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

[citygator]

Ok. Not convinced in this thread so I went to ChatGPT and got this:

"Short answer: new battleships would deliver limited real combat value in modern warfare, at very high cost, but they do offer some niche advantages and strong symbolic appeal."

Basically it is outdated and expensive and widely susceptible to modern weapons but has very limited use cases at an extremely high cost. So to summarize expensive and useless. Cool.


Rest of ChatGPTs summary:

Pros of building new battleships​

1. Heavy missile and strike capacity​

• A large hull can carry more vertical launch cells than destroyers or cruisers.
• Potential to host hypersonic missiles, long-range strike weapons, and large sensors.
• Could serve as a floating arsenal ship in major conflicts.

2. Survivability vs small combatants​

• Larger ships can absorb more damage than frigates or destroyers.
• Better redundancy in power, sensors, and command systems.

3. Command-and-control platform​

• Big ships have room for advanced battle management, radar, and communications, useful in high-end conflicts.

4. Command-and-control platform​

• Boosts domestic shipbuilding capacity and skilled labor.
• Strong deterrence optics—big ships project power politically even if tactically limited.

---

Cons (and why critics call them outdated)​

1. Extremely vulnerable to modern weapons​

• Modern warfare favors missiles, submarines, drones, and cyber attacks.
• A single hypersonic or advanced anti-ship missile could cripple a massive surface ship.
• Size = easier to detect and target.

2. Cost inefficiency​

• One battleship could cost $10–20+ billion including lifecycle costs.
  • Dozens of submarines or destroyers
  • Thousands of long-range missiles
  • Massive drone fleets
• Modern naval strategy favors distributed lethality, not single high-value targets.

3. No air dominance​

• Aircraft carriers dominate because air power controls the battlefield.
• Battleships can’t launch strike aircraft and must rely on others for air cover.

4. Manpower and maintenance burden​

• Very large crews → high operating costs.
• Maintenance, refueling, and upgrades are slower and more expensive than for smaller ships.

5. istorical lesson​

• Battleships were already obsolete by WWII’s end:
  
  
  • Pearl Harbor
  • Sinking of Yamato and Bismarck
• Every major navy has moved away from them for 70+ years.

---

What modern navies actually prioritize instead​

• Aircraft carriers (power projection)
• Attack submarines (stealth + survivability)
• Guided-missile destroyers (flexible, cheaper, networked)
• Unmanned surface and underwater vessels
• Long-range missiles + ISR (sensors, satellites, drones)

This reflects a shift from “big armor and guns” to information dominance, reach, and survivability.

 

[rightwinger]

Are they just big floating targets now? I get Aircraft carriers but battleships seems rightly old school. I'll keep reading the thread to see if my mind is changed.

Today, every naval ship is just a target

But naval battles are extremely rare and until then they bring substantial power

 

[JoeB131]

Modern warships have no armor. A New Jersey class battleship could be bombarded by drones for a week and all that would need to be done is repaint where they hit, install new antennae, and sweep the decks.

This of course assumes the harpoon and tomahawk missile launchers have been replaced with vertical launch systems.

Um, dummy, the reason why they don't have battleships anymore is that they were proven obsolete in World War II. They were easily destroyed by aircraft carriers.

The last countries to have them were the US and the UK. The UK Scrapped all theirs by the 1950s.

We keep dragging out the poor Iowa Class every few years.

This is how useful battleship are in the modern age.



The Navy tried to blame one of the dead sailors before it admitted they were useless.

 

[midcan5]

Waste of tax payer money to support Trump and his corporate supporters. Rebuild the cities and roads not make machines of death. Some never learn.

 

[rightwinger]

Waste of tax payer money to support Trump and his corporate supporters. Rebuild the cities and roads not make machines of death. Some never learn.

We never have money for infrastructure
Roads, bridges, water systems, Comm networks, power grid, mass transit

But for the latest military plaything….we always find the money

 

[eagle1462010]

Today, every naval ship is just a target

But naval battles are extremely rare and until then they bring substantial power

And to cross and ocean with men you better have a large Navy.

Every piece of Equipment, ship, plane, tank, missle has a purpose. All can be killed and they can kill the other side as eell.

This oh no BS is just that ....BS. You gotta get to the target to kill it. And you will pay to do so

 

[JoeB131]

And to cross and ocean with men you better have a large Navy.

Every piece of Equipment, ship, plane, tank, missle has a purpose. All can be killed and they can kill the other side as eell.

This oh no BS is just that ....BS. You gotta get to the target to kill it. And you will pay to do so

Okay, a few points.

Why do we need to "Cross an Ocean"? Most recent wars, we didn't send men in by ship, we sent them by plane.

The hypothetical naval battle everyone imagines is us fighting against the Chinese over Taiwan (which is none of our business).

The Chinese would have a huge advantage because they can just launch hypersonic missiles from their land bases to take out any ships.

So a $ 13 billion Ford-class carrier gets taken out by a $99,000 Chinese hypersonic missile.

