According to preliminary plans. Its main gun will be a Rail Gun. Supplemented With 2 of the 5 inch guns currently in use on destroyers. As well as 4 25mm chain guns. There’s also supposedly going to be 2 main DEW systems with space to upgrade to large ones once available. As 4 smaller DEW systems as part of its secondary battery.
As well as 2 as of yet undisclosed Anti-Drone systems.
Its main weapon systems however will be Missile based. Cruise Missiles with potential Nuclear Capabilities. A battery of up to 12 hypersonic Missile Tubes. 128 Mark 41 Missile Cells. Not to mention 2 SAM CWIS launchers.
Not to mention multiple confirmed Flight Deck for Helicopters and VTOL transports. Though given the fact that F-35s are also VTOL capable. It’d potentially be able to carry F-35s in a pinch.
Speculating is also that it would include 2 Laser batteries. Though it’s unclear which systems would be mounted. If it comes in at 39,000 tons on the high end. It’ll be the heaviest thing we’ve floated since we launched the Iowas. And the biggest and most heavily armed son of a bitch in any nations arsenal.
Only the Iowas and the canceled Montana Class would have been heavier tonnage wise. And initial Navy Plans are for up to 25 of these behemoths.
Edit note: Left off weapons systems in my initial post.
The same could have been said of Battleships in their heyday. I would hazard a guess its main defense much like its forebears would be its accompanying escorts. There likely is a significant possibility of undisclosed systems as well.
As these are more than likely going to serve as flagships for Non-Carrier Naval Squadrons in the U.S order of battle. As well as seriously up-gunning carrier battle groups as well. So they are hardly going to be hunting submarines alone.
These are also only the first in the ‘Golden Fleet’ initiative. So it stands to reason we’ll see the announcements of new classes of vessels meant to serve alongside them.
The hull is constructed using double walls below the waterline. There are also new underwater drone systems that could possibly serve in an anti-torpedo/mine role. American steel is far superior to any other nation's. Don't know of any other nation besides Russia that has any real submarine force at all.
There is a reason that navies stopped ordering battleships. The stories of the big WW2 German battleships, Bismarck, Scharnhorst and Tirpitz, is a clue.
When ships were difficult to strike from the land they had a use but now, when cheap drones can be flown through open doors, not so much. They are just big targets. IMHO!
I keep expecting to hear them announcing a new shipyard or two. We have precious few shipyards and skilled workers that are able to build these monsters.
Only the Iowa Class and Canceled Montana class would have been heavier tonnage wise.
And if the specs on the Weapons systems are right. It’ll be the biggest and most heavily armed son of a bitch afloat outside of a carrier with a full air-wing.
While its primary armament is going to be a metric ass load of missiles. x128 Mk 41 cells. An undisclosed number of Nuclear capable Cruise Missile tubes. x12 Hypersonic Missile tubes.
Its primary guns will be 1 Rail Gun. With a secondary battery of x2 5 inch guns. There will also be a battery of x2 DEW systems. Final type not agreed upon yet. Along with space to upgrade the DEWs to even heavier variants once available.
It’s Defensive battery will be x4 25mm chain guns. x4 ODIN lasers and a battery of 2 SAM CWIS systems. As well as 2 Anti-Drone systems. Type not-disclosed.
It’ll also have a flight deck with 2 hangers and the ability to support VTOL capable craft. Officially just V-22s and the new Helicopter concepts. Though F-35s are also VTOL capable. So there’s every chance of these things being modified to potentially service F-35s as well.
And for the kicker. The Navy will potentially seek to acquire up to 25 of these behemoths. These aren’t just up gunned escorts for carriers. These things are going to be heading task forces on their own.
A couple dreadnaughts, huh? The class of ship that was proved obsolete 80 years ago when the Bismarck, Yamato, and Musashi were used as target practice?
Great.
What hulls are we laying down next?
A Confederate ironclad?
A British ship of the line?
Oh, how about a Greek trireme?
hoping they give it the lines of historical battleships rather than the super destroyer. Look that came out sometime ago.. I like the long lines a little open space of the Iowa class, also open deck space of the USS Whitney, and the lines ofthe Russian navy battle cruiser look too
Regarding cost of battleships and how the NeoMarxist propaganda will (is) attempt to spin it...
