45 ms·

No, it's not a battleship

186 points by hermitcrab 10mo ago

nuancebydefault 10mo ago
So the trump admin is going something like a battleship. I would be surprised if they would be capable of doing that. From what I have read and heard, they are much better at destroying existing functional structures than building functional things.
jasonwatkinspdx 10mo ago
I mean the whole proposal is nothing more than some of Trump's staffers coming up with an image and a bullet list and him liking it. The Navy is gonna slow role this thing till he's out of office then reform the plan. Which is insanely annoying to me as a tax payer as we've basically had 25 years of the Navy's procurement being an absolute disaster, and now we're gonna lost another 4+ years over Trump's idiotic showboating.
- hermitcrab 10mo ago
  I guess some defense contractor paid to sit next to him at dinner. KA-CHING!
uhoh-itsmaciek 10mo ago
This is reminiscent of the Homer: https://simpsons.fandom.com/wiki/The_Homer https://simpsons.fandom.com/wiki/The_Homer
- nickff 10mo ago
  “The Homer” is best compared to the M2 Bradley, whose development process was described in the book (and later movie) “The Pentagon Wars”. Unfortunately, all large combat systems (most notably ships) tend to come with a grab bag of ‘features’ of varying utility.
  - XorNot 10mo ago
    The Bradley has performed very well in Ukraine, and the man who wrote that book is both a liar and crazy. Read up on what his proposed alternative was.
    - hermitcrab 10mo ago
      >Read up on what his proposed alternative was. Perhaps you could give a summary?
      - jasonwatkinspdx 10mo ago
        They may be referring to the campaign Burton waged against the Bradley's testing program. Basically he wanted the Army to do a bunch of tests we already knew the outcome of: that the munitions in question would defeat the armor. This wasn't some sort of scandal or surprise to the pentagon. No armored vehicle is invincible, and the Bradley is already as heavily armored as is practical to cross bridges without them collapsing, etc. Burton made a ton of enemies treating this like some sort of huge scandal he was uncovering, but in reality he was distorting the situation, then used it to popularize his book. Basically he's just a grifter, but because he was saying contrarian things a bunch of people who had no idea what was actually happening bought into his bullshit. It's similar to what happened with the "Fighter Mafia" where the public latched onto it without understanding how utterly bullshit the contrarian proposal actually was.
        hermitcrab 10mo ago
        Thanks for the summary.
    - deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
  - iammjm 10mo ago
    Bradleys are actually very useful and likely best in their class as an infantry fighting vehicle.
amanaplanacanal 10mo ago
It probably doesn't really matter, as this thing is never going to be built. I kind of suspect everybody is just going into "ok grandpa" mode until he loses interest and starts chasing some other half baked thing.
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
  > It probably doesn't really matter Millions—if not billions—of dollars are likely to be wasted on this over the coming years.
  - hermitcrab 10mo ago
    But think of the aesthetics!
    - krogenx 10mo ago
      Big “beautiful” bill comes to mind.
      - lostlogin 10mo ago
        Now the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill Act’. Even the name is flawed.
    - tokai 10mo ago
      That super sized destroyer has non of the battleship aesthetics though.
      - hermitcrab 10mo ago
        Indeed. WW1 and WW2 battleships are incredible pieces of engineering and (IMHO) rather beautiful in their own way. And some of them were built in very short time frames when you consider they had no computers to design them with.
        10mo ago
netsharc 10mo ago
I wish SNL was currently on the air and made a hell of a joke out of that announcement... Here's my sketch idea: Naval officers unveil the ship, but when they pull the curtains, they murmur that it's smaller than claimed (The ships will be bigger, faster and a hundred times more powerful than any previous US-built warship, according to Trump(1)). Stormy Daniels shows up and says "Oh yeah, he likes to brag, but it's more like a mushroom.". Cut to the bridge of the ship, the navigation officer comes to the Captain and says "Sir, the ship can't navigate properly. It seems whatever coordinates we set it always wants to head to... Epstein Island!" Then the radar officer says "Sir, we are picking up something on the radar. It's a big, it's long...". Cut to footage of a big, black, submarine. The Captain interrupts with "That must be the Obama-Class submarine! The biggest, baddest ship we've ever had!", and the crew look at it in awe. Then Obama shows up and lectures the viewing public: "Impressive, huh? But in reality there's no Obama-class submarine. The legacy of leading the country should be measured by how it improved Americans' lives, not by the ships and ballrooms." (this message needs to be workshopped...) Stormy Daniels reappears and says "I know which ship I'd rather be on (wink).". Then fade out the scene with the crew panickedly saying "Captain, the ship is losing power! It looks like it's falling asleep!". (1) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/22/trump-new-navy-warships https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/22/trump-new-na...
ourmandave 10mo ago
The spec on this piece of propaganda is the main battery is all missile systems. And the secondary is 5" guns, lasers, and a railgun. The Navy stopped trying to install railguns back in 2021 but never stopped development. I assume the lasers are future tech that sound cool, except this thing will be cancelled right after the next admin renames Dept of War back to DoD.
- AnimalMuppet 10mo ago
  Lasers might be really useful if a ship is being attacked by a swarm of drones. (The part about hitting those drones may be future, though...)
  - hermitcrab 10mo ago
    The same blog has an excellent series on lasers as a naval weapon: part 1: https://www.navalgazing.net/Lasers-at-Sea-Part-1 https://www.navalgazing.net/Lasers-at-Sea-Part-1 NB/ Lasers do not cope well with smoke, fog or rain.
  - Kye 10mo ago
    What's special about a drone that a laser would be better for than existing close-in weapon systems? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapon_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapon_system
    - AnimalMuppet 10mo ago
      The problem with drones is that there can be a lot of them, and they can be maneuvering. They can overwhelm conventional defenses. Lasers let you at least not run out of ammunition.
      - Kye 10mo ago
