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?
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.