By John ^ Konrad V
Just as I predicted yesterday…. MSM will falsely claim the Secretary of the Navy was fired because of Battleships.
And the NYTimes is actually worse than I thought. Let me explain….
The mainstream media will make this about the ships because the defense “experts” never want more hulls. They want money flowing into consulting fees, AI “solutions,” and think tank white papers. Steel produces nothing for the Beltway class. A flight deck you can launch F-35s off of does not generate PowerPoints.
But the NYTimes is running an even more sinister play.
Throughout the Biden administration, and later during DOGE’s audit work, I translated every major spending bill into a unit every American can actually visualize: one nuclear aircraft carrier.
Nuclear supercarrier cost: $15 billion.
Biden’s BEAD rural broadband program, which connected zero homes to the internet: $42.5 billion, or roughly three carriers.
Pete Buttigieg’s infrastructure package: $1.1 trillion, or seventy three carriers.
Total DOGE savings to date: $215 billion, or fourteen carriers.
Known Somali-linked fraud in Minnesota, per federal prosecutors: $18 billion, or one carrier plus an Arleigh Burke destroyer.
Why do I keep doing this?
Because for the past two decades the NYTimes has run the same story on loop: the military is the reason for America’s skyrocketing national debt.
That is a psyop. It conditions Americans to believe that steel and sailors, not social programs and grift, are what is bankrupting the country.
Human beings are not wired to understand $15 billion. The mind goes blank at that scale. But every American, left or right, understands the sheer weight and menace of a nuclear aircraft carrier. It is the most visible, most photogenic instrument of state power on earth.
So the NYTimes runs the obvious play.
Paint the carrier as expensive. Pile on delays and cost overruns. Quote an anonymous Pentagon source worrying about bloat. Then anchor the defense budget to “discretionary spending,” a small slice of the real pie, and express it as a percentage of that smaller number.
The Pentagon instantly looks like the whale in the room.
But Medicare alone, roughly $1 trillion in 2025, already eclipses the entire defense budget. Add Medicaid and ACA subsidies and federal health spending hits $1.8 trillion, more than double defense. None of those programs are labeled “discretionary,” so by NYTimes accounting, they “don’t count.”
This is a magic act. The NYTimes holds a shiny capital ship up in one hand to keep your eyes off the social programs bankrupting the country in the other.
Once you see the trick, you cannot unsee it. Every time the NYTimes runs a carrier or battleship exposé, ask one question: what is on the page they did not write?
Nine times out of ten, the answer is sitting just outside the “discretionary” column, quietly metastasizing, while a Ford class carrier gets blamed for the deficit.
America is not going broke building warships. Warships are one time expenses that last decades and are a tiny fraction of the total annual budget.
America is going broke pretending the ledgers that matter do not exist, while a national newspaper gets paid to keep the audience looking the other way.
That’s why they hate battleships. That’s why they tell you they are ridiculous and antiquated warships that are a waste of money. To make you think THIS is the reason why the nation is $39T in debt.
And the best part? Their psyop works on both sides of the aisle… on liberals who hate the military and conservatives who hate federal spending.
Battleships are not a waste of money. All the many fraudulent programs that cost more annually than a single carrier are.
The key is persistence where we have no air basing. Next is the ability to hold any target or targets at risk. Think of it like a bomber orbiting at a safe distance for months, yet have a lot of weapons that can destroy any target at any time from distance and the weapons can’t be stopped.
17 inch guns,I'm guessing.
Kek
According to preliminary plans. Its main gun will be a Rail Gun. Supplemented With 2 of the 5 inch guns currently in use on destroyers. As well as 4 25mm chain guns. There’s also supposedly going to be 2 main DEW systems with space to upgrade to large ones once available. As 4 smaller DEW systems as part of its secondary battery.
As well as 2 as of yet undisclosed Anti-Drone systems.
Its main weapon systems however will be Missile based. Cruise Missiles with potential Nuclear Capabilities. A battery of up to 12 hypersonic Missile Tubes. 128 Mark 41 Missile Cells. Not to mention 2 SAM CWIS launchers.
