Why Trump should let the US Navy build a new modern Battleship in 2020?

Why Trump should let the US Navy build a new modern Battleship in 2020?

Its been 75 years since the last battleship was built, large, fast, thick armored with multiple long range radar controlled 12-18 inch naval gun turrents, smaller secondary turrets, torpedoes, sonar, depth charges and huge arsenals of anti-air guns but what would a modern Battleship built in 2020 with modern advances in technology be like? Here's my theory.

1. Size.

A new battleship would be roughly the size of the Yamato or up to 3-4 times larger. For those that don't know the ww2 Yamato battleship class was the largest battleship ever built. (Not the best).

2. Power plant

Any modern battleship will of course be powered by a nuclear reactor, the old Iowa class ships could do 32 knots any new battleship should be able to match that or surpass it at 40+ knots. Combined with its speed, the range of its weapons and that it won't need to refuel for 20 years it would be a very hard target to find and destroy.

3. Armament

Why Trump should let the US Navy build a new modern Battleship in 2020?
Why Trump should let the US Navy build a new modern Battleship in 2020?

A new battleship would be armed with all the latest weapons technology.

•Main guns. Replacing the main naval guns that use cordite propellant to fire explosive shells 20 miles instead a 2020 battleship would use batteries of Rail guns. A railgun is a device that uses electromagnetic force to launch high velocity projectiles. Rail guns have a range of 100 miles and possibly up to 2000 miles as they are still continuing to be developed, the kinetic energy from ordnance fired from a rail gun is hits 4 times harder though firing a smaller shell, which means more shells can be carried without the need to store dangerous propellants like cordite. There are many new advancements in artillery with so called "smart shells" which could be used to maximum effect by a railgun. The other option is using kinetic bombardment using solid tungsten nuclear hardened darts or depleted uranium high explosive shells fired at a high angle towards the atmosphere so that they land with devastating kinetic force. Railguns could also potentially launch nuclear projectiles. With modern automation railguns would be self loading and completely automated controlled by one or two gunnery officers on the bridge.

• Any modern battleship will have batteries of the 5-inch/54 caliber (Mk 45) lightweight gun( range miles, 20 rounds per minute automatic) M242 Bushmaster 25mm chain gun and possibly standard 50 cal machine guns. Conventional guns you'd find on any arleigh Burke class destroyer.

• Lasers

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Laser_Weapon_System_%28LaWS%29_demonstration_aboard_USS_Ponce.webm

I know what your thinking but this isn't science fiction, LaWS have been deployed on US Navy ships. The technology is still being trialled but with advanced Radar and optics systems they should be able to in the future engage any threat in their line of sight from an attacking fast boat or UAV to anti-ship missiles and attack jets. At only $1 per shot compared to thousands spent on conventional ordnance as well as nearly unlimited shots it's a must for any future warship.

• Missile batteries.

Why Trump should let the US Navy build a new modern Battleship in 2020?

Missile batteries have been operated on warships for quite sometime and they were essentially the final nail in the coffin of the old WW2 era battleship designs though the Iowa class was brought back and fitted with cruise missiles in the 80s. A new battleship would be fitted with missle tubes firing the current missle systems we have now such as cruise and ballistic missiles but also the next generation hyper-sonic missiles.It will also carry the latest naval ICBM nuclear warheads. Of course it will also have anti-ship missiles.

Why Trump should let the US Navy build a new modern Battleship in 2020?

• Anti-aircraft- Anti-ship missle defences

Why Trump should let the US Navy build a new modern Battleship in 2020?

Just in case anyone tries to remind me of how the Aircraft carrier made the battleship obsolete during WW2 well A. The Aircraft carrier didn't make the battle ship obsolete, it merely replaced it as the first ship of the line. Battleships were still needed to protect aircraft carriers usually from other aircraft carriers. B. Battleships in WW2 didn't have SAM anti-aircraft missiles, it's a whole new ball game in 2020 and anti-ship aircraft may be obsolete.

Any new battleship will be able to fight off fleets of attacking jets with a combination of current anti-aircraft weapons in operation right now such as huge batteries of RIM-66 Standard, sea sparrows and AMRAAM missiles, new hyper-sonic anti-aircraft missiles, large numbers of Phalanx anti-aircraft gattling or whatever the next generation version is as well as the before mention lazers all controlled by the latest Ageis Radar systems.

Why Trump should let the US Navy build a new modern Battleship in 2020?

• Aircraft. Believe it or not but WW2 battleships carried aircraft which they would use to scout the seas for enemy vessels or spot for their big naval guns where their shells were landing so they could adjust as big gun battleships like the Yamato or USS Missouri could fire farther than a gunner could visually see. What would be the 2020 version of this probably large numbers of drones, or manned aircraft like the V22 Osprey, SH-60 Seahawk. Of course these aircraft could also be used for anti submarine warfare dropping sonar buoys and launching Anti-submarine missles. It's even possible a modern Battleship could carry the new F35B fighter.

Why Trump should let the US Navy build a new modern Battleship in 2020?

• Anti-submarine missiles. The latest available anti-submarine missiles will be available, there will be nowhere for the submarine to hide.

4. Radar & Sonar.

As I said whatever the latest radar technology is will be in this ship which linked to the weapon systems will have a devastating effect on any ships detected.

