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

[Blitzkrieg_88]

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

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.

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.

• Anti-aircraft- Anti-ship missle defences

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.

• 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.

• 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.

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.

[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.

[Blitzkrieg_88]

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.

[Blitzkrieg_88]

A carrier has no armor, her aircraft can shot down and has no real defences. It used to be a carrier outranged a battleship but now a 2020 battleship can outrange a carrier and can shoot down her aircraft before they ever come within striking range and can jam their missiles. Your still thinking in terms of the last wars a mistake many battleship supporters of the time made failing to grasp the fact that technology had changed and the carrier was the prime naval vessel.
China' area denial works against carriers due to the lack of range their strike aircraft have not to mention that they can shoot naval aircraft down before they can get into range or with anti-ship missiles because the carrier has to come I to range. Not the case with a 2020 battleship able to fire ordance from it's rail guns far outside the range of Chinese missiles and aircraft.
A 2020 battleship is not a 1940 battleship. A battleshipis more likely going to be the one protecting the carrier and smaller ships by by being able to project force outside of enemy weapons and because they have no armor.

[nightdrot]

On your first point I apologize I can't quite follow what you wrote. Battleships are heavier but they lack the power projection capabilities as I mentioned. Fire the missile off the battleship - you're done. Launch a plane from a carrier deck and it can be recalled, it can be redirected, etc,

Yes, carriers are less armored, but that is the trade-off. That is why it is surrounded by cruisers, frigates, destroyers and - in a slightly different way - submarines. A more vulnerable target but more flexible firepower.

As to your other point - you sound like a WWII strategist. Perish the thought. That was exactly the problem at the battle of Midway. Japan's carriers were caught between land based airpower and the American carriers that were not expected to be there. That is a problem but it is not insurmountable as was seen at other different points during the war.

That is why the, "oh, that is so WWII " argument rings hollow. We still read Sun-tzu ans Clasewitz and Mahan and Mackinder for a reason.

A 2020 battleship is not a 1945 battleship. However, the laws of physics and strategy do not change. The mistake you are making is the assumption that technology does not simply modify, but erases the essentials of strategy and tactics. In that, the old WWII lesson applies - there is no such thing as the unthinkable ship.

[nightdrot]

Apologies for the type-o's:

This sentence - "We still read Sun-tzu ans Clasewitz and Mahan and Mackinder for a reason."

Should read - "We still read Sun-tzu AND CLAUSEWITZ and Mahan and Mackinder for a reason.

[Blitzkrieg_88]

Again your not getting what a 2020 battleship would be capable off. It's not using 16 inch naval artillery guns from ww2 that have a range of 20 miles, it's using batteries of Railguns firing kinetic darts and smart shells.
Again carriers are obsolete as their planes can be shot down. Electronic warfare technology means missiles can be jammed. Missiles can be shot down also. Cruisers, frigates and destroyers are support ships but can't take a hit and need refueling, they are also less capable and require large crews.
Carriers and submarines are no longer the priemum force projection assets and haven't been since the end of the cold war 30 years ago.
Again you sound like a WW2 strategist even quoting the battle of midway when carriers when the carriers reigned supreme. Your mistake is trying to apply ww2 tactics and strategies to the present when modern technology has made them obsolete in much the same way as many ww2 commanders tried to apply WW1 strategies and tactics to WW2 when the technology of the time made them obsolete.
Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.

[nightdrot]

Again, you make assertions that do not seem to bear up with the case. Carriers and submarines are not as dominant as the once were as the defense seems to be, once again, overtaking the offense. (We've been here before on that one, too.)

However, the notion that battleships are somehow the answer to that strikes me as implausible at best. It is not clear how the list of capabilities that you attribute to the modern battleship fundamentally offsets the dominance of the defense. For that matter, how they provide more flexibility than carrier based aircraft.

All of this on top of the simple fact that a battleship can be sunk. Period. So there is then no real gain in flexibility, a marginal gain perhaps in firepower, and the basics of ships - that they can be sunk - remains unchanged.

More bang at the margins, but that is about it. You would have to demonstrate how that offsets Chinese capabilities in a way that is superior to the speed and flexibility that we get with carriers.

To be sure, you have drawn up a legitimate list of battleship capabilities, but you have not measured it against the other side of the ledger.