        But how does a laser improve on that? They're slow and have to stay on a target for a while to damage it. Close-in defenses fire thousands of rounds per second and every single one of those rounds can take a drone out instantly if it hits.
davidw 10mo ago
It's going to be the "cybertruck of the seas" is what it's going to be if it's not quietly shelved when he gets distracted by some other thing that offends him.
- nickff 10mo ago
  If you’re looking for a “cybertruck of the seas”, I think the Zumwalt class is a prime candidate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer It had some potential, but that potential has been squandered, at great cost.
  - JoBrad 10mo ago
    The stats are crazy: In commission: 15 October 2016[3] Planned: 32 Completed: 3 Cancelled: 29 Active: 2
    - trynumber9 10mo ago
      Similar "stats" to the Seawolf class. Planned: 29 Completed: 3 Canceled: 26 Active: 3 Yet, unlike the Zumwalts, they are considered a good boat.
      - octorian 10mo ago
        The Seawolf was kinda the first attempt at a next generation attack sub while we were still figuring out the technology, making it far too expensive. But it led to the Virginia class, which has gone into mainstream production. In some ways there's a similar situation with the F-22 vs F-35, though those two may have a bit more of a difference on roles and requirements.
gherkinnn 10mo ago
Related to the definition of Battleship for the fellow pedantic: What is a tank https://acoup.blog/2022/05/06/collections-when-is-a-tank-not-a-tank/ https://acoup.blog/2022/05/06/collections-when-is-a-tank-not... Less humorously, the proposed Trump class "Battleship" is what a teenage armchair general would dream up. The kind of person who thinks Ministry of War sounds cool and cosplays as his favourite operator.
sapphirebreeze 10mo ago
[dead]
kcb 10mo ago
The US navy is in freefall. The best we can do is build a 40 year old destroyer hull and an aircraft carrier class that we plan to be building for literally 100 years. Shipyards can't build anything. Every design is mismanaged so poorly and leached on by traitorous defense contractors so badly that we get essentially nothing but the bill.
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
  > best we can do Why would you take this as an indication of the “best we can do”?
  - kcb 10mo ago
    I'm not saying its the best we should do. But its the best we are capable of doing.
  - mpyne 10mo ago
    I think they pretty clearly meant 'practical best' rather than 'theoretical best'. Theoretically we could be so much better, which is why everyone is so grumpy about U.S. shipbuilding. For 'practical best' you'd normally point people to examples of warships the U.S. actually can build without much drama, but if you try this with the Navy you're basically left with, what, the last LPD class? 10 years ago you'd call the Virginia SSNs a success, but even those have now run into construction delays due to various issues, even as the Navy needs their #1 priority (Columbia-class SSBN, also delayed) to succeed to decommission the Ohios on time.
    - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
      > think they pretty clearly meant 'practical best' rather than 'theoretical best’ I guess I question this, too. This “battleship” a cartoon drawn for the President. It might damage our fighting ability if built. But it’s not reflective of our practical best. There is a broader, genuine criticism of American warship building. But this battleship has as much to do with that as do rubber ducks.
kevin_thibedeau 10mo ago
We should christen it as a new class of ships: the dreadyep. With any luck, the gold encrustations will sink it when it is set afloat. Barring that, maybe some midshipman will "forget" to seal off a bilge port.
- Xylakant 10mo ago
  A modern continuation of the Swedish Wasa class?
hippo22 10mo ago
Are ships even defendable in the age of hypersonic missiles? It seems like, should a large-scale war happen again, it will look entirely different from the wars in the 20th century.
- nickff 10mo ago
  Ships are the only way to transport and deploy certain weapons across theaters; as such, there is no simple way to replace them. Your argument could be made in the era of Soviet anti-ship cruise missiles (and that argument was made), yet navies have continued to develop and deploy warships.
  - hermitcrab 10mo ago
    Yes, but in an age of guided missiles, surely better to have 3x10k ton warship than 1x30k ton warship.
    - nickff 10mo ago
      That is unfortunately a complicated trade off, involving initial construction costs, total capability, maintainability, and crewing costs. Simply put, two amphibious assault ships do not equal or supersede one super-carrier.
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
  > Are ships even defendable in the age of hypersonic missiles? Given 90s-era NATO air defences are shooting down Russia’s newest hypersonic missiles [1], I’m continuing to treat the category as more hype than utility. [1] https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2024/11/20/ukraines-patriot-missile-shot-down-140-hypersonic-kinzhal-and-zirkon-missiles-embarrassing-putin-unstoppable-missiles/ https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2024/11/20/ukraines-patrio...
  - AnimalMuppet 10mo ago
    China's hypersonics may work better than Russia's. May. Or maybe the whole thing is just hype.
bertili 10mo ago
"The missile is too round at the top, it needs to be pointy. Round missiles are not scary" - The Dictator
Animats 10mo ago
It's all hype, as the article points out. "Battleship", it's not. No mention of armor. A battleship is supposed to be able to withstand a hit from its own primary weapon. The British Navy had a fad for light cruisers at one point, "eggshells armed with sledgehammers". They did not do well in WWI and WWII.[1] Nor did the armored battleships. No Japanese or German battleship in WWII survived a determined air attack. Yamato, Tirpiz, Bismark - all lost to air attack. But they looked really cool. Anywhere near the coast of China, a warship is within range of truck-mounted anti-ship missiles.[2] Lots of them. If there's a war over Taiwan, the Taiwan Strait will be a no-go zone for US warships. Being near a hostile coast held by someone with modern weapons is death to a navy today. The sinking of the Moskva was the first demonstration of this, and Ukraine has since taken out about eight more Russian warships and many smaller craft, using various missiles and drones. [1] https://hmshood.org.uk/history/bcorigins.htm https://hmshood.org.uk/history/bcorigins.htm [2] https://maritime-executive.com/editorials/china-s-df-27-missile-threatening-pacific-ships-and-the-u-s-homeland https://maritime-executive.com/editorials/china-s-df-27-miss...