5. Electronic warfare

In case any of you don't know what this is Electronic warfare (EW) is any action involving the use of the electromagnetic spectrum (EM spectrum) or directed energy to control the spectrum, attack an enemy, or impede enemy assaults. This is has been used ever since WW2 by warring nations to help gain the upper hand. The little known "Battle of the Beams" where both the Allies and Axis forces tried to disrupt each others use of radar to detect aircraft or to guide bombers to the target. A good example is from WW2 during the invasions of Sicily and Italy the US & Royal Navies had to develop Electronic countermeasures to stop the Luftwaffe from sinking their ships with guided bombs and missiles.

Electronic warfare as technology has advanced has become more important than ever and any new Battleship will need Electronic Countermeasures to jam the Radars, sonar, missiles, communication, submarines, drones and aircraft of any enemies.

6. Digitial Battlespace.

This is something no sailor on a WW2 Battleship would recognise but is part of the US militaries new combined arms and services integration data and inteligence sharing meaning that if the US Airforce detects an enemy vessel the 2020 Battleship will instantly know it's postion and be able to fire upon it if in range or if US Army forces are under attack from superior forces the 2020 battleship if in range will be able to very quickly give fire support faster than any US airforce fighter can be launched. I'm not sure if I've explained this one properly.

7. Armor.

Why Trump should let the US Navy build a new modern Battleship in 2020?

Armor protection was a major part of Naval warship doctrine which is not the case today, Warships today are what you'd call glass cannons. For instance the Arleigh Burke class destroyer only has 3/8th inch HY-80 steel covering it's hull compared to the Ohio class battleships which at 14 inches in places. HY-80 is a strong alloy but it's not going to protect against Anti-ship missle or artillery shell. Modern Naval doctrine the last few decades has been focused on countering anti-ship missiles and air attacks using active hard and soft kill defenses such as the Phallanx gattling gun, anti-air missiles, anti-ship missiles and electronic missiles which makes sense as armor has become less important as most anti-ship missiles can penetrate all but battleship armor and armor makes a ship heavy and expensive. A 2020 battleship would have thick armour and the latest most advanced up to date armor that's been developed in the last 75 years since the last battleship was commissioned. Probably the hull would be constructed of the strongest alloys possible and the hull would be lined with a Naval version of Chobham armor or whatever armor has been developed to replace it, possibly some form of reactive armor too. Chobham armor is the toughest armor in the world and is on American and British tanks.

8. Computer Aided design

Computer Aided design was not a thing when the last battleships were being designed. The 2020 battleship will be easier to design, faster to build, stronger built, tougher, sleeker in the water and more ergonomic and all the other advantages that come with CAD.

9. Crew

The Iowa class battleships carried nearly 3000 sailors but I dont think a 2020 Battleship will need any more than 300-600 sailors with how automated modern warships are in 2019.

10. Economical

Would a 2020 battleship be economical, I certainly think so when you consider an aircraft carrier has a crew of 6-7000, 90 aircraft and requires escorts of cruisers, destroyers, frigates, submarines, supply and logistics ships to protect it.

11. Satellites

The modern 2020 Battleship will be not only be able to navigate with satellite GPS it will be able to find the enemy and kill him at long range, watching in real time as their missiles and shells fired by rail guns land making adjustments. Of course it will also be able to shoot down enemy satellites.

12. The Future. Aircraft carriers were the future in 1939 but in 2020 it's future and effectiveness remains in doubt Aircraft carriers are increasingly vulnerable to arsenal ships and cruise missiles, especially those with supersonic or even hypersonic flight and the ability to perform radical trajectory changes to avoid anti-missile systems. Also modern carriers were designed for WW2 & Cold War scenarios, and are less useful in establishing control of areas close to shore the way Battleships can. Then there's the doubt over the future of naval Aircraft and Military aircraft in general over Airpowers ability in power projection. In Vietnam the Air war over BNorth Vietnam was considerably costly to the aircraft of the USAF and US Navy with many jets shot down by SAMs and radar controlled anti-aircraft artilery, granted North Vietnam had the most powerful and advanced air defence system in the world at the time and that over 50 years ago and the US military has made advances in dealing with powerful air defences as shown in the Gulf war when the Iraqi military was crushed from the Air but again that was 30 years ago. There's concern from the Syrian campaign that Air power has lost its teeth with the latest technology in anti-aircraft radar and missiles and that's before encountering enemy airforces, even that stealth aircraft like the F22 and f35 are not quite as invisible to radar as previously thought. Which would leave the USAF, US Navy and US marine corps pretty impotent when it comes to power projection using aircraft against a well defended enemy.

Conclusion. Well this is just my view I'm not navy man anyway. I'm sure there are military naval planners who have considered all this already and rejected the idea. Anyway building a modern 2020 Battleship even if it is the next phase in Naval warfare would probably create a situation similar to 1906 when the Royal Navy commissioned HMS Dreadnought, which was every Warship in the vast Royal Navy and around the world was made obsolete and a Naval Arms race was started in which all naval powers globally competed to build the most advanced and numerous fleets of dreadnaughts. The arrival of a beast like this in the south China sea would certainly give China a scare.

Why Trump should let the US Navy build a new modern Battleship in 2020?
7
44
Add Opinion

Most Helpful Guys

  • nightdrot
    As something of a naval buff, I well understand the nostalgia for battleships. However, even stipulating the very valid points mad here, battleships are not appropriate to the conditions of modern naval warfare.

