5 ms·

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 int

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.
      - lostlogin 10mo ago
        It’s lucky the were pretty. They were outdated before the First World War.
        hermitcrab 10mo ago
        Based on what evidence? The battleship was clearly vulnerable to airpower in WWII. Much less so in WW1.
        lostlogin 10mo ago
        Based on them being involved in one battle in WW1 and being massively vulnerable to air attack in WW2. It’s an exaggeration saying that they were outdated in WW1, as they basically acted as a deterrent, but it was at enormous expense and they don’t do much. Too big, too slow, too expensive. The argument was playing out even prior to WW1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship Aircraft carriers took over, as you say.
        hermitcrab 10mo ago
        That 1 battleship vs battleship action (Jutland) was hugely influential on the course of the war. Also there were several battlecruiser/cruiser vs battlecruiser/cruiser actions.
        lostlogin 10mo ago
        Faster and cheaper battleships was what they all wanted, and heavy cruisers seem to fill that role. Jutland was influential, but mainly just resulted in big ships doing nothing. That is sort of the role nuclear weapons have too I guess?
        hermitcrab 10mo ago
        >Faster and cheaper battleships was what they all wanted That would be a battlecruiser, and they don't seem to have been regarded as a success.
- api 10mo ago
  Not "wasted." Handed to allies of the administration. It's just naked kleptocracy. I suspect that the "ball room" attachment to the White House will also still be a hole by the end of the administration, but a lot of money will get handed out.
  - actionfromafar 10mo ago
    That’s where the Trump dynasty will live in the future, in the bunker.
- ourmandave 10mo ago
  At least the name Golden Fleet makes sense since everything the US military buys is priced like it's made of solid gold.
  - doom2 10mo ago
    It reminded me of Chinese style military naming conventions, which makes sense since for all the anti-China bluster, Trump seems to be a big admirer of the power Xi has.
- krapp 10mo ago
  Don't worry - we're dismantling our science and research infrastructure and cutting welfare programs so it all evens out.
- Analemma_ 10mo ago
  As much as I love any opportunity to stick it to Trump, wasting billions of dollars is about the only thing the US Navy does anymore; in this case he's keeping them on-brand and on-mission. It's kind of hilarious they announced this at the same time as the Constellation-class getting canceled, just to make sure there's no chance the Navy goes even a single day without an active boondoggle of a ship which will never sail.
  - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
    > As much as I love any opportunity to stick it to Trump You’re the first one in this thread mentioning him.
    - decimalenough 10mo ago
      The non-battleship in question is literally named the Trump Class.
      - hermitcrab 10mo ago
        And has an image of him on the back of the ship on this rendering: https://www.twz.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/USS-Defiant-Trump-class-battleship.jpg https://www.twz.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/USS-Defiant-T...
- Havoc 10mo ago
  They're hard at work nuking the dollar too so maybe that doesn't matter anymore then
- caconym_ 10mo ago
  There's also potentially a substantial opportunity cost re: parity with China in the near to mid term even if we don't actually end up cancelling the next gen destroyer in favor of this thing: https://youtu.be/qvUbx9TvOwk https://youtu.be/qvUbx9TvOwk
- bruce511 10mo ago
  I mean, define "wasted"? Presumably money will flow to American companies, American employees, American steel industry and so on. In other words, yes it is billions pushed back into the economy, and yes, there will likely be very little "permanent" to show for it (and presumably the navy won't be much better for it) but it's not like they're just burying the cash. It's important to understand that for the military industrial complex the goal is to "feed the machine", not actually to produce anything. In that sense this money is not wasted, it's doing exactly what it is supposed to do.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
- fastball 10mo ago
  Money isn't real. Yes, allocating funds to this means there is a large swath of the population (with accompanying hard resources) which would work on this when they could arguably be working more productively on something else. But would they be spending their time more productively? Keeping what little remains of our shipbuilding capacity on life support might actually be more productive than the alternatives, given how little of value the US seems to produce when it comes to heavy manufacturing. "Spending billions" is meaningless concern until you ask the question: what would these people have been doing instead?
  - Reubachi 10mo ago
    Of course money is real. Any financial movements humans make + the sovereignty of our respective states are completely beholden to purchasing power parity via the modern economy. The "spent billions" isn't about me/my constituents/the US not having those billions. It's that those billions where finely calculated by (supposed) experts to help maintain PPP advantages over adversaries. When one "side" starts playing pretend with money (IE; using 50 billion in western currency on the Zumwalt class of destroyers before tossing them) the other side doesn't do the same, and stop taking advantage of PPP.
FuckButtons 10mo ago
It doesn’t matter if you assume that large scale conventional conflict between the us navy and the plan over Taiwan is impossible in a world with strategic nuclear weapons, otherwise it very much does matter, because navies are built on the timescale of decades and the plans you make today very much determine the future you will live in 10/20 years from now.
- mpyne 10mo ago
  Yes, the opportunity cost is the real problem with all of this. A navy takes approximately forever to build. If we are extremely lucky the outcome of this will be increased shipyard capacity and refined shipbuilding practices just in time to switch back to building a multitude of actually-useful ships. But most likely is that this ends up delaying the U.S.'s ability to build back its navy in time to matter, which is a tremendous issue given how we do our commerce and where some of our deepest friends are physically located.
  - FuckButtons 10mo ago
    If the navy diverts funds from the ddgx program for this, the usn goes from struggling to keep up with the plan’s expansion to being at risk of being completely outmatched in the late 2030’s / 40’s.
    - kcb 10mo ago
      It's over... https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/436695 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). However, the sea service intends to incorporate the capabilities it had planned to employ on that platform into the new Trump-class ships. I think there needs to be more awareness on how dire the navies situation is. Most Americans assume the 100s of Billions per year to the USN keeps us at some unparalleled level, but that doesn't seem likely to hold true.
      - 10mo ago
forgotTheLast 10mo ago
My assumption is that this will end up replacing the DDG(X) program in name only and that all the Trump "upgrades" will be scaled back or removed.