Not to mention multiple confirmed Flight Deck for Helicopters and VTOL transports. Though given the fact that F-35s are also VTOL capable. It’d potentially be able to carry F-35s in a pinch.
Speculating is also that it would include 2 Laser batteries. Though it’s unclear which systems would be mounted. If it comes in at 39,000 tons on the high end. It’ll be the heaviest thing we’ve floated since we launched the Iowas. And the biggest and most heavily armed son of a bitch in any nations arsenal.
Only the Iowas and the canceled Montana Class would have been heavier tonnage wise. And initial Navy Plans are for up to 25 of these behemoths.
Edit note: Left off weapons systems in my initial post.
What's it going to have to stop a submarine from taking it out?
The same could have been said of Battleships in their heyday. I would hazard a guess its main defense much like its forebears would be its accompanying escorts. There likely is a significant possibility of undisclosed systems as well.
As these are more than likely going to serve as flagships for Non-Carrier Naval Squadrons in the U.S order of battle. As well as seriously up-gunning carrier battle groups as well. So they are hardly going to be hunting submarines alone.
These are also only the first in the ‘Golden Fleet’ initiative. So it stands to reason we’ll see the announcements of new classes of vessels meant to serve alongside them.
The hull is constructed using double walls below the waterline. There are also new underwater drone systems that could possibly serve in an anti-torpedo/mine role. American steel is far superior to any other nation's. Don't know of any other nation besides Russia that has any real submarine force at all.
It'll be a good show!
How do we know the shipyards are using American steel?
How many billions of dollars will each one cost, and how many decades will they take to build?
Now that's a properly armed ship. Though you could always use more rail guns.
Looks like a heck of a weapon system.
What’s better than traditional 16” guns???
Awesome 😄😄
There is a reason that navies stopped ordering battleships. The stories of the big WW2 German battleships, Bismarck, Scharnhorst and Tirpitz, is a clue.
When ships were difficult to strike from the land they had a use but now, when cheap drones can be flown through open doors, not so much. They are just big targets. IMHO!
I'm pretty sure self defense systems are much better.
Things change and clearly Trump is in the know.
I keep expecting to hear them announcing a new shipyard or two. We have precious few shipyards and skilled workers that are able to build these monsters.
We have shipyards all over the place. They just need to be modernized i assume.
That's what I thought until I researched it. This substack goes into a lot of detail but if you ask AI you'll learn a lot more.
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/why-cant-the-us-build-ships
More billions we don't have.
PSA - Please, Build NO, shitty untested, glitchy doesn't live up to the hype boondoggle endless money pit systems into these ships. Thank You...
Only the Iowa Class and Canceled Montana class would have been heavier tonnage wise.
And if the specs on the Weapons systems are right. It’ll be the biggest and most heavily armed son of a bitch afloat outside of a carrier with a full air-wing.
While its primary armament is going to be a metric ass load of missiles. x128 Mk 41 cells. An undisclosed number of Nuclear capable Cruise Missile tubes. x12 Hypersonic Missile tubes.
Its primary guns will be 1 Rail Gun. With a secondary battery of x2 5 inch guns. There will also be a battery of x2 DEW systems. Final type not agreed upon yet. Along with space to upgrade the DEWs to even heavier variants once available.
It’s Defensive battery will be x4 25mm chain guns. x4 ODIN lasers and a battery of 2 SAM CWIS systems. As well as 2 Anti-Drone systems. Type not-disclosed.
It’ll also have a flight deck with 2 hangers and the ability to support VTOL capable craft. Officially just V-22s and the new Helicopter concepts. Though F-35s are also VTOL capable. So there’s every chance of these things being modified to potentially service F-35s as well.
And for the kicker. The Navy will potentially seek to acquire up to 25 of these behemoths. These aren’t just up gunned escorts for carriers. These things are going to be heading task forces on their own.
...projection of power...
We shouldn't be projecting any power.
" We shouldn't be projecting any power."
...valid observation...
...welcome to Planet Kayfabe...
It costs us billions of dollars every year, which could be used to repair and upgrade our infrastructure.
