?

Just spitballing based on what I've seen Trump say/do in the past.

No Spin Ag said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

We need more subs.

---

This.

No one loves battleships more than me, but they are the aquatic equivalent of tanks. Cool AF to look and drool over, yet thanks to modern technology, or in their case, subs, they are better used as target practice for faster and cheaper weapons.

---

I would accept fewer airplanes for more subs.

No Spin Ag said:

---

GE said:

---

My opinion on this will depend a lot on how they're intending to be used and their capabilities

---

Okay, you just reminded me that China has been bragging about their Navy, and seeing as how Trump wants no one to be perceived as being a greater military might than the US, maybe this is Trump wanting to beef up our navy, even if it's in ways that would never have much, if any, of an effect on the outcome of a naval fight?

Just spitballing based on what I've seen Trump say/do in the past.

---

Also China is not the only potential opponent and the likelihood of us getting into the type of war where a major power is actually trying to destroy our ships is pretty low. For things like police actions and maintaining shipping lanes these might be great.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

We need more subs.

---

This.

No one loves battleships more than me, but they are the aquatic equivalent of tanks. Cool AF to look and drool over, yet thanks to modern technology, or in their case, subs, they are better used as target practice for faster and cheaper weapons.

---

I would accept fewer airplanes for more subs.

---

Agreed.

Between the VLS less frigates and the estimated 7-8 billion dollar cost of these battleships with the same VLS capacity of on Ticonderoga class cruiser, it seems like we have chosen the most expensive way to get VLS cells afloat.

Unless there is an announcement of a cheap 1500 ton optionally manned ship with 16 VLS cells that can be made for around $150 million and number around 100, I think the Navy is lost.

No Spin Ag said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

We need more subs.

---

This.

No one loves battleships more than me, but they are the aquatic equivalent of tanks. Cool AF to look and drool over, yet thanks to modern technology, or in their case, subs, they are better used as target practice for faster and cheaper weapons.

---

Not really. Depends just on what one means by a battleship. Aircraft carriers did not make battleships obsolete, nor did air power. That's a myth that misunderstands the real implications of the post WW II period. It was nuclear weapons that made battleships obsolete. The great strength -- concentration of a group in a force -- became the "ideal" for a nuclear bomb target.

Its one of those counter-intuitive realities that when you look at it longer, you realize has much to it. Aircraft carriers can only raid, they don't take control of the sea. It was our battleships and cruisers that held beachheads. (Heavy Cruisers are very neglected vessel and if well designed can serve the roles of battleships.)

Anyone interested in re-examining their assumptions about this recommend reading this:

Using a Battleship As A Siege Engine



https://www.amazon.com/Battleship-Victory-Principles-Power-Pacific/dp/1608881652/ref=sr_1_1?crid=LBA8DM8G8W6K&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.V6QhjGcrh6SngU6O4w6Vow.owDCNNuKGe4d8yOrobDWwcXW74VZe3IgsL6eCc0AEbg&dib_tag=se&keywords=battleship+victory&qid=1766509222&sprefix=battleship+victory%2Caps%2C144&sr=8-1


Bring this up because do not know who Trump has been talking to, what may have put this in his head, and his realization that we really don't have our amphibious and invasion supporting capacity had even in Gulf War I. In his usual bombastic manner, he may be talking about a good idea and re-casting.

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

---

I love to watch smug people who have no clue! Please keep going.

FCBlitz said:

---

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

---

I love to watch smug people who have no clue! Please keep g
Commenting.

---

Gordo14 said:

---

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

---

Some here would probably even applaud if he changed the name of Texas A&M University to Trump A&M University.

REACTIVATE THE IOWAS!!!

eric76 said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

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

---

Some here would probably even applaud if he changed the name of Texas A&M University to Trump A&M University.

---

Texas A&M University at Donald J Trump Tower New York City. Would give us a presence in the northeast. Better than having a branch in Qatar.

Let's make this happen!

I have seen a lot of good ones, but this is possibly the best so far.

Via @TheRicanMemes 10/10 pic.twitter.com/60ikWA9jz5

— Rob (@_ROB_29) December 23, 2025

VLS is far more important to China than the USN.

In your own backyard when you can rearm in under 48 hours, it matters.

An American ship days away from a safe haven, I don't think it matters near as much.

Not sure rail gun is the answer, but VLS capacity is a pointless number after your initial wad is blown in a China fight.

eric76 said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

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

---

Some here would probably even applaud if he changed the name of Texas A&M University to Trump A&M University.

---

It'd be Trump I&M.

For Ivana & Melania.

Trump must be watching too much of the Military Channell with all of the WWII docs. First he wants to rename the DOD to Department of War and now build battleships.

What we need to do is bring back planes with propellers. If they were good enough for beating the nazis they're good enough now.

When did they go away?

Laughs in P-3 Orion

Duffel Pud said:

---

What we need to do is bring back planes with propellers. If they were good enough for beating the nazis they're good enough now.

---

I think this guy had a few things to say to our most recent "peaceful fishermen".

More of a modern battlecruiser concept, anything of the dreadnought variety is not likely going to happen. Some of the specs posted on here don't really indicate armor thickness or even a citadel buried deep within the ship protecting vital ship components. Modern missiles can be defended against but that's mostly high tech self defense systems, not armor. I think this is just a news story, ships may come of it, but nothing to be excited about, they're going to be cruisers.

pfo said:

---

You either get Trump battleships or democrat treasonous Manchurian Candidates putting trans/ DEI people in charge of our government while invading our country with Muslim terrorists, parasites and criminals.

That was our choice!

So I voted for the battleship guy!

---

Sure, if you ignore the existence of a little thing called the Republican Primary. Save your false binary choice narrative for the sycophants.

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.

---

We need a Naval shipyard in a right to work state is what we need. As long as the unions are controlling the shipyards where our Navy builds ships, we will get nothing done cost effectively or quickly, because that is not how unions work these days. Unions exist to drag things out and make them more expensive so they can get more union dues from the members. We could likely double our production of ships just by relocating the facilities to Mobile or Savannah. Yes it would be expensive, but the long term benefits and decreased life cycle costs for future construction would be massive.

GE said:

---

My opinion on this will depend a lot on how they're intending to be used and their capabilities

---

Nah! We should all clutch our pearls every time President Trump opens his mouth. Assume that he has no plan and talk bad about him. Because we all obviously know much more than him and his entire staff.