    To start, there is the myth of the "unsinkable battlewagon." That was punctured as far back as Billy Mitchell's controversial wargames in the late 1920s and 30s. Then came Pearl Harbor. Then came the sinking of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse.

    Battleships were taken out of service because in the age of airpower - and later missile technology - battleships were deemed too vulnerable and too cost inefficient to make useful additions to the modern naval arsenal. Indeed, it may be recalled that the Reagan Administration brought back several Iowa class battleships in the 1980s as a temporary counter to the giant Soviet Kirov class cruisers.

    USS Iowa was used to bombard targets in Lebanon in 1983 but it quickly became apparent that its use had more propaganda value than tactical justification. Smaller warships could fire projectiles and serve as Cruise missile platforms just as easily, and at far less cost, against targets that lacked a retaliatory capability - as indeed Lebanon lacked such capability.

    Against more determined opponents - see China, which is developing area denial capabilities with a combination of carriers and lane based air and missile platforms - a battleship would be a highly vulnerable target and could not significantly enhance the defense of aircraft carries.

    For that cruisers - against air and surface threats - and destroyers - against enemy submarines - are far more effective and wildly less expensive. In that environment, a battleship would be a large target, expensive to fuel, man and operate, vulnerable at multiple levels, all without meaningfully improving American power projection capabilities.

    Bottom line, the paradox is that the author makes a superb tactical argument for the restoration of battleships. However, that argument lacks any larger strategic context. In that the author is effectively arguing for the pen without concerning himself with what will get written by the pen.
    Is this still revelant?
    • Eh your thinking in terms of WW2 battleships rather than 2020 battleships and in terms cold war designs and strategies. Comparing the two would be like comparing HMS dreadnaught to the wooden HMS Victory.
      Again carriers are vulnerable as they have to be within 500 miles of a target and naval aircraft can no longer successfully attack a country with modern air defences. Modern ships are too easy to knock out, submarines can be detected by satellites and sonar. A 2020 battleship wouldn't need to be refueled for 20 years like most US aircraft carriers. Missiles can be jammed or shot down. What can't be stopped is a kinetic steel dart fired via a Railgun that lands with the kinetic force of an explosive shell. Current navy railguns have a range of 100 miles but as it develops it should be anywhere from 1000-2000 miles.
      Technology is developing fast and no one knows how the next war will be fought but something new and revolutionary is coming.
      Its important not to make the mistake of fighting the next war with the weapons and strategies of the last war, the cold war ended 30 years ago.

    • nightdrot

      So explain to me how a carrier is vulnerable but a battleship would not be.

      The lessons of WWII are applicable. Changes in technology do not outlaw the rules of physics and, in any event, the defense of the carriers matters more. Having to divert resources to protect battleships in that context makes no sense.

      Bringing back the battleship in the face of a country - like China - whose central strategy is area denial and thus to eliminate the capacity of enemy warships to operate in a given geographic zone is to spend a lot of money on a platform that will go to the bottom. Perimeter defense of the carrier group is priority one - and battleships would just mean that smaller ships would have a second large target to protect in the battlegroup.

    • nightdrot

      P. S. By the way, I do not mean to offend, but it is a little odd that you complain that my thinking is of WWII vintage when the very first thing you mention in your own piece is the size of a WWII battleship. (Yamato.)

      In any case, you point to fueling costs, but that does not come anywhere close to including the costs of manning, provisioning and arming. Fuel costs are, in that sense, among the least of the operational costs and again, it hardly makes sense when the carrier and the submarine remain the premier means of power projection.

      Battleships have neither the reach nor flexibility of the carrier nor the stealth - let alone a real defense against - the submarine. Battleships would amount to an expensive diversion from the principle task of a carrier battlegroup - protection of the carrier to facilitate its role as a power projection platform.

    • Show All
  • Massageman
    Good research and well-done.
    The US is long overdue for a battle partner for the newest carriers. The Zumwalt is dead-in-the-water (literally) and was a half-hearted attempt anyway to add some firepower. The only thing is that the armaments should be modular and replaceable, since by the time the keel is laid and the ship built and commissioned, arms and the calendar will have advanced by 6-10 years!

    In the bigger scope of things, we'd have to blame Obama for the lower defense budgets for years, arguing on pairing military spending with non-defense spending had a crippling effect on the Pentagon's efforts to modernize and recapitalize.

    These spending limits — known as sequestration — have been blamed for shortfalls in parts and repairs, cuts in training time and a gradual drawdown in military manpower. They’ve also contributed to a host of compensation trims, as Pentagon leaders have held down pay increases and stipend raises in recent years to help offset funding reductions in other areas. Hopefully new SOTA ships will help shore up our defenses but it may take quite a while to reverse the downturn in military support.
    Is this still revelant?

Most Helpful Girls

  • Sorry bro, I’m Navy through and through but I don’t think that’s where we are right now with POTUS.

    I don’t know where the US right now with regard to any potential POTUS other than that it won’t be Pence.

    If Trump wins re-election I guess we can talk about it then. I just really wish that he would listen to his military advisors as a bear minimum.

    He’s pissed off and/ or fired any top brass he comes in contact with.