[nightdrot]

P. S. You might find this article of interest:

nationalinterest.org/.../battleship-war-2026-should-us-navy-bring-back-ultimate-warship-52547

[Blitzkrieg_88]

Any ship can be sunk. If you look at the history of ww2 many carriers were sunk, the British lost one to a battleship. Battleships take a lot to sink, it's no joke the ordnance needed to sink the Bismark and Tirpitz.
The articles good but it's vague and focuses on the ww2 idea of a battleship not a 2020 battleship. Nor does it mention the cost of a carrier and what is basically a small airforce on everyone of how much less effective carriers are. You need to stop thinking of ww2 battleships and more about what a 2020 battleship could do.

[nightdrot]

To your first point, yes, ships can be sunk. The question then is how we allocate resources for the most effective ratio of risk to reward.

Aircraft carriers can be sunk, but so can battleships. The point being to discern which give us more tactical flexibility and strategic advantage to make the allocation of scarce resources in their defense more profitable.

Battleships - even in modern guise - are far less flexible than carriers for the reasons I have already noted. Throw into the mix, by the way, that in an era of limited defense budgets and a declining demographic of military age personnel, trade-offs are inevitable. (You may have seen how the military came up short in its recruiting numbers for the year. This was largely because of a growing economy but will only get worse as the population ages.)

Thus, in terms of both immediate strategic needs and long term force construction and maintenance we are forced to choose which would be the more optimal weapon. In a world without such resource constraints, you could make the case for both. In the real world of limited resources and thus limited options, investing in battleships would be both economically unwise and strategically feckless.

[Blitzkrieg_88]

Battleships in their modern guise are more effective than aircraft carriers and less expensive to operate.

[nightdrot]

Could you be specific? I do not see what a battleship delivers relative to a carrier.

The carrier can deliver mobility, speed, airpower, and depending on the carrier even limited gunfire (by which I mean cruise missiles), plus in their amphibious versions - assault ships - Marine contingents.

The battleships are not as fast, can deliver gunfire (in addition to missiles) and heavier firepower with far more limited range. They have no air assets at all. (In fact, to some degree that require air cover but cannot deploy their own.)

So, I am not trying to be difficult, but by any side-by-side comparison I don't see advantages so decisive that they would make the allocation of resources and the costs worth it.

[Blitzkrieg_88]

Modern aircraft carriers cruise at 30 knots, the ww2 Iowa class battleships cruised at 32 knots, a 2020 carrier with a nuclear reactor would be much faster. Carriers have a 500 mile range in range of enemy anti ship missiles and aircraft, a 2020 battleship could deliver ordnance at longer stand off ranges without risking $100 million dollar planes and pilots lives. Airpower is not what it was in ww2 with SAM missiles. SAMs shoot down multiple aircraft before they ever get into range, farmore efficiently interceptor fighters.
Basically a 2020 battleship would be tougher, more cost effective, have more fire power and be able to strike at longer ranges than an aircraft carrier. Plus a 2020 battleship would like in ww2 be able to operate a small contingent of Aircraft, probably 10 f35bs

[nightdrot]

Well, that does not sound all that convincing to me. In fact, I see more firepower but less flexibility and given modern weaponry I don't see how you could get by on a smaller screen of surface ships.

In any case, no need to rehash it and it is not that I don't think you can make a case. However, I don't think it is as conclusive as you suggest.

[Blitzkrieg_88]

Aircraft carriers have no flexibility because their aircraft get shot out of the air before they can reach their targets.

[nightdrot]

Yes, and battleships sit in the water to get hit from the air and the sea and have to rely on air cover from carriers to protect them. So again, on the basis of cost/benefit analysis and trade-offs, I don't see it.

There is no such thing as an unsinkable ship but it, in effect, takes an aircraft carrier to protect a battleship, I cannot foresee how that would work the other way around.

[October808]

You also have the Yamato which people believed could not be sunk. But down she went at the Battle of Okinawa. Air superioririty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcBW2r8-abk

[nightdrot]

@October808 That was my point as well. However, his reply is that is outdated thinking rooted in WWII. Yet, and I do not mean to offend him as he seems like a thoughtful and certainly polite fellow, I cannot see how the basic reality - ships can be sunk - was changed by new technologies.

So then you match the utility and flexibility of an aircraft carrier as against a battleship - the former providing its own air cover, the latter relying on air cover from somewhere - and do the cost/benefit analysis and I am hard pressed to see how modern battleships would be worth the trade-off. Yet there ya have it.