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
  > It's all hype It’s geriatric hype. It tells you how the administration is thinking about the Navy: in terms someone born in the 1940s—and who never refreshed their assumptions since childhood—can understand. What we should have are floating, automated drone-production platforms that can be mass manufactured themselves and shipped to right ahead of the front for overwhelming the enemy’s sea-based defences (while F-35s take care of SEAD). Instead we get Popeye with a rail gun.
  - krapp 10mo ago
    [flagged]
    - roughly 10mo ago
      Yeah but the other option was a chick
csours 10mo ago
[flagged]
- krapp 10mo ago
  They're authoritarians. Study fascism, or Nazism, or any authoritarian cult. All of them are absurd.
- hermitcrab 10mo ago
  Believing in the absurd is a test of loyalty to the regime.
- ourmandave 10mo ago
  Hey come on buddy, it's not like there's a list of the 30,573 outright lies or misleading statements made by Grifter in Chief since his first term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_or_misleading_statements_by_Donald_Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_or_misleading_statements...
- PlunderBunny 10mo ago
  Perhaps for the same reason that conspiracy theorists need to ‘one-up’ each other - it’s a signal that you’re part of the group.
throw-12-16 10mo ago
Taiwan will be betrayed just like Ukraine.
- duxup 10mo ago
  Despite Trump childish behavior, Ukraine is still getting a lot of weapons and money last I checked.
  - torlok 10mo ago
    How much is "a lot"? Trump has cut almost all aid since taking office. The EU is paying for the aid now. I'm assuming that the reason Zelensky cares to talk with Trump is for appearances, military intelligence, and to stall the restart of trade relations between US and Russia. The US has no real place at the negotiating table anymore. Everybody's just catering to Trump's ego, because it's the easiest way to stop him from doing any more harm.
  - throw-12-16 10mo ago
    Not from the US. Trump is a Russian asset and is earning his keep.
pron 10mo ago
As a non-American living across the pond, the thing that is most terrifying to me about Trump's presidency isn't his authoritarian tendencies, corruption, cruelty, or criminality. The world has seen plenty of leaders like that. Maybe not recently in so-called Western countries, but it happens. What's novel is his sheer idiocy. Calling him a moron is an insult to the intelligence of morons. And what's so terrifying about it isn't that a man so stupid was elected president of such a big and important country, although that's bad enough, but seeing American titans of industry and other members of its elite - people possessing real power - seriously discussing, or even praising, the quality of the emperor's new clothes.
- AnimalMuppet 10mo ago
  It's always like this with authoritarians. They become the arbiter of truth, and so they don't hear the actual truth very often. They become the giver of power, and so those who want power do whatever they have to in order to get the big man to give it to them. So the only surprises are 1) how fast this happened, and 2) that "American titans of industry" are just power hungry rather than actually men of talent and brilliance.
  - pron 10mo ago
    > They become the arbiter of truth, and so they don't hear the actual truth very often Yes, but they're rarely that stupid. The world sees a man say five times that he's lowered drug prices by 400-1500%. And that was just last week. For many Europeans it's remarkable to even come across a person that stupid. > that "American titans of industry" are just power hungry rather than actually men of talent and brilliance. I never thought they were brilliant. I just thought they wouldn't sell themselves so cheaply or would be so easily intimidated.
  - iammjm 10mo ago
    Except that this particular authoritarian in question is likely intellectually unable to parse the truth, while also being completely uninterested in it
burnt-resistor 10mo ago
Whatever this febrile dream vaporware could be, it's still way too big for modern combat. Don't take my word for it, listen to a US Navy Commander, a serious person obviously, explain how it's terrible and completely inattentive to real USN needs and doctrine. https://youtu.be/0Zqa9azGo6M https://youtu.be/0Zqa9azGo6M Moreover though, it's another facet of the show of the White House occupant embellishing their ego and playing the reality star part through random, aspirational concepts of a plan. PS: I dislike almost all Republicans and most Democrats, especially all of the ones who take bribes from corporations and foreign governments, so this isn't a political message but a reality statement.
- ourmandave 10mo ago
  I dislike almost all Republicans and most Democrats, especially all of the ones who take bribes from corporations and foreign governments As opposed to the corrupt King who loves to pardon corrupt politicians, no matter their stripe. https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/trump-has-granted-clemency-to-16-corrupt-politicians-so-far/ https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/cre...
ourmandave 10mo ago
If you want to know what the Navy was/is really planning look up the DDG(X). A destroyer planned since 2021, hopefully it won't be another Ticonderoga class fuck up.
- ianburrell 10mo ago
  The Navy also needs the Constellation class frigate. The proposed replacement based on the Legend class cutter. It is basically a corvette like LCS on a bigger hull. The Navy doesn't need more corvette, they need proper warships. Red Sea shows that ships need more defenses now that anyone can build anti-ship missiles and drones. Maybe they should have called Constellation light destroyer and DDG(X) a cruiser.
  - Amezarak 10mo ago
    What the Red Sea has shown is that drone and anti-ship missiles are massively overhyped. A 40 year old ship design has fended off hundreds of such attacks without losing a single ship. Without even taking a single hit. > The Navy also needs the Constellation class frigate. The Navy needs ships it can actually build, the Constellation is trapped in an unending design hell and is already years behind.
- matkoniecz 10mo ago
  was https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4366952/trump-announces-new-class-of-battleship/ https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/436695... > The new Trump-class battleships will replace the Navy's previous plans to develop a new class of destroyer, the DDG(X).
Havoc 10mo ago
Yeah that's what the military youtubers are saying too...makes no sense
- hermitcrab 10mo ago
  Unless the intention is to attract a lot of attention, in which case it makes perfect sense.
