https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/Press-Releases/display-pressreleases/Article/4366856/president-trump-announces-new-battleship/

Are these filling an actual need? Are they really battleships? I want to withhold judgement until I hear from Navy folks.

Not Navy, but here's an article on this PROPOSAL.

Not Not Navy, but I'm at a loss for the need. This sounds like a massive government contract to give Admirals some new toys. Haven't aircraft carriers proved to be more effective than battleships?

I'd say calling it a "Battleship" is irrelevant in that judging from the renderings I've seen, it's about the size of a cruiser. Keep in mind, the Ticonderoga Aegis Cruisers and the Spruance class destroyers were built on the same hull with same LM2500 engines. Since the all of the Aegis cruisers will be decommissioned by 2027, it makes sense that this ship would fill that gap.

mortal said:

---

Not Not Navy, but I'm at a loss for the need. This sounds like a massive government contract to give Admirals some new toys. Haven't aircraft carriers proved to be more effective than battleships?

---

Not navy either but I'd argue the chicom's A2AD capabilities make the carrier much less effective and a much more attractive target as well

The U.S. Navy hates the term "A2AD" because they don't feel they are denied access. Given the PLAN's construction of their own aircraft carriers tells you all you need to know what they think of their capabilities.

I'm neither surface warfare, nor any combat arms, but in my opinion it doesn't fit into our current concept of distributed maritime operations (DMO). And if we decide to build these, how many can we build? It certainly would be nice to have a large ship that can provide enhanced air defenses, offensive capability with both missiles and rail guns, and have advanced sensors on board. But is one big ship better than 3 destroyers? Not only in terms of offensive capability, but in terms of maintenance, parts sharing, ability to take crew members from one ship and put them on another without much retraining? Not sure. But 3 destroyers might better fit into a DMO strategy that would make it harder for the enemy to amass forces or freely move about, and help provide cover for Marines as they hop along islands.

I also believe that the Navy is still trying to figure out how to fight the next war and isn't entirely sure what tools it needs. Combined with the military industrial complex, and congressional corruption, it wouldn't surprise me if we go down a path of building yet another failed ship program.

Initially they are only talking about two of these things. They seem like big cruisers carrying a variety of weapons. Just not sure how they fit in with some expected future mission/role.

In general, you need 3 of any platform. 1 undergoing maintenance. 1 undergoing training and workups for deployment. And one deployed. Take away 1, and you're going to have to skimp somewhere. Either shorter deployments, shorter training/workup cycles, or you'll fall behind in maintenance.

Right now, the fleet is paying the price of a high optempo without adequate maintenance. Several MEUs have been having their deployments delayed, and several have been unable to stay at sea for their intended duration, or have had to cut one ship from the MEU.