Trump to unveil plans for new U.S. ‘battleship’, reports say

[Unkotare]

you a homo?
coz you sure like dick measuring too much.

No means no, miss.

 

[toobfreak]

Actually, the harm is already made. And, at least, China is already preparing to the near future of "lawless ocean". If one side violate the international order and freedom of navigation, all others will also do it.

I thought China was already there for at least the last 10-15 years in their claiming ownership of the south china sea, around the shipping lanes and most anywhere else they can get their hands on? Amazing how China, Russia, and several other countries never spoke up until they thought they could make any half-baked complaint at all about their A#1 favorite country?

What, I guess you didn't buy off the right people with enough money and now the roosters have come home to crow.

 

[toobfreak]

President Donald Trump is expected to announce plans for a new class of large US Navy surface combatants he has described as “battleships”, according to reports in U.S. media.​

Put simply, Pres. Trump is doing his job at keeping our military modern and fresh so that it can always be ready to meet any possible need or demand. If we build any "battleships," I am sure they will be unlike anything anyone has ever seen before in the past designed with the latest technology to beat the literal brass balls off our enemy and be their worst nightmare. So really, business as usual, no real news here.

 

[Clipper]

View attachment 1197014

Which means it will turn into a fiasco & a shitshow all rolled into one, just like everything else that ****** is involved with.

 

[Clipper]

View attachment 1197181

"Free Candy".

 

[Ringo]

The DPRK is making significant progress in building a nuclear submarine, which, according to analysts, could seriously alter the balance of power in the region. According to the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), the country's leader Kim Jong-un inspected an 8,700-ton nuclear submarine under construction at one of the shipyards.

Published photos show the ship's hull, almost completely assembled, painted burgundy and covered with an anti-corrosion coating. Kim Jong-un was accompanied during the inspection by high-ranking officials and his daughter.

Experts note that the completion of the hull assembly usually indicates that key internal systems have already been installed. Moon Kyung-sik, a submarine specialist at Hanyang University in Seoul, said that the demonstration of the entire vessel indicates that it is ready for launch, and sea trials could begin within a few months. The presence of a nuclear-powered submarine capable of carrying nuclear weapons will give North Korea the ability to launch missiles covertly from underwater, significantly increasing the threat to regional security, despite lingering doubts about the country's ability to ensure the full functioning of such a complex system.

 

[shockedcanadian]

The DPRK is making significant progress in building a nuclear submarine, which, according to analysts, could seriously alter the balance of power in the region. According to the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), the country's leader Kim Jong-un inspected an 8,700-ton nuclear submarine under construction at one of the shipyards.

Published photos show the ship's hull, almost completely assembled, painted burgundy and covered with an anti-corrosion coating. Kim Jong-un was accompanied during the inspection by high-ranking officials and his daughter.

Experts note that the completion of the hull assembly usually indicates that key internal systems have already been installed. Moon Kyung-sik, a submarine specialist at Hanyang University in Seoul, said that the demonstration of the entire vessel indicates that it is ready for launch, and sea trials could begin within a few months. The presence of a nuclear-powered submarine capable of carrying nuclear weapons will give North Korea the ability to launch missiles covertly from underwater, significantly increasing the threat to regional security, despite lingering doubts about the country's ability to ensure the full functioning of such a complex system.

Whether it is fake.or not it doesnt matter. Unless the West sinks the Chinese economy.Western civilization will not survive. Cut off their economy, they are using their economy to.collect intelligence.and poisonimg.us.. Sending them advanced.chips was an awful decision. They control ports in Mexcio ffs. Wake up!

 

[Ringo]

Whether it is fake.or not it doesnt matter. Unless the West sinks the Chinese economy.Western civilization will not survive

You have just described capitalism and its “free” competition. From a small shopkeeper setting fire to a competitor's shop, to the same thing happening at the state level.

 

[shockedcanadian]

You have just described capitalism and its “free” competition. From a small shopkeeper setting fire to a competitor's shop, to the same thing happening at the state level.

Huh?

 

[Ringo]

Huh?

What "huh"? During economic booms, supporters of capitalism extol the virtues of a free market economy and free competition.
But as soon as a inevitable crisis hits and someone pulls ahead, calls like yours to destroy (or sink, as you said) the successful competitor follow.
Of course, not because they are successful, but because they are “commies” or, stooping to the level of the nazis, “mongoloids.”
Capitalism in the age of nuclear weapons and artificial intelligence is a stinking corpse infecting everything around it.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

We need to change our naval doctrine.
Fast, modern, stealthy ships

Drones are the new threat and drove the Russians out of the Black Sea

Don’t know how these ships will fit in the big picture

Like the Zumwalt-class destroyers that are a horrifyingly expensive disaster ?