petersumskas 10mo ago
Interesting read. Given what was covered and tradition notwithstanding, I think “Trump Class” (apart from being an oxymoron) is a perfect designation: - oversized - completely lacking in style - not technically capable for the role it finds itself in!
- iammjm 10mo ago
  I believe the designation you are looking for is “all-round fucking stupid”
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
duxup 10mo ago
>On the whole, it’s pretty clearly a grab-bag of stuff that sounded cool, thrown together without any real attempt to explain how is this better spending an equivalent amount of money on Burkes or on the DDG(X) program, which was going to come in around 15,000 tons, and which this is allegedly supposed to replace. Yeah it's an ego project for someone with a fragile ego.
cosmicgadget 10mo ago
Couldn't he have just gone the F-47 and Kennedy Center route and just renamed an existing (/in development) thing?
lifestyleguru 10mo ago
So Americans are now about to replace words in dictionary with word "Trump" or it will only be used as a prefix? [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYJ2w82WifU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYJ2w82WifU
jpm_sd 10mo ago
Meanwhile, China has found a simple and practical alternative. https://www.twz.com/sea/chinese-cargo-ship-packed-full-of-modular-missile-launchers-emerges?trk=feed_main-feed-card_feed-article-content https://www.twz.com/sea/chinese-cargo-ship-packed-full-of-mo...
- schneehertz 10mo ago
  Container ships + modular weapons are too crazy
erulabs 10mo ago
Please be _appear weak when you are strong_ Please be _appear weak when you are strong_ Please be _appear weak when you are strong_
- lostlogin 10mo ago
  Having watched him get out manoeuvred by the Chinese over sanctions, I don’t think forward planning is a strength.
jmward01 10mo ago
There are, realistically, two basic conflicts that we could get into, one where we have naval and air supremacy and one where we don't. In the world where we have basically no real threat to our naval assets then go big and don't worry about the armor. In fact, just take a bunch of super tankers and throw on as many VLS modules on them as you can. Done. This ship isn't that, as the article points out. In the other war, one where we don't own the sea, then the idea of armor is basically silly and your best defenses are numbers and size. The littoral has grown far beyond line of sight and is arguably the entire world at this point given satellites and the reach of modern weapons. In that world you want a lot, so you can loose them, and you want them small, so that a loss isn't a big deal. This ship isn't that either. It reminds me of the Homer[1]. If your entire goal is to show up in port looking good then maybe, but I doubt this ship is good at that either. The first step to looking good in port is is just showing up so smaller ships doing more port visits probably gets that job done far better. But I am a fan of an inefficient military. It is hard to fight if you have terrible weapons so go ahead! Build a terrible ship and spend a lot of money doing it! [1]: https://simpsons.fandom.com/wiki/The_Homer https://simpsons.fandom.com/wiki/The_Homer
- jghn 10mo ago
  > It reminds me of the Homer[1] This was literally my first reaction when reading the description/seeing the picture
- Waterluvian 10mo ago
  There’s two armies: one for fighting and one for parades. Like many big tough men in power (and the broken culture and society that put them there), the parade army better serves their goals.
arjie 10mo ago
Ignoring all the practical considerations, the one thing I am positively in favour of is naming warships things which we can all believe in, so USS Defiance is great. I've always enjoyed the US submarines San Francisco and even District of Columbia, and the Chinese ships Liaoning and Nanchang, as an example. But my favourite names have to be the British names Formidable, Invincible, and Audacious. Now that I can get behind.
- EdwardDiego 10mo ago
  I mean, they literally named an entire class of ships when they launched HMS Dreadnought - and also caused previous classes of ships to be renamed to "pre-dreadnought". But they've always had a flair for ship naming - Erebus and Terror, famous for Franklin's 3rd Expedition were originally bomb ships (that is, armed with mortars instead of cannon) of the Hecla class and Vesuvius class respectively, so firstly, naming mortar armed vessel classes after volcanoes, pretty cool. But then check out the names of Erebus' sister ships... * Hecla * Fury * Meteor * Infernal * Aetna * Sulphur * Vesuvius * Devastation * Volcano * Beelzebub You'd feel pretty badass serving on the HMS Devastation. Fun fact - HMS Erebus took part in the Battle of Baltimore, so helped inspire that line from the US national anthem about "the bombs bursting in air"
Waterluvian 10mo ago
Time and energy and willpower are very limited resources. Unintentionally, but to incredible effect, the current American regime has exploited the deeply rooted need by rational people to counter nonsense with sense, as a means to whittle down these limited resources. We’re defending against waves of shitty idiot drones with multimillion dollar missiles like this blog post. But I’m not sure what other option there is.
acyou 10mo ago
From the 1600s to immediately after WW2, Battleship meant roughly the same thing, not "fast armored ship with big guns", but literally "Ship fit to stand in the line of battle". So yeah it's not a WW2 fast heavily armed and armored Iowa class, but those are obsolete, so we should be happy. If the guided missile cruiser is now the biggest meanest surface unit, I'm fine with calling it a battleship. Also, if gun caliber and armor plate thickness and speed, etc are less than the Iowa class battleship, the above still stands. It just means that the state of the art in what the biggest baddest ship is has moved on. The aircraft carrier in many ways already became the new battleship in 1942, and existing battleships became effectively second rate in the sense that a fleet aircraft carrier smokes a battleship, it still does. Another way to think about it is that guided missile cruisers are kind of another evolution of the aircraft carrier, they launch large numbers of missiles at much less cost. Of course, the reality is much more complicated. It's unclear how useful guided missile classes and nuclear powered aircraft carriers will be in a standup full blown major power fight, aircraft carriers have sure been nice for asymmetric warfare in relative peacetime.
throwawayffffas 10mo ago
Meanwhile in China, https://www.twz.com/sea/chinese-cargo-ship-packed-full-of-modular-missile-launchers-emerges https://www.twz.com/sea/chinese-cargo-ship-packed-full-of-mo...