    I respect soldiers and our allies in combat. I can’t get onboard with a commander and chief who just had a sit down at the White House praising a leader fresh from a genocide of our partners, The Kurds.
    Is this still revelant?
    • I'm army myself. We should never have been arming the Kurds because rather than attacking Assad or ISIS they instead conducted terror attacks on our partner and long standing NATO ally Turkey.

    • October808

      Roosevelt praised Stalin after he started killing Russians by the millions.

    • @October808 I think that's diplomacy. Sure wasn't Hitler times magazine man of the year?

    • Show All
  • I think smaller is better far more manovable and can deal with threats easier and in ww2 there were instances where a big battle ship way defeated by a light armoured U-boat because although that ship can go down in one or two hits it never did got to hit it
    Is this still revelant?
    • Submarines can be detected by satellites. In ww2 aircraft carriers were sunk by battleships and submarines quite a lot.

    • U-boats were countered at the end of the war, and the mortality rate for crews went up. It's one of the factors that crippled the Kriegsmarine.

    • @SwordShield The U-boats couldn't even surface without being killed. They were screwed!

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

542
  • OlderAndWiser
    Fascinating discussion! Why do you think Naval planners would not entertain this idea?
    • They may, the may not. It all depends on whatever secret technology and design is on the table.

  • ThisDudeHere
    This seemed like well-researched.
  • Hans222
    The question is: with the money such ship would cost, wouldn't you rather build an aircraft carrier? It has a long reach since it can take aircraft that will drop weapons at a distance from the ship. It can also transport planes for anti-submarine warfare, radar aircraft to suvey the skies, and search and rescue helicopters.
    Overall I think it would be a more complete weapon system han a destroyer.
    • The range of an F18 hornet is 500 miles. Aircraft can't drop anything if they get shot down. An aircraft carrier would have to be 500 miles to it's target well within range of anti-ship missiles
      Aircraft carriers are very vulnerable and need a large carrier group to escort them.

    • Hans222

      True, but they're an air force themselves. No ship can equal that firepower, not approximately!

    • Yes they can. Think of all the aircraft fuel, the size of a single jet, crew quarters, ordance and then imagine a battleship the size of a modern aircraft carrier firing thst ordnance. Lile modern aircraft carriers don't match the fire power of a ww2 battleship.

  • Stoner710
    That’s his story and I think the battleship is obsolete but if he wants to build a bear shit I don’t have an issue with it hopefully it works and hopefully it can be used to the best of its abilities even in the 80s most were battleships were of World War II era so it’s kind a time to upgrade to the 21st-century about $30 million hell Trump to do it himself even if we wasn’t president
    • In the 80s the only battleships in the world were from ww2.
      Ww2 battleships are obsolete not a 2020 battleship.
      Aircraft carriers are actually obsolete

    • Stoner710

      Aircraft carriers are incredibly important now we need to up grade our military but there a reason why they are called aircraft carriers there use it to be an mobile Aircraft hangar so we don’t have to set up a Air Force Base on who’s soil were defending.

      Of course World War II battleships around obsolete it’s been 74 years since WW2,

      What are we going to do with a battle ship navel battles end in in World War II and the last best use for them was sending them up the Vietnam river. Battle ships are cool but I don’t really see the use for them in the 21st century.

      I’d rather Focus on the space for us our satellites way more important

    • In Vietnam battleships were used to hit enemy portions.
      Carrier aircraft are far too easy to shoot down using SAMs and carriers have to get too close to a target, very useful when fighting 3rd world militaries.
      Satellites can be knocked out by missiles, possibly by lasers and a railgun.
      The ability to strike an enemy with devastating accurate firepower that can't be stopped will always be desirable.

    • Show All
  • _SOARER_
    U. S. Naval dominance depends to heavily on aircraft carriers I agree 100%
    Love how you mnetioned that hyper-sonic missiles could disable the effectiveness of aircraft carriers. I think it would be negligible to not consider that China, Russia and others aren't developing weapons specifically designed to take down Air-Craft Carriers.
    • Do we know what secret weapons Russia and China are developing. The problem with aircraft carriers is that strike aircraft are ineffective thanks to modern air defences.

  • tartaarsaus
    This would just be another massive capital ship that needs significant protection from others ships and submarines (gotta decrease the risk of it sinking after all).

    At that point you might as well crank out better destroyers and aircraft carriers. More ships allow for more flexibility as well.
    • Not if they are sunk...

    • Obviously. But the damage done when a capital ship, especially as you propose it needs no other ships to protect it, is sunk is far, far greater

    • Only if you can sink it. You'd have to not only be able to detect it you'd also have to be able to hit it.

    • Show All
  • October808
    Battleships are obsolete. AEGIS crusiers can provide the same level of lethality at a much smaller sea print. The only battleship I want to see in the future is one that's outer space capable with a habitat ring.
    • AEGIS crusiers and Arleigh Burke destroyers are outdated designs and concepts from the cold war era.

    • October808

      You didn't hear the targets complaining. A battleship in 2020 is nonsense.

    • October808

      But in outer space, maybe not.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bv5RsrG742o

    • Show All
  • DeeDeeDeVour
    The "underdog" Chinese are determined to show the world that they can beat & painfully embarrass the US Armed Forces. They won't be afraid at all of a modern super battleship.

    Meanwhile, I hope the US military would stop bragging about any of their latest/newest weapons so our pesky enemies wouldn't be able to copy & mass produce their weapons systems/deterrents against our's.
    • Phoenix98

      The Japanese thought the same way with their super battleship class and we sank it.