China’s YKJ-1000: The Low-Cost Hypersonic Missile Shaking Global Military Power and Indo-Pacific Security - Defence Security Asia

China’s YKJ-1000 hypersonic missile, capable of Mach 7 speeds and priced at just US$99,000, is reshaping global defence strategy and Indo-Pacific power dynamics. Explore how Lingkong Tianxing’s breakthrough disrupts missile-defence economics and accelerates hypersonic proliferation.

defencesecurityasia.com

 

[westwall]

Um, dummy, the reason why they don't have battleships anymore is that they were proven obsolete in World War II. They were easily destroyed by aircraft carriers.

The last countries to have them were the US and the UK. The UK Scrapped all theirs by the 1950s.

We keep dragging out the poor Iowa Class every few years.

This is how useful battleship are in the modern age.



The Navy tried to blame one of the dead sailors before it admitted they were useless.

British aircraft carriers had armored flight decks, moron. They could take multiple hits and keep fighting. The US relied on the fact we could build vastly more ships than anyone else.

The depths of your ignorance are a wonder to behold.

 

[JoeB131]

British aircraft carriers had armored flight decks, moron. They could take multiple hits and keep fighting. The US relied on the fact we could build vastly more ships than anyone else.

The depths of your ignorance are a wonder to behold.

The British also weren't fighting anyone who had a decent navy.

They still lost the Aircraft carriers

HMS Hermes - sunk by Japanese aircraft
HMS Eagle - Sunk by a German Sub
HMS Courageous - Sunk by a German Sub
HMS Glorious - Sunk by German Battlecruisers
HMS Ark Royal - Sunk by a German Sub

By comparison, the US only lost 5 Aircraft carriers (Lexington, Yorktown, Wasp, Hornet, and Princeton) - All but Wasp were destroyed by aircraft.

Now, given the biggest danger to Aircraft Carriers even then were submarines, the Chinese have 61 conventional subs on Active duty, compared to our 70 and we are spread all over the world.

But as I said, the biggest threat is that the Chinese have thousands of hypersonic missiles that can take out our ships before they even get close.

 

[westwall]

The British also weren't fighting anyone who had a decent navy.

They still lost the Aircraft carriers

HMS Hermes - sunk by Japanese aircraft
HMS Eagle - Sunk by a German Sub
HMS Courageous - Sunk by a German Sub
HMS Glorious - Sunk by German Battlecruisers
HMS Ark Royal - Sunk by a German Sub

By comparison, the US only lost 5 Aircraft carriers (Lexington, Yorktown, Wasp, Hornet, and Princeton) - All but Wasp were destroyed by aircraft.

Now, given the biggest danger to Aircraft Carriers even then were submarines, the Chinese have 61 conventional subs on Active duty, compared to our 70 and we are spread all over the world.

But as I said, the biggest threat is that the Chinese have thousands of hypersonic missiles that can take out our ships before they even get close.

You ignore the small carriers we lost. Typical reddit "expert". Go read a book you twit.

 

[JoeB131]

You ignore the small carriers we lost. Typical reddit "expert". Go read a book you twit.

No, I just don't consider them very important. Escort carriers were practically designed to be expendable.

(As an aside, we only lost 6 of the 77 we commissioned, which isn't bad, really.)

 

[cnm]

 

[22lcidw]

Made of paper.

Perhaps. They are on a learning curve and have the resources to improve. They learn fast when they want to.

 

[rightwinger]

Huge Battleships were needed to hold 16 in guns

I don’t see why a huge platform is needed for missiles

 

[JWBooth]

Huge Battleships were needed to hold 16 in guns

I don’t see why a huge platform is needed for missiles

I suspect this is just another troll.

 

[WorldWatcher]

 

[eagle1462010]

Huge Battleships were needed to hold 16 in guns

I don’t see why a huge platform is needed for missiles

These missles arent small. The ones i saw up close long ago were about 30 feet long. Range 150 miles. But hell I got out in 94.

No clue the range now. Doubt they are much smaller. 128 of them little larger cap than the Burkes

 

[Robert W]

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

How does Trump-class compare to Iowa-class?​

AI Generated by USA TODAY​

The new Trump-class battleships are designed to surpass the older Iowa-class in size, weaponry, and technological sophistication. According to the Department of Defense and President Donald Trump, the Trump-class will be the largest, most powerful, and most versatile warships built by the U.S. Navy, featuring advanced systems and weaponry not found on the Iowa-class battleships.

While the Iowa-class battleships, pivotal from the 1940s to the early 1990s, set benchmarks for naval power with heavy armor and massive guns, the Trump-class is intended to push boundaries further. Planned armaments include cruise missiles, 30mm guns, ODIN lasers, nuclear weapons, and advanced artificial intelligence integration, with an estimated build cost of $10-15 billion per ship. Experts say this represents an evolution from the Iowa-class’ World War II-era design, which neither used modern missile technology nor featured current defensive or AI capabilities. Despite the announced potential for 20-25 Trump-class ships, historically only four Iowa-class vessels were made, highlighting both ambition and the challenges in constructing such advanced warships.

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

 

[rightwinger]

Planned armaments include cruise missiles, 30mm guns, ODIN lasers, nuclear weapons, and advanced artificial intelligence integration,


Past battleships needed to be huge to handle a 16 in gun

I don’t see how any of those weapons systems need a huge platform

 

[bdtex]

This is the Romney plan. The Army needs more bayonets and horses too.