186 points by hermitcrab 10mo ago

So the trump admin is going something like a battleship. I would be surprised if they would be capable of doing that. From what I have read and heard, they are much better at destroying existing functional structures than building functional things.

jasonwatkinspdx 10mo ago

I mean the whole proposal is nothing more than some of Trump's staffers coming up with an image and a bullet list and him liking it. The Navy is gonna slow role this thing till he's out of office then reform the plan. Which is insanely annoying to me as a tax payer as we've basically had 25 years of the Navy's procurement being an absolute disaster, and now we're gonna lost another 4+ years over Trump's idiotic showboating.

hermitcrab 10mo ago
I guess some defense contractor paid to sit next to him at dinner. KA-CHING!

uhoh-itsmaciek 10mo ago

This is reminiscent of the Homer: https://simpsons.fandom.com/wiki/The_Homer https://simpsons.fandom.com/wiki/The_Homer

nickff 10mo ago
“The Homer” is best compared to the M2 Bradley, whose development process was described in the book (and later movie) “The Pentagon Wars”. Unfortunately, all large combat systems (most notably ships) tend to come with a grab bag of ‘features’ of varying utility.
- XorNot 10mo ago
  The Bradley has performed very well in Ukraine, and the man who wrote that book is both a liar and crazy. Read up on what his proposed alternative was.
  - hermitcrab 10mo ago
    >Read up on what his proposed alternative was. Perhaps you could give a summary?
    - jasonwatkinspdx 10mo ago
      They may be referring to the campaign Burton waged against the Bradley's testing program. Basically he wanted the Army to do a bunch of tests we already knew the outcome of: that the munitions in question would defeat the armor. This wasn't some sort of scandal or surprise to the pentagon. No armored vehicle is invincible, and the Bradley is already as heavily armored as is practical to cross bridges without them collapsing, etc. Burton made a ton of enemies treating this like some sort of huge scandal he was uncovering, but in reality he was distorting the situation, then used it to popularize his book. Basically he's just a grifter, but because he was saying contrarian things a bunch of people who had no idea what was actually happening bought into his bullshit. It's similar to what happened with the "Fighter Mafia" where the public latched onto it without understanding how utterly bullshit the contrarian proposal actually was.
      - hermitcrab 10mo ago
        Thanks for the summary.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
- iammjm 10mo ago
  Bradleys are actually very useful and likely best in their class as an infantry fighting vehicle.

amanaplanacanal 10mo ago

It probably doesn't really matter, as this thing is never going to be built. I kind of suspect everybody is just going into "ok grandpa" mode until he loses interest and starts chasing some other half baked thing.

JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
> It probably doesn't really matter Millions—if not billions—of dollars are likely to be wasted on this over the coming years.
- hermitcrab 10mo ago
  But think of the aesthetics!
  - krogenx 10mo ago
    Big “beautiful” bill comes to mind.
    - lostlogin 10mo ago
      Now the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill Act’. Even the name is flawed.
  - tokai 10mo ago
    That super sized destroyer has non of the battleship aesthetics though.
    - hermitcrab 10mo ago
      Indeed. WW1 and WW2 battleships are incredible pieces of engineering and (IMHO) rather beautiful in their own way. And some of them were built in very short time frames when you consider they had no computers to design them with.
      - 10mo ago

netsharc 10mo ago

I wish SNL was currently on the air and made a hell of a joke out of that announcement... Here's my sketch idea: Naval officers unveil the ship, but when they pull the curtains, they murmur that it's smaller than claimed (The ships will be bigger, faster and a hundred times more powerful than any previous US-built warship, according to Trump(1)). Stormy Daniels shows up and says "Oh yeah, he likes to brag, but it's more like a mushroom.". Cut to the bridge of the ship, the navigation officer comes to the Captain and says "Sir, the ship can't navigate properly. It seems whatever coordinates we set it always wants to head to... Epstein Island!" Then the radar officer says "Sir, we are picking up something on the radar. It's a big, it's long...". Cut to footage of a big, black, submarine. The Captain interrupts with "That must be the Obama-Class submarine! The biggest, baddest ship we've ever had!", and the crew look at it in awe. Then Obama shows up and lectures the viewing public: "Impressive, huh? But in reality there's no Obama-class submarine. The legacy of leading the country should be measured by how it improved Americans' lives, not by the ships and ballrooms." (this message needs to be workshopped...) Stormy Daniels reappears and says "I know which ship I'd rather be on (wink).". Then fade out the scene with the crew panickedly saying "Captain, the ship is losing power! It looks like it's falling asleep!". (1) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/22/trump-new-navy-warships https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/22/trump-new-na...

ourmandave 10mo ago

The spec on this piece of propaganda is the main battery is all missile systems. And the secondary is 5" guns, lasers, and a railgun. The Navy stopped trying to install railguns back in 2021 but never stopped development. I assume the lasers are future tech that sound cool, except this thing will be cancelled right after the next admin renames Dept of War back to DoD.