    • That's because the Chinese can't win the air war because their airforce is outnumbered 2-1 in planes, and the USA has a better budget, China only having 120 billion while the USA has about a trillion.

    • Not to mention NATO and the UN.

  • BCA6010
    No. The only massive ships that serve a practical purpose are carriers. There's nothing that the battleship design can do that a modern, smaller and more versatile ship can't do more effectively now.

    Even going into World War 2, the battleship was becoming obsolete as carriers became the new Kings of the sea. The only reason the USS Missouri stayed in service as long as it did was because it was retrofitted into an unrecognizable, modernized support vessel before being semi-restored and retired into becoming a museum piece.

    The most successful battleship of WW2 in terms of sinking enemy ships was the German battleship Admiral Scheer, which was a bit smaller and quite a bit faster than other battleships of the time, and single-handedly led an entire British fleet on a wild goose chase across the Atlantic before ultimately ending up in drydock until it was bombed in the last couple days of the war. This one really highlights the direction naval warfare between surface ships went by the 1940s, while the Pacific theater more effectively highlights the importance of the carrier.
    • Carriers are only good for attacking 3rd world countries and they have to come within 500 miles of an enemy well within enemy anti ship missiles and their aircraft are vulnerable to anti air missiles so not very useful or cost effective when you consider the price of one f35 or f18 as well as the weapons it carries considering a 2019 battleship could launch ordnance from 1000 miles away or huge numbers of ballistic and cruise missiles.
      Modern warships are glass cannons they can't take even minimal hits so no survivability.

  • CasaNorba
    if he or congress read this they will agree with you and start the production right away. you know they have money for such bullshit. but to hell with education
  • NerdInDenial
    Disclaimer: because of my unique situation and understanding of the Navy, my perspective will fall under the "appeal to authority" fallacy. However, I believe that my background provides the realities of what military acquisition is and how feasible a project like this would likely occur.
    As cool as it may sound to create a modern day battleship, and many sailor would sign on to serve on it, including me, it may not be feasible. The first question most military weapons "experts" will examine is the need. What capabilities or need or deficiency exist? What mission areas that the current destroyer cannot fulfill? Anti Air Warfare, Ballistic Missile Defense, Carrier Operations / Carrier Escorting, Undersea warfare, electronic warfare, naval firing support, boat operations, Maritime Interdiction Operations can be fulfilled by the Arleigh Burke Destroyer. A few issues with the current DDG 51 Class destroyers are weapons capacity and radar cross-section. These are a few reasons why the Zumwalt Class "Destroyers" were built. However, due to the expense and no new capabilities, the program was halted. This had huge consequences to the ship builders. So due to the instability of building a new ship class, politicians may shy away from restarting this program. The only reason why we continue to build aircraft carriers is because of the requirement by law. Strategically, it is better to have a ship that is smaller on the radar cross section. So, having something big is not necessarily a good thing. It is more economically feasible to focus on the capability vice the platform. So, instead of building a battleship, we can upgrade the missile system or engineering plants or adjusting the angles of future Arleigh Burke destroyers to reduce radar cross-section.
    • Arleigh Burke destroyers are still glass cannons.

  • Phoenix98
    If he was to build a battleship class it'd have to be a new generation one meaning it would need some heavy anti-air and anti-missile defense systems as well as powerful long range artillery such as missile batteries, artillery and or rail guns and heavy armor capable of withstanding modern ballistics and missiles.
  • andreasderjuengere
    I find battleships incredibly fascinating as... 'machines'.
    (I'm involved in ship building myself; but on a much smaller scale).
    However - I don't see them suitable for present days' 'requirements'.
    I doubt that TRUMP is the right person to be behind such a project - he can't even complete a wall without raising... 'discussions'.
  • JackSmy
    Thank you, for the Epic History, and your opinion on the Battleship!! Outstanding idea, and totally AMAZING in 1919, but not 2019.
    Big, hulking armored massives like the old Battleships are just no longer strategically relevant. They are BIG, FAT TARGETS for suicide bombers in boats full of explosives!
    Smaller, CHEAPER, FASTER Destroyers, Corvettes, and Guided Missile Frigates are the current, modern types with the long distance cruise missiles, and 'Stand-off' long range weapons.
    We don't really need a HUGE hulk, pounding out huge 1 ton rounds on a beach, like Normandy anymore.
    Warfare, and Naval conflicts have changed.
    I would expect even smaller, faster craft, with drone-delivered specific weapons to be the wave of the future Navy of the US.
    • Suicide boats are a threat to most modern warships because their hull 3/4 inch steel with no armor, watch what this laser does to a suicide boat and drone.
      upload.wikimedia.org/.../..._aboard_USS_Ponce.webm
      A 2020 battleship would be a missile carrier like how the Iowa class was upgrade to be. Drones are vulnerable to electronic warfare where the signal to control them can be jammed or hacked or the sattelite that they are controlled by shot down. Drones are cheap and disposable and great if your enemy isn't on an equal footing technologically.
      The potential of Railguns is very great as it's an inexpensive way to launch heavy ordnance at long ranges, missiles can jammed or shot down not shells or kinetic darts.

