As a disclaimer, the articles I browsed say Trump want's new battleships in service and not old ones. That got me thinking, why?
I put my musings into Grok and it validated my theory ... The capability to put massive amounts of guided ordinance out at over-the-horizon distances using glide assisted shells with guidance kits, potentially 120+ miles, at near artillery shell prices.
Just think of how hard pressed even a full fleet's defenses might be when just one modern battleship could put out something like 40 shells per minute streaming in from stand-off range. Each shell would be able to target not just enemy ships but specific critical parts of ships like radar arrays, launch decks, bridges, propellers, etc. They could even be equipped to act as depth charges for anti-submarine warfare.
Just one, with support from defense ships like a carrier has, could be a fleet killer on its own. Factor into that that it would be able to apply that increased range to strike targets on land and you have an awesomely potent tool for the US fleet. Special air-burst munitions would even be a viable defense against ballistic missiles, drone swarms, and possibly even hypersonics.
Adding rocket boosters could allow shells to reach even further, potentially 200 miles or further. Estimate, cost wise according to Grok, each shell would be approximately 15-20 times cheaper than missiles with equivalent range.
In my opinion, they would probably be nuclear powered bests that churn power into advanced defense systems like high energy lasers, top-of-the line radars, and other things. A modern battleship could return to its place as king of the sea.
Share your thoughts people. Does this sound like reasons Trump and his military planners may have or do you have different speculations?
I wouldn’t want to invest a ton of money and lives in an obsolete platform. My understanding was China (and the US) had hypersonic tech that could cripple all naval vessels within hours of the start of conflict.
I have no idea as to the veracity of those claims.
My guess is this: Often Trump just makes value out of thin air. Maybe later he negotiates these non-existent battleships away for some concessions he actually wanted all along. 🤷♂️
This is my understanding too. The future of warfare is speed, stealth, and power projection. Just look at what drones are doing to tanks in Ukraine. If we ever get something like sci fi energy shielding you could see some larger vehicles again but I think we're going to continue making smaller craft till then.
Imagine this scenario. 2 stealth battleships the size of large cruisers sneaking to within 300 miles of enemy targets, each with two forward dual mount 16-inch cannons. When within range, they could simultaneously open fire with their forward facing cannons and send dozens of low-observable, rocket assisted glide shells toward targets before fleeing into the night.
A single dual-mount cannon on the back of each battleship would be able to fire long-range air-burst glide shells at incoming missiles, whether ballistic or hypersonic, as a long range defense that far out-ranges standard close-in anti-missile defenses that would be hard pressed to stop such threats.
I like your thinking. All modes of warfare need to be considered and have strategy in the overall picture. The worst mistake is getting locked in to one or two modes of warfare thinking that is the only way forward. All contingencies must be considered. Most conflicts today are fought on smaller scales as compared to full on global conflict. We must also be prepared to dominate in those theatres to avoid the larger situation. Look at all the flack Trump received when he decided to resurrect the B-52 which has turned out to be a valuable asset to our forces.
Access to real time satellite imagery is nearly off the shelf with a credit card now from companies like planet labs. Unless they have optical camo there's no stealth advantage. You'd spend billions more on these to save a few mil on something tomahawks can do. Hypersonics already defeat most ciws and other interceptor methods. If they aren't small and fast they are food for aircraft/drones or submarines without an attendant fleet which won't be stealthy, what you described is the zumwalts which are basically a cruiser in disguise and each one ran like 8 billion dollars.
It probably also has to do with the quality of Steel. Q had allueded to this.
That is a very astute remark. The Navy may have been compromised on technical specifics due to sourcing steel from Chayna.
Thickness and strength of steel hasn't really been relevant for a while, old Iowa's had torpedo belts of about 300mm (modern tank armor can be equivalent of 1000m of steel for the same thickness as WW2 tanks) but modern shaped charges and penetrators can dwarf that several times over, hypersonics even if they failed to penetrate would cause massive spalling issues and internal damage sure to disable or sink an armored target. Major naval publications are even saying carriers need to find a way to make themselves a smaller target or be lost to saturation missile attacks in theoretical conflicts. Modern anti ship missiles don't need to beat a lot of armor because modern targets basically don't have armor. (Think 25-30mm optimized for threats like fragments or small caliber). Nowadays the best defense is never being a target in the first place and to spread your eggs between more proverbial baskets, and current naval doctrine reflects this with plans for smaller, faster stealthier ships. You would need new hyperstrong ultralight materials to consider a new battleship that could keep up with a carrier strike group for protection (which it would certainly need).
We've proved over and over again that the aircraft carrier is the way to go in terms of naval power. A battleship would just be another complimentary addition. But at the current pace of ship production in this country, our current material sourcing methods, and where we get our materials, the cost would end up bloated beyond what would be viable to make enough ships to be worth the effort.
I can see battleships being the anchors of their own strike groups though. As mentioned in my post, they would have comparable range to guided missile cruisers, but would be able to unleash hundreds of rounds instead of just dozens.
Factor that strike capability into the fact that they would have that range without all the logistics required for a carrier to strike at similar ranges. No aviation fuel, no need for storing multi-million dollar aircraft ... Just charges and hundreds, if not thousands, of hybrid rocket-glider shells capable of hitting targets some 300 miles away. Each would cost roughly $10 - 100 thousand each, depending on capability, versus millions for missiles of similar capabilities.
Imo we would be better off solving the railgun rail wear problem and putting them on fast stealthy destroyers. Modern BBs would be slow massive (expensive) targets and vulnerable to saturation attack that would leave them crippled or sunk in the first few hours of a major conflict.
How else would he be able to bring back our material sourcing and manufacturing instead of constant outsourcing? This is especially true when considering our national defense. We must break that dependence and return to being more self sufficient. Perhaps this is all part of Trump's overall strategy to revitalize American industry thereby improving our leverage and position on the global stage.