AnimalMuppet 10mo ago
Lasers might be really useful if a ship is being attacked by a swarm of drones. (The part about hitting those drones may be future, though...)
- hermitcrab 10mo ago
  The same blog has an excellent series on lasers as a naval weapon: part 1: https://www.navalgazing.net/Lasers-at-Sea-Part-1 https://www.navalgazing.net/Lasers-at-Sea-Part-1 NB/ Lasers do not cope well with smoke, fog or rain.
- Kye 10mo ago
  What's special about a drone that a laser would be better for than existing close-in weapon systems? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapon_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapon_system
  - AnimalMuppet 10mo ago
    The problem with drones is that there can be a lot of them, and they can be maneuvering. They can overwhelm conventional defenses. Lasers let you at least not run out of ammunition.
    - Kye 10mo ago
      But how does a laser improve on that? They're slow and have to stay on a target for a while to damage it. Close-in defenses fire thousands of rounds per second and every single one of those rounds can take a drone out instantly if it hits.

davidw 10mo ago

It's going to be the "cybertruck of the seas" is what it's going to be if it's not quietly shelved when he gets distracted by some other thing that offends him.

nickff 10mo ago
If you’re looking for a “cybertruck of the seas”, I think the Zumwalt class is a prime candidate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer It had some potential, but that potential has been squandered, at great cost.
- JoBrad 10mo ago
  The stats are crazy: In commission: 15 October 2016[3] Planned: 32 Completed: 3 Cancelled: 29 Active: 2
  - trynumber9 10mo ago
    Similar "stats" to the Seawolf class. Planned: 29 Completed: 3 Canceled: 26 Active: 3 Yet, unlike the Zumwalts, they are considered a good boat.
    - octorian 10mo ago
      The Seawolf was kinda the first attempt at a next generation attack sub while we were still figuring out the technology, making it far too expensive. But it led to the Virginia class, which has gone into mainstream production. In some ways there's a similar situation with the F-22 vs F-35, though those two may have a bit more of a difference on roles and requirements.

gherkinnn 10mo ago

Related to the definition of Battleship for the fellow pedantic: What is a tank https://acoup.blog/2022/05/06/collections-when-is-a-tank-not-a-tank/ https://acoup.blog/2022/05/06/collections-when-is-a-tank-not... Less humorously, the proposed Trump class "Battleship" is what a teenage armchair general would dream up. The kind of person who thinks Ministry of War sounds cool and cosplays as his favourite operator.

sapphirebreeze 10mo ago

[dead]

kcb 10mo ago

The US navy is in freefall. The best we can do is build a 40 year old destroyer hull and an aircraft carrier class that we plan to be building for literally 100 years. Shipyards can't build anything. Every design is mismanaged so poorly and leached on by traitorous defense contractors so badly that we get essentially nothing but the bill.

JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
> best we can do Why would you take this as an indication of the “best we can do”?
- kcb 10mo ago
  I'm not saying its the best we should do. But its the best we are capable of doing.
- mpyne 10mo ago
  I think they pretty clearly meant 'practical best' rather than 'theoretical best'. Theoretically we could be so much better, which is why everyone is so grumpy about U.S. shipbuilding. For 'practical best' you'd normally point people to examples of warships the U.S. actually can build without much drama, but if you try this with the Navy you're basically left with, what, the last LPD class? 10 years ago you'd call the Virginia SSNs a success, but even those have now run into construction delays due to various issues, even as the Navy needs their #1 priority (Columbia-class SSBN, also delayed) to succeed to decommission the Ohios on time.
  - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
    > think they pretty clearly meant 'practical best' rather than 'theoretical best’ I guess I question this, too. This “battleship” a cartoon drawn for the President. It might damage our fighting ability if built. But it’s not reflective of our practical best. There is a broader, genuine criticism of American warship building. But this battleship has as much to do with that as do rubber ducks.

kevin_thibedeau 10mo ago

We should christen it as a new class of ships: the dreadyep. With any luck, the gold encrustations will sink it when it is set afloat. Barring that, maybe some midshipman will "forget" to seal off a bilge port.

Xylakant 10mo ago
A modern continuation of the Swedish Wasa class?

hippo22 10mo ago

Are ships even defendable in the age of hypersonic missiles? It seems like, should a large-scale war happen again, it will look entirely different from the wars in the 20th century.

nickff 10mo ago
Ships are the only way to transport and deploy certain weapons across theaters; as such, there is no simple way to replace them. Your argument could be made in the era of Soviet anti-ship cruise missiles (and that argument was made), yet navies have continued to develop and deploy warships.
- hermitcrab 10mo ago
  Yes, but in an age of guided missiles, surely better to have 3x10k ton warship than 1x30k ton warship.
  - nickff 10mo ago
    That is unfortunately a complicated trade off, involving initial construction costs, total capability, maintainability, and crewing costs. Simply put, two amphibious assault ships do not equal or supersede one super-carrier.
JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
> Are ships even defendable in the age of hypersonic missiles? Given 90s-era NATO air defences are shooting down Russia’s newest hypersonic missiles [1], I’m continuing to treat the category as more hype than utility. [1] https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2024/11/20/ukraines-patriot-missile-shot-down-140-hypersonic-kinzhal-and-zirkon-missiles-embarrassing-putin-unstoppable-missiles/ https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2024/11/20/ukraines-patrio...
- AnimalMuppet 10mo ago
  China's hypersonics may work better than Russia's. May. Or maybe the whole thing is just hype.

bertili 10mo ago

"The missile is too round at the top, it needs to be pointy. Round missiles are not scary" - The Dictator

Animats 10mo ago

It's all hype, as the article points out. "Battleship", it's not. No mention of armor. A battleship is supposed to be able to withstand a hit from its own primary weapon. The British Navy had a fad for light cruisers at one point, "eggshells armed with sledgehammers". They did not do well in WWI and WWII.[1] Nor did the armored battleships. No Japanese or German battleship in WWII survived a determined air attack. Yamato, Tirpiz, Bismark - all lost to air attack. But they looked really cool. Anywhere near the coast of China, a warship is within range of truck-mounted anti-ship missiles.[2] Lots of them. If there's a war over Taiwan, the Taiwan Strait will be a no-go zone for US warships. Being near a hostile coast held by someone with modern weapons is death to a navy today. The sinking of the Moskva was the first demonstration of this, and Ukraine has since taken out about eight more Russian warships and many smaller craft, using various missiles and drones. [1] https://hmshood.org.uk/history/bcorigins.htm https://hmshood.org.uk/history/bcorigins.htm [2] https://maritime-executive.com/editorials/china-s-df-27-missile-threatening-pacific-ships-and-the-u-s-homeland https://maritime-executive.com/editorials/china-s-df-27-miss...

JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
> It's all hype It’s geriatric hype. It tells you how the administration is thinking about the Navy: in terms someone born in the 1940s—and who never refreshed their assumptions since childhood—can understand. What we should have are floating, automated drone-production platforms that can be mass manufactured themselves and shipped to right ahead of the front for overwhelming the enemy’s sea-based defences (while F-35s take care of SEAD). Instead we get Popeye with a rail gun.
- krapp 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - roughly 10mo ago
    Yeah but the other option was a chick

csours 10mo ago

[flagged]

krapp 10mo ago
They're authoritarians. Study fascism, or Nazism, or any authoritarian cult. All of them are absurd.
hermitcrab 10mo ago
Believing in the absurd is a test of loyalty to the regime.
ourmandave 10mo ago
Hey come on buddy, it's not like there's a list of the 30,573 outright lies or misleading statements made by Grifter in Chief since his first term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_or_misleading_statements_by_Donald_Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_or_misleading_statements...
PlunderBunny 10mo ago
Perhaps for the same reason that conspiracy theorists need to ‘one-up’ each other - it’s a signal that you’re part of the group.

throw-12-16 10mo ago

Taiwan will be betrayed just like Ukraine.

duxup 10mo ago
Despite Trump childish behavior, Ukraine is still getting a lot of weapons and money last I checked.
- torlok 10mo ago
  How much is "a lot"? Trump has cut almost all aid since taking office. The EU is paying for the aid now. I'm assuming that the reason Zelensky cares to talk with Trump is for appearances, military intelligence, and to stall the restart of trade relations between US and Russia. The US has no real place at the negotiating table anymore. Everybody's just catering to Trump's ego, because it's the easiest way to stop him from doing any more harm.
- throw-12-16 10mo ago
  Not from the US. Trump is a Russian asset and is earning his keep.

pron 10mo ago

As a non-American living across the pond, the thing that is most terrifying to me about Trump's presidency isn't his authoritarian tendencies, corruption, cruelty, or criminality. The world has seen plenty of leaders like that. Maybe not recently in so-called Western countries, but it happens. What's novel is his sheer idiocy. Calling him a moron is an insult to the intelligence of morons. And what's so terrifying about it isn't that a man so stupid was elected president of such a big and important country, although that's bad enough, but seeing American titans of industry and other members of its elite - people possessing real power - seriously discussing, or even praising, the quality of the emperor's new clothes.

AnimalMuppet 10mo ago
It's always like this with authoritarians. They become the arbiter of truth, and so they don't hear the actual truth very often. They become the giver of power, and so those who want power do whatever they have to in order to get the big man to give it to them. So the only surprises are 1) how fast this happened, and 2) that "American titans of industry" are just power hungry rather than actually men of talent and brilliance.
- pron 10mo ago
  > They become the arbiter of truth, and so they don't hear the actual truth very often Yes, but they're rarely that stupid. The world sees a man say five times that he's lowered drug prices by 400-1500%. And that was just last week. For many Europeans it's remarkable to even come across a person that stupid. > that "American titans of industry" are just power hungry rather than actually men of talent and brilliance. I never thought they were brilliant. I just thought they wouldn't sell themselves so cheaply or would be so easily intimidated.
- iammjm 10mo ago
  Except that this particular authoritarian in question is likely intellectually unable to parse the truth, while also being completely uninterested in it

burnt-resistor 10mo ago

Whatever this febrile dream vaporware could be, it's still way too big for modern combat. Don't take my word for it, listen to a US Navy Commander, a serious person obviously, explain how it's terrible and completely inattentive to real USN needs and doctrine. https://youtu.be/0Zqa9azGo6M https://youtu.be/0Zqa9azGo6M Moreover though, it's another facet of the show of the White House occupant embellishing their ego and playing the reality star part through random, aspirational concepts of a plan. PS: I dislike almost all Republicans and most Democrats, especially all of the ones who take bribes from corporations and foreign governments, so this isn't a political message but a reality statement.

ourmandave 10mo ago
I dislike almost all Republicans and most Democrats, especially all of the ones who take bribes from corporations and foreign governments As opposed to the corrupt King who loves to pardon corrupt politicians, no matter their stripe. https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/trump-has-granted-clemency-to-16-corrupt-politicians-so-far/ https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/cre...

ourmandave 10mo ago

If you want to know what the Navy was/is really planning look up the DDG(X). A destroyer planned since 2021, hopefully it won't be another Ticonderoga class fuck up.

ianburrell 10mo ago
The Navy also needs the Constellation class frigate. The proposed replacement based on the Legend class cutter. It is basically a corvette like LCS on a bigger hull. The Navy doesn't need more corvette, they need proper warships. Red Sea shows that ships need more defenses now that anyone can build anti-ship missiles and drones. Maybe they should have called Constellation light destroyer and DDG(X) a cruiser.
- Amezarak 10mo ago
  What the Red Sea has shown is that drone and anti-ship missiles are massively overhyped. A 40 year old ship design has fended off hundreds of such attacks without losing a single ship. Without even taking a single hit. > The Navy also needs the Constellation class frigate. The Navy needs ships it can actually build, the Constellation is trapped in an unending design hell and is already years behind.
matkoniecz 10mo ago
was https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4366952/trump-announces-new-class-of-battleship/ https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/436695... > The new Trump-class battleships will replace the Navy's previous plans to develop a new class of destroyer, the DDG(X).