 

[rightwinger]

Like the Zumwalt-class destroyers that are a horrifyingly expensive disaster ?

The US rules the waves

 

[JoeB131]

Whether it is fake.or not it doesnt matter. Unless the West sinks the Chinese economy.Western civilization will not survive. Cut off their economy, they are using their economy to.collect intelligence.and poisonimg.us.. Sending them advanced.chips was an awful decision. They control ports in Mexcio ffs. Wake up!

Snidely, is that Chinese still hiding under your bed?

China didn't screw you, rich people in big corporations screwed you.

Your MAGA hat was made in China. Deal with it.

 

[GavanPeacefan]

What "huh"? During economic booms, supporters of capitalism extol the virtues of a free market economy and free competition.
But as soon as a inevitable crisis hits and someone pulls ahead, calls like yours to destroy (or sink, as you said) the successful competitor follow.
Of course, not because they are successful, but because they are “commies” or, stooping to the level of the nazis, “mongoloids.”
Capitalism in the age of nuclear weapons and artificial intelligence is a stinking corpse infecting everything around it.

capitalism evolves just like anything else.
even communism is now largely capitalist, lagging behind us in governmental and elites-social-circles development by about 40 to 60 years.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The US rules the waves

NOT with the Zumwalt class they don't!

 

[rightwinger]

NOT with the Zumwalt class they don't!

Name a more powerful Navy

 

[Zavulon]

Name a more powerful Navy

Depends on how you count "power". If by total megatonage of nuclear weapons on this fleet, nowadays Russia with more than 16 gigatons is the first.

 

[2aguy]

We need to change our naval doctrine.
Fast, modern, stealthy ships

Drones are the new threat and drove the Russians out of the Black Sea

Don’t know how these ships will fit in the big picture

Here is a look at that...









John Ʌ Konrad V

@johnkonrad
·
17h


OK, OK, some are asking me to get back to battleships!Let’s talk about battleships vs carriers. I have written several posts already explaining how battleships were not “obsolete” after WW2 and continued service until after the Gulf War.No Navy admiral would ever claim they are useless…. the question has always been: are they worth the cost compared to other platforms?And the answer to that question has for decades been no.Battleships are more survivable than carriers. They pack a heavier punch. They have a number of other advantages.The battleship’s primary disadvantage is RANGE.The main gun on a battleship can’t shoot as far as an airplane. So if a carrier and a battleship are steaming across the ocean to fight each other, the carrier is going to get hits off first.Except that’s no longer the case thanks to missiles. Carriers also have a much larger reconnaissance range— planes can see further than ships— but modern satellites zero out that advantage.Carriers also have a longer cruising range because they are nuclear-powered, BUT fuel is not the limiting factor…. Because the 5,000+ crew need to eat and the planes need aviation fuel and because they sail with gas-guzzling destroyers, they don’t really have “more cruising range” unless you can replenish them at sea.We can of course replenish them at sea, but the Navy has been underfunding its
@MSCSealift
fleet, so this is no longer assured.So the hitting range is no longer an advantage (especially with hypersonics aboard with thousands of miles of range), and cruising range isn’t an advantage because of the sorry state of our replenishment fleet.So if carriers don’t have an advantage, then why did we build them and not battleships?Well, battleships are more useful when you are taking the beach, but once the army moves inland, carriers have the advantage.Sure, a tomahawk missile fired from a battleship or destroyer can provide air support from a long distance away, but it takes time for the missile to reach the battlefield. Planes loitering nearby, however, can sweep in fast. They can also change targets easily if ground conditions change.So, with limited funding, the Navy concentrated its budget on being a good joint player.BUT THERE IS ANOTHER REASON THE CARRIER REPLACED THE BATTLESHIPWe had absolute dominance of the seas. There just wasn’t a need for ships, any ships, that couldn’t support Army and Air Force missions. There wasn’t a need for gunfire support of amphibious landings either. And Congress wasn’t going to support a naval platform for a naval battle if there weren’t any serious opponents at sea.So what changed?China built a Navy larger than ours. And one focused on warships, not carriers. China doesn’t need great range; they need to project force not across oceans but across nearby seas. And they need to protect their 5,000+ merchant ships (we only have 82 Merchant Marine ships in international service).Our carrier planes only have a few hundred-mile range, so merchant ships can spread out and avoid them.Well, they can avoid them everywhere except choke points where ships must converge.And carriers aren’t good at protecting merchant ships in choke points, as we saw recently when we sent two carriers at one time to protect ships in the Red Sea.Submarines can sink ships approaching choke points, but they can’t protect them from drones and missiles.What can protect ships in choke points are destroyers, but they are small and run out of fuel and missiles quickly. Plus, shooting multi-million-dollar missiles at $20,000 drones is not a winning formula.So that’s why we need battleships now. It’s not because they ever became obsolete… it’s because we haven’t had a serious enemy at sea (the Russian threat was mostly underwater) and we haven’t needed heavy gunfire to protect choke points and amphibious landings since WW2In 2025 carriers are still important but we need some battleships too.