I understand why but it's not a practical platform for today. They were made for wars long ago and to do this type of mission today we have a lot more modern options. Battle ships are cool as fuck but they were designed for wars of the past.
Battleships did not become obsolete due to a lack of firepower. They became obsolete due to the advances in anti-ship weaponry, combined with the cost of a battleship, compared against the cost's and capabilities of smaller ship's and aircraft carriers. It is more about overall fleet composition, rather than ship-ship comparisons.
Basically, navies around the world all came to the same conclusions- building bigger fleets with multiple, smaller ships, combined with aircraft carriers, and submarines is simply a more cost effective way of delivering more firepower, while also providing a lot more versatility compared to smaller fleets using expensive battleships.
Plus, building fewer, but larger [battle]ships is a bigger cost liability in the event of a ship sinking. Having larger quantities of ships also provides a better defensive umbrella for all of the ships when deployed in fleets and flotilla's.
There are many books, and videos that explain this modern naval doctrine better than I can in a forum comment section, if you are interested in the details.
Depending on how they work the system. They could probably get more than 40 shells a minute. Though they’d likely need to sacrifice caliber size for ammunition capacity.
Though most modern Battleship concepts are ultimately built around Missiles. Rather than massed gun batteries. Though the advent of modern drone war as well as Hypersonics. Not to mention the fact many Modern Warships are essentially glass cannons.
Does make a return to heavier armor schemes and a shitload of Point Defense seem more attractive a design trend in any event. Even if they don’t revive the Battleships.
As the current trend for modern vessels is light armor.
What if there are composites with a higher tensile strength but lighter than steel, but equal or better armor capabilities?
GTP5:
are there composite materials lighter than steel, of higher tensile strength offer better armor capabilities for ships?
Here are two tables: One is a regular composite, and the other is a hybrid based on natural fibers. There are some interesting options already researched by the Swedisch and Dutch, and it would not surprise me if there is more not yet made public.
https://files.catbox.moe/t3d51c.png
GLSDB 2.0 with an enhanced rocket motor would do the job nicely. BOM explosive: 50% more energetic than TNT. I am a little prejudiced because the SDB with enhanced energetics was one of my ideas.
Generals always prepare to fight the previous war.
You sound like you know what you're talking about. You get my vote!
You forgot LASER WEAPONS as well.
Could you imagine a nuclear powered ship firing laser pulses to fry anything on the horizon?
Iirc, laser pulses work over 100 miles...
Hmmm. So, does light bend or is the water flat?
Or there is another reason you have not yet thought of.
Positing a false dichotomy is easy, as it depends on an argument from incredulity.
A suggested proof of existing inside a simulation would be conflicting laws of nature.
How so? If laser beams are straight lines, and the water surface is curving around a round earth, 100 mile surface to surface laser impacts simply cannot happen. Yet, they do.
Note what you write: If this than that .....You try to be logical, and do not belief your lying eyes ... so it must be ... that. Because there is no other logical explanation for this, right?
It is deterministic in its core. You know all the facts, right? All of them. Or, is it possible you do not have all the facts? Is it thinkable? Sure. But what are they?
So, the next logical stance is: if you question my argument, come up with a better argument.
Note that I am not arguing your point, I am arguing your logic, which leads to a false dichotomy and an algorithm type of thinking.
The thing is: we argue from what works. In Germanic language that is called: wirklichheit: the state of what seems to work. Post hoc, we try to come up with explanations for how stuff works.
So, you may propose flat-earth in disguise, but it does not mean either or. And so far, FE-people still have to falsify 400 years of navigation technology: Sail from Auckland New Seeland to Buenaventura in Columbia and see you compass change heading (NE -> SE) without making any deviation from the course (NE), or sail across the 33rd parallel to Santa Barbara and measure the time and speed. That will give you distance. These two challenges look different on a FE than on a globe. And what is daily confirmed is globe.
SO, this is not meant to open up a discussion. This is meant as a serious challenge to what you are implying, yet failing to comprehend there are other reasons to take into account, as it is not a matter in isolation. And until such time your community takes up that challenge to falsify what works, there is no reason to take you up on the position, but only on its logic.
Correct.
Light travels in straight lines. Fact.
At 100 miles the drop due to the curve should be 1.26296 miles, or 6668.41 feet. Fact.
400 years of navigation technology is irrelevant to these two facts.
...and what doesn't work.
eh .... not entirely. It depends on the medium through which it travels and / or geomagnetic conditions.
This brings me back to my salient point of logic: you proposed a false dichotomy: either this or that, whereas nature shows there are different influences to be taken into account, if one were to move from the hypothetical to the "wirklichkeit" and comprehend the differences.
Again, this is not about the contents of your argument, which is demonstrably limited in scope on purpose, but on the merits of logic. Logic does not suffer bias.
Now, you may personally be totally convinced to these matters. I am not here to convince you. I am pointing out the flaws in your reasoning.
Of course, like any AI would, when confronted with logic that goes against a strong held belief, you can respond with an authoritative voice. It does not make the claim any more true. It simply reinforces it in your brain, a clamping at straws to keep your world view afloat, while you demonstrate a lack of merit to be taken seriously.
As soon as your fellow believers, or perhaps you, take up the challenge and make those two voyages and clearly demonstrate to have falsified 400 years of global navigation, and may I add: Laura Dekker's voyage as she made a trip equal to what I am proposing you/ your community take (from the mouth of babes, hahaha), I guess there is a discussion worthy of having. Currently, what is left is pointing to the holes in your logic.
So the laser goes underwater and back out again? Kek.
So the earths magnetic field bends light? Also, kek.
So, I'm AI? Tippy-top-kek.