Anyhow, I am in agreement with you. Yet, for reasons I cannot fathom and which the "Asker" has tried, in all fairness, to patiently explain to me, modernity has rendered such thinking obsolete.

That said, I was once a staffer for the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and I would be surprised if you could get the votes out of Congress right now for battleships. Forget whether or not that President Trump would even request them.

[Blitzkrieg_88]

@October808 if the Yamato had radar, Sam missiles, lasers and radar controlled anti aircraft gattling guns she would never have been sunk, also the Yamato class was no match for the Iowa class.
You guys thinking is 70 years in the past, kinda like how many didn't understand the significance of Aircraft carriers over battleships in ww2.

[nightdrot]

If I might, that is the fallacy of the false alternative. If Yamato had 21st century technology, it could have defeated 20th century technology. That is a given.

However, a 21st century battleship will be facing 21st century aircraft and 21st century carrier battle groups and 21st century air-to-surface missiles. Ships still sink and the notion that you build armor that can resist that is the very same fallacy as the idea that 20th century battleships could armor up enough to resist 20th century air or submarine launched torpedoes.

THAT is the correct parallel. So then you are left to ask if battleships afford any greater flexibility or firepower such to make their construction and operating costs worth the risks as against the flexibility and firepower that carriers provide. The issue of flexibility being especially pertinent.

That is the proper comparison and I just don't see any advantage so decisive in the battleship over and against the carrier to make the costs and risks of constructing and operating the former any better now than it was, in relative terms, in 1945. The environments are different, but each battleship - the 1945 and the 2019 - operates in its own context. The 1945 ship does not operate in the 2019 context, and either way, the laws of physics apply in both contexts and both ships still sink.

[Blitzkrieg_88]

The Yamato was built on 1930s technology, no amount of updating could change that.
The 21st carrier is just as vulnerable to air to ship missiles, missiles can be jammed, missiles can be intercepted by sam missiles, by lasers or by the Phallanx gattling guns. 21st century aircraft aren't up to the job with the advantage swinging to battleships with the latest defensive tech, aircraft can be shot out of the air by SAMs before they come into range, carriers can be sunk before their aircraft come into range by Railguns. Ships still sink and this is more true about aircraft carriers who are now more vunerable than ever with naval aircraft now less effective than in the past.
What could be more flexible or produce more firepower than the ability to strike from the safety of range without the risk of being sunk which is what carriers must now do. The laws of physics apply of course but a 16 inch naval gunusing the explosive force of a cordite charge to hurl a shell has been vastly exceeded by the potential of a Railgun that can fire at extreme long range at a much less expensive price than an aircraft carrier sending an 80 million dollar each aircraft that requires fuel, armed, trained pilot ($9million each), tanker aircraft, fighter escort, AEW&C aircraft, $1million dollar+ per operation risking planes, pilots and an aircraft carrier for an operation that will fail when Sam's shoot down the strike fighters.

[nightdrot]

What has more range AND flexibility? A battleship still has to come within a certain range - certainly of land based missiles and airpower - to deploy its assets. It can still be suck.

A carrier must come within range, deploy its planes, which add yet more range, then send them to various points, fire and return to the same carrier which can then move, or to a different carrier or to a land base, according to circumstance.

One, to oversimplify a bit, is "point and shoot." The other is point, move, shoot, move again and so on. The range of the carries being extended by its aircraft, by the placement of other carriers and land bases.

Honestly, I see what you are saying, but given the relative contingencies I don't think you have clinched it. Throw in the relative costs in fuel, provisions, construction and repair and manpower and I just don't see that battleships bring that much of an advantage.

In a world of unlimited resources maybe. That, however, is not the world we live in.

[Blitzkrieg_88]

A 2020 battleship would out range an aircraft carrier and unlike an aircraft its striles would get through without interception. A carriers strike distance is 500 miles, if a carrier comes into range it gets sunk and it's aircraft shot down. A modern battleship would require less crew compared to an aircraft carrier, everything would be automated. A modern Battleship would only need to be refueled every 20 years just like aircraft carriers. Construction would cost the same as an aircraft carrier. In a world of finite resources the US navy is operating 11 carriers that are ineffective as a first ship of the line.

[nightdrot]

You sure about that?

The Israelis are really good at intercepting missiles for one thing. The odds are better but seeing that a carrier can stand off, and that a plane can stand off from that, and then fire from a stand-off point projectiles of a comparable nature to those of a battleship, how is the battleship safer.