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.
    - lostlogin 10mo ago
      It’s lucky the were pretty. They were outdated before the First World War.
      - hermitcrab 10mo ago
        Based on what evidence? The battleship was clearly vulnerable to airpower in WWII. Much less so in WW1.
        lostlogin 10mo ago
        Based on them being involved in one battle in WW1 and being massively vulnerable to air attack in WW2. It’s an exaggeration saying that they were outdated in WW1, as they basically acted as a deterrent, but it was at enormous expense and they don’t do much. Too big, too slow, too expensive. The argument was playing out even prior to WW1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship Aircraft carriers took over, as you say.
        hermitcrab 10mo ago
        That 1 battleship vs battleship action (Jutland) was hugely influential on the course of the war. Also there were several battlecruiser/cruiser vs battlecruiser/cruiser actions.
        lostlogin 10mo ago
        Faster and cheaper battleships was what they all wanted, and heavy cruisers seem to fill that role. Jutland was influential, but mainly just resulted in big ships doing nothing. That is sort of the role nuclear weapons have too I guess?
        hermitcrab 10mo ago
        >Faster and cheaper battleships was what they all wanted That would be a battlecruiser, and they don't seem to have been regarded as a success.
api 10mo ago
Not "wasted." Handed to allies of the administration. It's just naked kleptocracy. I suspect that the "ball room" attachment to the White House will also still be a hole by the end of the administration, but a lot of money will get handed out.
- actionfromafar 10mo ago
  That’s where the Trump dynasty will live in the future, in the bunker.
ourmandave 10mo ago
At least the name Golden Fleet makes sense since everything the US military buys is priced like it's made of solid gold.
- doom2 10mo ago
  It reminded me of Chinese style military naming conventions, which makes sense since for all the anti-China bluster, Trump seems to be a big admirer of the power Xi has.
krapp 10mo ago
Don't worry - we're dismantling our science and research infrastructure and cutting welfare programs so it all evens out.
Analemma_ 10mo ago
As much as I love any opportunity to stick it to Trump, wasting billions of dollars is about the only thing the US Navy does anymore; in this case he's keeping them on-brand and on-mission. It's kind of hilarious they announced this at the same time as the Constellation-class getting canceled, just to make sure there's no chance the Navy goes even a single day without an active boondoggle of a ship which will never sail.
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
  > As much as I love any opportunity to stick it to Trump You’re the first one in this thread mentioning him.
  - decimalenough 10mo ago
    The non-battleship in question is literally named the Trump Class.
    - hermitcrab 10mo ago
      And has an image of him on the back of the ship on this rendering: https://www.twz.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/USS-Defiant-Trump-class-battleship.jpg https://www.twz.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/USS-Defiant-T...
Havoc 10mo ago
They're hard at work nuking the dollar too so maybe that doesn't matter anymore then
caconym_ 10mo ago
There's also potentially a substantial opportunity cost re: parity with China in the near to mid term even if we don't actually end up cancelling the next gen destroyer in favor of this thing: https://youtu.be/qvUbx9TvOwk https://youtu.be/qvUbx9TvOwk
bruce511 10mo ago
I mean, define "wasted"? Presumably money will flow to American companies, American employees, American steel industry and so on. In other words, yes it is billions pushed back into the economy, and yes, there will likely be very little "permanent" to show for it (and presumably the navy won't be much better for it) but it's not like they're just burying the cash. It's important to understand that for the military industrial complex the goal is to "feed the machine", not actually to produce anything. In that sense this money is not wasted, it's doing exactly what it is supposed to do.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
fastball 10mo ago
Money isn't real. Yes, allocating funds to this means there is a large swath of the population (with accompanying hard resources) which would work on this when they could arguably be working more productively on something else. But would they be spending their time more productively? Keeping what little remains of our shipbuilding capacity on life support might actually be more productive than the alternatives, given how little of value the US seems to produce when it comes to heavy manufacturing. "Spending billions" is meaningless concern until you ask the question: what would these people have been doing instead?
- Reubachi 10mo ago
  Of course money is real. Any financial movements humans make + the sovereignty of our respective states are completely beholden to purchasing power parity via the modern economy. The "spent billions" isn't about me/my constituents/the US not having those billions. It's that those billions where finely calculated by (supposed) experts to help maintain PPP advantages over adversaries. When one "side" starts playing pretend with money (IE; using 50 billion in western currency on the Zumwalt class of destroyers before tossing them) the other side doesn't do the same, and stop taking advantage of PPP.