    • JackSmy

      @Blitzkrieg_88 I'm still against BIG HULKS!! Slow, huge masses, and maybe a lot of armor, but light, faster ships, with modern armor, Kevlar or Dyneema or others not yet described, much more cost effective.
      I don't understand your obsession with multi-Billion dollar Hulking targets! Long range Tomahawk and other missiles can easily be launched from smaller, faster craft! Rail guns, if they are ever utilized, can be mounted on smaller, destroyers, and corvettes, and can more easily move into position, fire, and then move, should there be any retaliation.

    • You realise the iowa class cruised at 32 knots, that ain't slow. Modern cruisers, frigates destroyers only cruise at 30 knots.

    • Show All
  • broncobryan
    I like the idea, but in today's military age battleships are obsolete. It would make a hell of a land bombardment platform, just like world war 2.
    • Actually aircraft carriers are obsoleted thanks to SAM missiles. Technology swings advantage to the battleship.

    • Not necessarily. We have technology to jam sam missiles radar tracking capabilities. Have had it since Vietnam.

    • Not a guarantee as demonstrated by the high casualties of the air war over Vietnam.
      There's a reason NATO aircraft stayed out of Syria while the Russians were there.

    • Show All
  • NightOwl8801
    Why not...
    Battleships are a thing of the past , the Iowa was decommissioned in 91or 92 after the Persian Gulf War , she was the last battleship serving in the U. S. Navy as well as the world...
    Sure it would cost a lot of money but I'm sure it would be effective as not only a deterrent but a show of pride for the navy as the newest flagship
  • I'm not American but... Doesn't that cost like... A ton of money? Where will your president aquire enough to build one? I think it's a risky move. Besides, the United States is pretty well protected as is really.
    • Stoner710

      What ironic is the president is rich enough to build one himself with his own money it cost roughly about $30 million

    • Rissyanne

      @Stoner710 actually Pelosi and Warren could build one

    • The US debt is like 15 trillion dollars. They will just print another billion

    • Show All
  • Yeah no, Battleships got phased out for a reason.

    Aircraft Carriers are far more important
    • Aircraft carriers are obsolete, your thinking is from 70 years ago.
      Sure if your only attacking 3rd world militaries the aircraft carriers are perfect but with a modern military like China or Russia carrier aircraft would be blown out the air by their air defences and the carrier sunk by anti ship missiles if it ever got close enough to launch strike aircraft.

    • A. No, Battleships have been outdated for 70 years,

      They are good only for engaging other ships or shelling coastal regions.

      A Carrier has Versatility that a battleship lacks.

      And a Guided Missile cruiser does a battleships jobs better than they ever did.

      B. The amount of range of a battleship is severely limited by intelligence and they have to get close to shore to be effective for what a Carrier can send planes out to do.
      C. Railguns? Yeah caseless shells would be useful but to be frank artillery like that is inferior to the kinds of missiles that could be launched by a Cruiser.
      D. Then you have Attack Subs who can sneak in and out and do massive damage

    • Airpower has been obsolete since Vietnam , just ask John McCain. Carriers are only good for bombing missions against 3rd world countries with no air defences completely ineffective against modern militaries. A modern 2020 Battleship has vsrsality carriers lack mainly the ability to hit targets while remaining out of range.
      Guided missle cruisers are glass cannons that lack firepower, armor and sustainability in a fortnight.
      Nuclear hardened steel tipped darts land with a lot of kinetic energy, twice that of an explosive artillery shell of the same type, also there's smart shells and not to mention a Rail gun is cheaper and outranges strike fighters. Attack subs can be tracked via sattelite and are as much danger to a carrier as a 2020 battleship. If You want to project naval power you need a 2020 battleship, carriers and missile cruisers can't give you that.

  • Nice222
    I do think there is a need for a ship capable of massive shore bombardment such as the old WW2 battleships. The Marine Corp. Will depend on it in the future if we ever need to invade by shore again. Rail guns are a great idea but also rocket assisted rounds are very useful as well.
  • As if Trump needed another example of being a complete idiot. The battleship is obsolete, the technology of the battleship has been obsolete since WW2. The US has the most aircraft carriers of any country and that's all we need. Why not bring back howitzers and sail ships too?
    • Ok boomer lol. Aircraft carriers have been obsolete since the Vietnam era when ships started carrying anti-aircraft missiles. An enemy aircraft can't get into range to fire on a ship and any modern air defence has the capability of shooting down any enemy aircraft with modern SAMs even before they enter their airspace.
      The US military still uses howitzers, Railguns are the future.
      The ww2 battleship is obsolete a 2020 battleship will be an entirely new animal integrated into the digital battlefield.

    • Not according to the US Navy: www.wearethemighty.com/.../why-navy-doesnt-use-battleships
      But you'd rather trust president bone spurs who never served a day in the military.

    • And no we don't use howitzers because we have missile trucks now. If the military used a howitzer it would be for show.

    • Show All
  • BigSlice
    He wanted to bring the Missouri class back but the Navy didn't want it. I dont see the Navy bringing back battleships anytime soon. I would love to see a modern Missouri without the cannons as a nuclear powered cruiser, maybe with a couple railguns.
  • BeHappy1985
    Didn't bother to read, just here to let you know that naval warfare is a thing of the past.
    • Ok boomer

    • A total of 9 naval battles happened since 2001. Thats 1 every two years... But yeah, pour billions into it.

