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?
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.