Not sure where you got the range limits, but by your logic, don't build any ships at all and just send the projectiles from Hawaii and Alaska. Then you really save cash and manpower.

You are going to think me awfully stubborn, but you have a point, just not the clincher you seem to assume. This before we get into problematic points like automation and all the rest.

That said, just out of curiosity, what in your view, would a modern naval battle group look like. Number and composition of ships and suchlike?

[Blitzkrieg_88]

The Israelis intercept dumb unguided rockets.
The battleship can stand off at longer range than a carrier and hit it, an aircraft that gets within range to fire it's anti ship missiles is already within range of the battleships anti aircraft missiles, it's lasers and then any anti ship missiles fired at the battleship would be intercepted by SAMs, jammed by ECs, shot down by lasers, shot down by radar controlled phallanx gartling guns before it ever reaches the battleship.
A modern naval battle group would consist of a Battleship with possibly 3 or 4 destroyers cruisers or frigates with a heavy or light aircraft carrier in support, of course one or two subs in support.

[nightdrot]

On the first point, I was simply pointing out that there is ample anti-missile technology, including that deployed on warships.

Anyhow, the question instantly pops to mind, why have carriers of any kind in the battlegroup?

[Blitzkrieg_88]

The same reason there are carriers now, air support.
Anyway a modern 2020 Battleship is dependent on the digital battlefield the US military work on now, without it the 2020 battleship reduced to the range of its radar to hit targets. So other assets such as sattelites, aircraft, ships, drones, subs, even land forces as well as its own aircraft and drones would be necessary for it to fire and knock out targets in extreme range with its missile and rail gun batteries, striking first with devastating firepower. The US military already operates on this principle.

[nightdrot]

Well, okay. (A little unclear on the antecedent in your last couple of sentences, so if I am missing something I apologize.)

First, battleships were completely out of the Order of Battle by roughly the 1960s. They were only brought back - for about a decade - in the 1980s by the Reagan Administration as an expedient while it worked on rebuilding the armed forces after the drawdown of the post-Vietnam era. (That and to specifically counter the Kirov class crusiers deployed by the USSR until a comparable American cruiser could be built.)

So, in your formulation, we bring back the battleship and retain the carrier. Whereas before we retained the carrier and were able to dispense with the battleship. So if the battleship needs carrier protection but the carrier does not require battleship protection, how, with a limited budget and all the rest - the tech being applicable to both warships in what they permit the ships to do as well as how they make those ships vulnerable - does the battleship enhance the battlegroup.

From the sound of it, the battleship may add some firepower, but it needs the protection of other ships - including the carriers. Yet the carriers can continue to operate, protected by cruisers, destroyers, frigates and submarines - as the battleships must also be similarly protected. Yet the carrier provides its own air screen, but the battleship needs the carrier for its air defense.

Sorry, I just don't see your point. The marginal gain in firepower a battleship provides does not offset the need for surface ship and air cover that it requires. The carrier provides comparable firepower (and technology) absent the need for a battleship. In any cost/benefit analysis - not to mention tactical deployment calculations - the battleship does not add much value for the money.

[Daniela1982]

You also forget that the Yamoto was sunk completely with air planes and no surface vessels. But so were all the Japanese carriers too. So carrier or battleship, they all can be sunk.

[nightdrot]

No need to reply to this. In fact, strictly speaking this is not even really about what we discussed. However, I discovered the following purely by accident and thought you might enjoy it.

Believe me, while I do not agree with you on the issue of battleships in the contemporary Navy, I thought you made your case very well. So, figuring that you seemed to be interested in matters naval, I thought I would pass this along, just for fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=474RR1ETgyk

[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.

[Blitzkrieg_88]

Well said.

[sjoes006]

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.

[Blitzkrieg_88]

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.

[Blitzkrieg_88]

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

[sjoes006]

Turkey’s not our ally bro. Not anymore. Turkey was always a wild card. I support the people but not the regime.

I’m just not a fan of genocide, sorry,
Not my thing.

[Blitzkrieg_88]

Turkey is our ally which is why we have bases there and have been since the formation of NATO. Obama armed Kurdish terrorists.

[ThroughTheLookingAss]

While I 75% agree with everything you said (specifically how shit it is to abandon the Kurds), the other 25% is kinda glad Trump is a belligerent self-interested ass because the military industrial complex seems pretty intent on going to war with Iran or [insert any other country with potential justification here] and at least that hasn't happened... yet. But yeah his approval of Erdogan is... upsetting.