FuckButtons 10mo ago

It doesn’t matter if you assume that large scale conventional conflict between the us navy and the plan over Taiwan is impossible in a world with strategic nuclear weapons, otherwise it very much does matter, because navies are built on the timescale of decades and the plans you make today very much determine the future you will live in 10/20 years from now.

mpyne 10mo ago
Yes, the opportunity cost is the real problem with all of this. A navy takes approximately forever to build. If we are extremely lucky the outcome of this will be increased shipyard capacity and refined shipbuilding practices just in time to switch back to building a multitude of actually-useful ships. But most likely is that this ends up delaying the U.S.'s ability to build back its navy in time to matter, which is a tremendous issue given how we do our commerce and where some of our deepest friends are physically located.
- FuckButtons 10mo ago
  If the navy diverts funds from the ddgx program for this, the usn goes from struggling to keep up with the plan’s expansion to being at risk of being completely outmatched in the late 2030’s / 40’s.
  - kcb 10mo ago
    It's over... https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/436695 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). However, the sea service intends to incorporate the capabilities it had planned to employ on that platform into the new Trump-class ships. I think there needs to be more awareness on how dire the navies situation is. Most Americans assume the 100s of Billions per year to the USN keeps us at some unparalleled level, but that doesn't seem likely to hold true.
    - 10mo ago

forgotTheLast 10mo ago

My assumption is that this will end up replacing the DDG(X) program in name only and that all the Trump "upgrades" will be scaled back or removed.