A couple dreadnaughts, huh? The class of ship that was proved obsolete 80 years ago when the Bismarck, Yamato, and Musashi were used as target practice?
Great.
What hulls are we laying down next?
A Confederate ironclad?
A British ship of the line?
Oh, how about a Greek trireme?
Rail gun is AWESOME!
hoping they give it the lines of historical battleships rather than the super destroyer. Look that came out sometime ago.. I like the long lines a little open space of the Iowa class, also open deck space of the USS Whitney, and the lines ofthe Russian navy battle cruiser look too
https://x.com/johnkonrad/status/2047642503440933305
Regarding cost of battleships and how the NeoMarxist propaganda will (is) attempt to spin it...
By John ^ Konrad V
Just as I predicted yesterday…. MSM will falsely claim the Secretary of the Navy was fired because of Battleships.
And the NYTimes is actually worse than I thought. Let me explain….
The mainstream media will make this about the ships because the defense “experts” never want more hulls. They want money flowing into consulting fees, AI “solutions,” and think tank white papers. Steel produces nothing for the Beltway class. A flight deck you can launch F-35s off of does not generate PowerPoints.
But the NYTimes is running an even more sinister play.
Throughout the Biden administration, and later during DOGE’s audit work, I translated every major spending bill into a unit every American can actually visualize: one nuclear aircraft carrier.
Nuclear supercarrier cost: $15 billion.
Biden’s BEAD rural broadband program, which connected zero homes to the internet: $42.5 billion, or roughly three carriers.
Pete Buttigieg’s infrastructure package: $1.1 trillion, or seventy three carriers.
Total DOGE savings to date: $215 billion, or fourteen carriers.
Known Somali-linked fraud in Minnesota, per federal prosecutors: $18 billion, or one carrier plus an Arleigh Burke destroyer.
Why do I keep doing this?
Because for the past two decades the NYTimes has run the same story on loop: the military is the reason for America’s skyrocketing national debt.
That is a psyop. It conditions Americans to believe that steel and sailors, not social programs and grift, are what is bankrupting the country.
Human beings are not wired to understand $15 billion. The mind goes blank at that scale. But every American, left or right, understands the sheer weight and menace of a nuclear aircraft carrier. It is the most visible, most photogenic instrument of state power on earth.
So the NYTimes runs the obvious play.
Paint the carrier as expensive. Pile on delays and cost overruns. Quote an anonymous Pentagon source worrying about bloat. Then anchor the defense budget to “discretionary spending,” a small slice of the real pie, and express it as a percentage of that smaller number.
The Pentagon instantly looks like the whale in the room.
But Medicare alone, roughly $1 trillion in 2025, already eclipses the entire defense budget. Add Medicaid and ACA subsidies and federal health spending hits $1.8 trillion, more than double defense. None of those programs are labeled “discretionary,” so by NYTimes accounting, they “don’t count.”
This is a magic act. The NYTimes holds a shiny capital ship up in one hand to keep your eyes off the social programs bankrupting the country in the other.
Once you see the trick, you cannot unsee it. Every time the NYTimes runs a carrier or battleship exposé, ask one question: what is on the page they did not write?
Nine times out of ten, the answer is sitting just outside the “discretionary” column, quietly metastasizing, while a Ford class carrier gets blamed for the deficit.
America is not going broke building warships. Warships are one time expenses that last decades and are a tiny fraction of the total annual budget.
America is going broke pretending the ledgers that matter do not exist, while a national newspaper gets paid to keep the audience looking the other way.
That’s why they hate battleships. That’s why they tell you they are ridiculous and antiquated warships that are a waste of money. To make you think THIS is the reason why the nation is $39T in debt.
And the best part? Their psyop works on both sides of the aisle… on liberals who hate the military and conservatives who hate federal spending.
Battleships are not a waste of money. All the many fraudulent programs that cost more annually than a single carrier are.
Such ships will absolutely NEED light based weapons
The key is persistence where we have no air basing. Next is the ability to hold any target or targets at risk. Think of it like a bomber orbiting at a safe distance for months, yet have a lot of weapons that can destroy any target at any time from distance and the weapons can’t be stopped.