      2001 – December 22 Battle of Amami-Ōshima Japanese coast guard vessels sink an armed North Korean spy trawler.
      2002 – June 29 Second Battle of Yeonpyeong A South Korean naval patrol encounters North Korean intruders and force them to withdraw.
      2006 – May 11 – The Sri Lankan Navy and LTTE Sea Tigers clash, leaving 18 SLN personnel and 4-30 Tigers dead
      2008 – August 9 – The Russian Navy's Black Sea Fleet sinks a Georgian Navy ship during the Battle off the coast of Abkhazia
      2009 – November 10 Battle of Daecheong A South Korean patrol damages a North Korean gunboat forcing it to withdraw.
      2011 – April 29 – French frigate Courbet engages four Libyan RHIB mineplanters off Misrata, sinking one.[8]
      2011 – May 12 – Canadian, British, and French ships repulse a Libyan naval attack on the city of Misrata.[9]
      2017 – March 16 – Somali Pirates hijack an oil tanker[10]
      2018 – November 25 – 2018 Kerch Strait incident Russian and Ukrainian ships skirmish at Kerch Strait during the War in Donbass

    • If you want to keep the sea lanes open and prevent China from expanding into its neighbours you need a strong navy

    • Show All
  • RolandCuthbert
    And he should give to Putin and the Saudis as a gift. Then they could celebrate our demise.
    • What is wrong with the Saudis when you are filling up at the gas station?
      What is the problem with the Saudis and putin?

    • So you agree that our highest military tech should be given over to the Saudis and Putin?

      I thought so.

    • Well why not considering Clinton and Obama sold it go China already.
      The Saudis have the highest US tech, they have had it for decades and pay for it.

    • Show All
  • janna_jcb
    sure, but that’s more than a billion dollars, where’s that going to come from?
    • Where is the money for the next aircraft carrier coming from?

    • CasaNorba

      from all the taxes we pay

    • @CasaNorba aren't single mothers, who are divorced already sacking that in?

    • Show All
  • ginger_supremacist
    The damage done by a missile will Pierce any armor, especially considering that rail guns are a thing now, and hypersonic missiles. It's just easy to destroy a ship. It's hard to defend it.

    If you're talking about a "missile carrier" type of ship, that's probably a good idea, but this whole, canons and armor thing is kind of outdated.
    • Ww2 cannons are outdated, missiles can be jammed and shot down. Shells or darts launched by a rail gun are basically unstoppable and cost effective.
      Modern anti-ship missiles won't pierce the side of a ww2 battleship let alone a 2020 battleship and even then only if it gets through its defences and even then the missle has to be launched by an aircraft, ships or land forces that has come within range of its anti-air, anti-ship and sea-land weapons long before it was able to target the battleship.
      A 2020 battleship is not going to be remotely the same as ww2 battleship.

  • Surely
    Ronald Regan make a comment, that the only way too prevent war, was to be too strong for anyone to challenge you.
    I think that we still need to stay up to date.
  • WhereAmI
    We already have a Zumwalt class destroyer with new tech. I dont see the need for a battleship in this day/age.
  • Daniela1982
    The US ships only had 16 inch guns. The only ship that had 18 inch guns was the Japanese ship the Yamoto and it's sister ship.
    • jekprotecc

      Good catch but no way are you female

    • @jekprotecc I read a lot.

    • Why is my knowledge sticky for males?

    • Show All
  • jekprotecc
    Taking the old battleships out of mothballs and refurbishing/modernizing them can be done for half the cost of a new fleet of battleships! Be real, this My Take is foolish. Donald Trump is not about to waste billions building brand new ships when the Navy is maintaining four or five old battleships for just such a need.

    That would be like scrapping all the B-52s and B-1s and building a new fleet of long-range bombers. Not going to happen, it's a pipe dream.
    • The b52s and b1s are no longer fit for purpose, they are fine for striking 3rd world countries with no air defences. Long range bombers as an offensive weapon have been obsolete since the late 60s, it's the same story as aircraft carriers today.

    • I think they sitll have WWII battle ships that could be reactiveated cheaper than building a new one. I'm sure the Missouri or New Jersey would kick ass. Weren't some reactiveated so serve in Viet Nam?

    • @Daniela1982 a reactivate ww2 battleship would be ok but it would be like updating a Sherman tank with the latest tech instead of just build Abrams tanks.
      Iowa class battleships were reactivate in the Vietnam war and again in the 80s by Reagan, deactivated after the gulf war.

    • Show All
  • SwordShield
    Tbh, I'm Canadian, but navies need to modernize at times. Sadly, Canada hasn't done that so well since our military budget is so low.
    • Our training is super good, but our budget is so shit that we can barely fuel our motorized vehicles. Honest to god, UN has newer planes than the Douglas.

  • I can imagine the price to manufacture this beast would be equal to the current US national debt.
    this is like 2020 or 2025 from call of duty black ops 2. We are not very far away from that now, aren't we? Futuristic warfare is a very real possibility now more than ever.

    i can imagine the japanese military utilizing transformer style auto piloted battlemachines en masse with fast maneuverability countering this one... Or at least have it being caught in it's own EMP blast to give a time window to attack this thing. Artillery might be a problem for it to handle once stationary in it's own EMP blast.
  • _Unknown_Hacker_
    the caption should be : why should get impeached and not build the battleship? 彼は牛のようであり、あなたのゲームのたわごとです。.