Havoc 10mo ago

Yeah that's what the military youtubers are saying too...makes no sense

hermitcrab 10mo ago
Unless the intention is to attract a lot of attention, in which case it makes perfect sense.

petersumskas 10mo ago

Interesting read. Given what was covered and tradition notwithstanding, I think “Trump Class” (apart from being an oxymoron) is a perfect designation: - oversized - completely lacking in style - not technically capable for the role it finds itself in!

iammjm 10mo ago
I believe the designation you are looking for is “all-round fucking stupid”
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]

duxup 10mo ago

>On the whole, it’s pretty clearly a grab-bag of stuff that sounded cool, thrown together without any real attempt to explain how is this better spending an equivalent amount of money on Burkes or on the DDG(X) program, which was going to come in around 15,000 tons, and which this is allegedly supposed to replace. Yeah it's an ego project for someone with a fragile ego.

cosmicgadget 10mo ago

Couldn't he have just gone the F-47 and Kennedy Center route and just renamed an existing (/in development) thing?

lifestyleguru 10mo ago

So Americans are now about to replace words in dictionary with word "Trump" or it will only be used as a prefix? [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYJ2w82WifU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYJ2w82WifU

jpm_sd 10mo ago

Meanwhile, China has found a simple and practical alternative. https://www.twz.com/sea/chinese-cargo-ship-packed-full-of-modular-missile-launchers-emerges?trk=feed_main-feed-card_feed-article-content https://www.twz.com/sea/chinese-cargo-ship-packed-full-of-mo...

schneehertz 10mo ago
Container ships + modular weapons are too crazy

erulabs 10mo ago

Please be _appear weak when you are strong_ Please be _appear weak when you are strong_ Please be _appear weak when you are strong_

lostlogin 10mo ago
Having watched him get out manoeuvred by the Chinese over sanctions, I don’t think forward planning is a strength.

jmward01 10mo ago

There are, realistically, two basic conflicts that we could get into, one where we have naval and air supremacy and one where we don't. In the world where we have basically no real threat to our naval assets then go big and don't worry about the armor. In fact, just take a bunch of super tankers and throw on as many VLS modules on them as you can. Done. This ship isn't that, as the article points out. In the other war, one where we don't own the sea, then the idea of armor is basically silly and your best defenses are numbers and size. The littoral has grown far beyond line of sight and is arguably the entire world at this point given satellites and the reach of modern weapons. In that world you want a lot, so you can loose them, and you want them small, so that a loss isn't a big deal. This ship isn't that either. It reminds me of the Homer[1]. If your entire goal is to show up in port looking good then maybe, but I doubt this ship is good at that either. The first step to looking good in port is is just showing up so smaller ships doing more port visits probably gets that job done far better. But I am a fan of an inefficient military. It is hard to fight if you have terrible weapons so go ahead! Build a terrible ship and spend a lot of money doing it! [1]: https://simpsons.fandom.com/wiki/The_Homer https://simpsons.fandom.com/wiki/The_Homer

jghn 10mo ago
> It reminds me of the Homer[1] This was literally my first reaction when reading the description/seeing the picture
Waterluvian 10mo ago
There’s two armies: one for fighting and one for parades. Like many big tough men in power (and the broken culture and society that put them there), the parade army better serves their goals.

arjie 10mo ago

Ignoring all the practical considerations, the one thing I am positively in favour of is naming warships things which we can all believe in, so USS Defiance is great. I've always enjoyed the US submarines San Francisco and even District of Columbia, and the Chinese ships Liaoning and Nanchang, as an example. But my favourite names have to be the British names Formidable, Invincible, and Audacious. Now that I can get behind.

EdwardDiego 10mo ago
I mean, they literally named an entire class of ships when they launched HMS Dreadnought - and also caused previous classes of ships to be renamed to "pre-dreadnought". But they've always had a flair for ship naming - Erebus and Terror, famous for Franklin's 3rd Expedition were originally bomb ships (that is, armed with mortars instead of cannon) of the Hecla class and Vesuvius class respectively, so firstly, naming mortar armed vessel classes after volcanoes, pretty cool. But then check out the names of Erebus' sister ships... * Hecla * Fury * Meteor * Infernal * Aetna * Sulphur * Vesuvius * Devastation * Volcano * Beelzebub You'd feel pretty badass serving on the HMS Devastation. Fun fact - HMS Erebus took part in the Battle of Baltimore, so helped inspire that line from the US national anthem about "the bombs bursting in air"

Waterluvian 10mo ago

Time and energy and willpower are very limited resources. Unintentionally, but to incredible effect, the current American regime has exploited the deeply rooted need by rational people to counter nonsense with sense, as a means to whittle down these limited resources. We’re defending against waves of shitty idiot drones with multimillion dollar missiles like this blog post. But I’m not sure what other option there is.

acyou 10mo ago

From the 1600s to immediately after WW2, Battleship meant roughly the same thing, not "fast armored ship with big guns", but literally "Ship fit to stand in the line of battle". So yeah it's not a WW2 fast heavily armed and armored Iowa class, but those are obsolete, so we should be happy. If the guided missile cruiser is now the biggest meanest surface unit, I'm fine with calling it a battleship. Also, if gun caliber and armor plate thickness and speed, etc are less than the Iowa class battleship, the above still stands. It just means that the state of the art in what the biggest baddest ship is has moved on. The aircraft carrier in many ways already became the new battleship in 1942, and existing battleships became effectively second rate in the sense that a fleet aircraft carrier smokes a battleship, it still does. Another way to think about it is that guided missile cruisers are kind of another evolution of the aircraft carrier, they launch large numbers of missiles at much less cost. Of course, the reality is much more complicated. It's unclear how useful guided missile classes and nuclear powered aircraft carriers will be in a standup full blown major power fight, aircraft carriers have sure been nice for asymmetric warfare in relative peacetime.

throwawayffffas 10mo ago

Meanwhile in China, https://www.twz.com/sea/chinese-cargo-ship-packed-full-of-modular-missile-launchers-emerges https://www.twz.com/sea/chinese-cargo-ship-packed-full-of-mo...