 

[rightwinger]

Here is a look at that...




John Ʌ Konrad V
@johnkonrad
·
17h


OK, OK, some are asking me to get back to battleships!Let’s talk about battleships vs carriers. I have written several posts already explaining how battleships were not “obsolete” after WW2 and continued service until after the Gulf War.No Navy admiral would ever claim they are useless…. the question has always been: are they worth the cost compared to other platforms?And the answer to that question has for decades been no.Battleships are more survivable than carriers. They pack a heavier punch. They have a number of other advantages.The battleship’s primary disadvantage is RANGE.The main gun on a battleship can’t shoot as far as an airplane. So if a carrier and a battleship are steaming across the ocean to fight each other, the carrier is going to get hits off first.Except that’s no longer the case thanks to missiles. Carriers also have a much larger reconnaissance range— planes can see further than ships— but modern satellites zero out that advantage.Carriers also have a longer cruising range because they are nuclear-powered, BUT fuel is not the limiting factor…. Because the 5,000+ crew need to eat and the planes need aviation fuel and because they sail with gas-guzzling destroyers, they don’t really have “more cruising range” unless you can replenish them at sea.We can of course replenish them at sea, but the Navy has been underfunding its
@MSCSealift
fleet, so this is no longer assured.So the hitting range is no longer an advantage (especially with hypersonics aboard with thousands of miles of range), and cruising range isn’t an advantage because of the sorry state of our replenishment fleet.So if carriers don’t have an advantage, then why did we build them and not battleships?Well, battleships are more useful when you are taking the beach, but once the army moves inland, carriers have the advantage.Sure, a tomahawk missile fired from a battleship or destroyer can provide air support from a long distance away, but it takes time for the missile to reach the battlefield. Planes loitering nearby, however, can sweep in fast. They can also change targets easily if ground conditions change.So, with limited funding, the Navy concentrated its budget on being a good joint player.BUT THERE IS ANOTHER REASON THE CARRIER REPLACED THE BATTLESHIPWe had absolute dominance of the seas. There just wasn’t a need for ships, any ships, that couldn’t support Army and Air Force missions. There wasn’t a need for gunfire support of amphibious landings either. And Congress wasn’t going to support a naval platform for a naval battle if there weren’t any serious opponents at sea.So what changed?China built a Navy larger than ours. And one focused on warships, not carriers. China doesn’t need great range; they need to project force not across oceans but across nearby seas. And they need to protect their 5,000+ merchant ships (we only have 82 Merchant Marine ships in international service).Our carrier planes only have a few hundred-mile range, so merchant ships can spread out and avoid them.Well, they can avoid them everywhere except choke points where ships must converge.And carriers aren’t good at protecting merchant ships in choke points, as we saw recently when we sent two carriers at one time to protect ships in the Red Sea.Submarines can sink ships approaching choke points, but they can’t protect them from drones and missiles.What can protect ships in choke points are destroyers, but they are small and run out of fuel and missiles quickly. Plus, shooting multi-million-dollar missiles at $20,000 drones is not a winning formula.So that’s why we need battleships now. It’s not because they ever became obsolete… it’s because we haven’t had a serious enemy at sea (the Russian threat was mostly underwater) and we haven’t needed heavy gunfire to protect choke points and amphibious landings since WW2In 2025 carriers are still important but we need some battleships too.

My only question is that we are not building Battleships with 16 in guns. We need big ships to carry big guns.

Is one ship with many missiles as effective as many ships with the same number of missiles ?

 

[2aguy]

My only question is that we are not building Battleships with 16 in guns. We need big ships to carry big guns.

Is one ship with many missiles as effective as many ships with the same number of missiles ?

I think they are all planning on getting rail guns in the future.....