    ߆ƒ¨¡
  • Insomnia72
    So we're going to war with China over Taiwan is the reason for a big battleship?
    • Actually protecting the sea lanes, that includes Vietnam, the Philippines, Australia, Japan and a few others.

    • Insomnia72

      Oh. But I thought the Coast Guards sufficed in that endeavor. A big ship would mean serious warfare. Though that's just me thinking that in my old WW2 documentary knowledge...

      I never served in the military, so I'm sure you would know more about this than I. I was disqualified from military service years ago in my youth due to a genetic partial hearing loss. The military doesn't want people who can't hear orders from a distance or can't comprehend radio talk. I get it. And it was explained to me by my recruiter, at the time, that if you're already partially hearing defective, you're going to be nearly deaf after basic training. I think he was joking, in part, but I get it. He was right. A serg shouting in my face isn't going to help me hear him better because my hearing dysfunction is such that I hear sound but language gets confusing.

    • Even George Bailey fought the battle of Bedford falls even though he had only partial hearing.

    • Show All
  • BringCow
    Right, so three things about that. First, you're relying on a lot of technology that is brand new, and of questionable effectivity. Second, which would be cheaper? Building a battleship of the caliper that you're talkin about, or spending the same amount on missiles to destroy? I think it's a pretty easy spending Choice personally. Third, what would it do that more cost-effective ships could not? You're presenting a very large, very expensive Target, and I don't really see why. Battleships are good for pretty much an irrelevant part of modern Naval engagements. At this point, it's all about range. Battleships are pretty good at knocking out other ships within a few miles, but you really don't see any Jutland style sea battles anymore. But, knowing Trump, he'd probably spend a quarter of the budget if it meant he could get his name on it.
    • Carrier strike aircraft have a range of 500 miles, Sam's missiles have a range of 300 miles, radar has a range of over 1000 miles. So it's carriers that are now an irrelevant part of Naval warfare and are really only of use against enemies without modern air defences. While artillery shells and, kinetic darts fired from far outside the range of an enemy's anti-ship missile range and or strike aircraft makes it useful.
      At Jutland battleships had to have line of sight to fire their big guns this changed in WW2 with big gun battleships like the Iowa class using radar to direct their guns in 21st century every US assets is linked in the digital battlefield so if a US military asset spots an enemy target, a 2020 battleship will be able to fire upon it and destroy it if in range from over 1000 miles away in the time it takes for it to fire and its launched ordnance to hit, while aircraft carriers would be still trying to scramble strike aircraft the 2020 battleship would be firing on the next target before they got a single aircraft off their deck.
      A 2020 battleship would be more cost effective than a single aircraft carrier.

  • FlaviusStilicho
    Modern missile technology largely renders battleships obsolete. I'd rather spend the money on improving air and AI superiority.
    • Modern missile technology makes aircraft obsolete. Missiles can be jammed or shot down, they also need to be guided to the target.

  • YHL6965
    Eh, I think it's better to have multiple ships than a big meaty one in most cases. I think naval warfare follows a similar path to aviation : big beefy machines used to be good with the technology of the time (big bombers, big battleships) but, now, it's all about precise strikes from as far away as possible and I think a battleship would get focus fired easily while not bringing much to the table and not be very cost effective. But hey, Americans are known for their fancy expensive material that is only really useful in very specific situations. It's not my taxes who will finance that anyway so, ultimately, it's not really my problem.
    • Multiple ships are too easy taken out, multiple ships cost more. A 2020 battleship could easily provide precise strikes at gtester range than naval aviation.

    • YHL6965

      I'm really not so sure about that. Multiple ships mean multiple target so a biggest pain to take down. Besides, they can support each other more effectively, reposition faster. I really don't see the point of bigger ships nowadays.

    • YHL6965

      Also, I'm not sure about that ability to provide precise fire at greater ranges with artillery. I think railguns need field testing first before seeing them as miracle solutions, the same goes for lasers.

    • Show All
  • themaker39
    Lasers are forbidden by international law
    • Not for destroying suicide boats, uavs, missiles or enemy aircraft

  • The_White_Queen
    Er I guess so lol...🏏
  • Somethingwittty
    Then we can say "they sunk our battleship!" again
    • No Iowa class battleship was ever sunk. A lot of Aircraft carriers got sunk.

    • A 2020 battleship could have twin hulls.

    • It was a joke about the game battleship dude. Whoosh status unlocked lol

  • I agree
  • pizzalovershouse
    not my my topic
  • yh ok
  • danrush
    Why trump should build the wall
  • Anonymous
    it would perfect
  • Anonymous
    They should continue to counter everyone else’s advancements. I heard chinas build a Great Wall now in the South China Sea. We need to continue keeping all sides in check.
  • Anonymous
    We already waste tons of money on our military. Time to cut it back
    • Either we spend money on the military or we withdraw it from over seas and stop intervening and policing the world. China isn't backing down in the south China sea.

    • Anonymous

      Maybe if we didn't alienate our allies, we wouldn't need an army that spends so much

    • Our allies tend to rely on us to defend them. and fight their battles. Maybe time for that to change.

    • Show All
  • Anonymous
    Where will the funds come from? Upkeep and maintenance. Plus they're too busy with his stupid wall lol
Loading...
Loading...