[Blitzkrieg_88]

@ThroughTheLookingAss it's not up to the US to approve of Edrogan, we can't interfere in they governance or elections of foreign nations.

[ThroughTheLookingAss]

Well yeah def agreed I was just talking about soft power techniques not anything forced. Though it's not like we've lived up to that promise/value anyway :I

The battleship is def awesome by the way, but beyond being that I think we're probably more than fine with our current carrier dominated naval strategies.

[19magic]

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

[Blitzkrieg_88]

Submarines can be detected by satellites. In ww2 aircraft carriers were sunk by battleships and submarines quite a lot.

[SwordShield]

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.

[Daniela1982]

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

[OlderAndWiser]

Fascinating discussion! Why do you think Naval planners would not entertain this idea?

[Blitzkrieg_88]

They may, the may not. It all depends on whatever secret technology and design is on the table.

[ThisDudeHere]

This seemed like well-researched.

[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.

[Blitzkrieg_88]

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.

[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.

[Blitzkrieg_88]

Arleigh Burke destroyers are still glass cannons.

[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.

[Blitzkrieg_88]

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.

[Blitzkrieg_88]

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

[JackSmy]

I'm still going with the never, twin-hull destroyer and corvette types, as many are in development.
HUGE battleships are still and always HUGE targets!
Today, with drones, and suicide bombers in motor boats, maybe the twin hulled, faster craft that are much smaller and cost MILLIONS less, are the best option.

[JackSmy]

NEWER, not Never, sorry!

[Blitzkrieg_88]

Drones can be jammed or shot down by lasers, same as suicide boats.

[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.

[Blitzkrieg_88]

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!

[Blitzkrieg_88]

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

[Blitzkrieg_88]

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

[Blitzkrieg_88]

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.

[Stoner710]

True but we also have a treaty to not put weapon in space, Aircraft carriers main purpose is to carry airplanes that what makes it use full otherwise we would have to set up an Air Force Base in every country we go to

[Blitzkrieg_88]

Well we've had treaties before.

[Unit1]

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.

[_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.

[Blitzkrieg_88]

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.

[Blitzkrieg_88]

Not if they are sunk...

[tartaarsaus]

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

[Blitzkrieg_88]

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.

[tartaarsaus]

That is obviously a way too large risk to take if hundreds of sailors are on it and probably over 10 billion invested in it

[Blitzkrieg_88]

An aircraft carrier carries 5000 sailors plus what's basically an airforce. Plus the price of an aircraft carrier.

[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.

[Blitzkrieg_88]

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.

[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.

[SwordShield]

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.

[SwordShield]

Not to mention NATO and the UN.

[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.

[Blitzkrieg_88]

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.

[Blitzkrieg_88]

More ships with weaker armor and defences mean more sunk ships. Can't support each other or reposition if they are sunk with a minor hit.

[YHL6965]

But armor greatly limits the mobility of your ship, there will always be weaponry to penetrate it, it greatly increases the cost. I'm really not sure about the usefulness of armor on ships nowadays.

[Blitzkrieg_88]

The Iowa class built in ww2 could do 32 knots, pretty fast even by today's standards, plus powered by a nuclear reactor it would never need to stop.

[YHL6965]

Top speed is one thing, but acceleration is another. More weight means more inertia and less maneuverability.

[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'.

[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.

[Blitzkrieg_88]

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

[Blitzkrieg_88]

It didn't hit the targets lol
B5 can't believe it only went for 4 series

[October808]

Five plus a bunch of TV movies, In the Beginning, Gathering, Thirdspace, A Call To Arms, River of Souls, Legend of the Rangers and a few others. And the spin-off 'Crusade' on TNT. It had a good run.

[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

[Blitzkrieg_88]

Best education I got was in the army.

[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

[John_Doesnt]

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?

[Blitzkrieg_88]

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.

[John_Doesnt]

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.

[John_Doesnt]

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

[Blitzkrieg_88]

Outdate article.

Howitzer

[John_Doesnt]

That's a show. The military does demonstrations. And a howitzer is not a railgun.

[Blitzkrieg_88]

Lol it's not a show. Howitzer are used in forward fire bases to give troops support.

[John_Doesnt]

You're gonna trust Trump over the actual military which says battleships are obsolete. Also, a howitzer is an antique French cannon.

[Kayla45]

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

[Daniela1982]

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

[Daniela1982]

The US just spent over a $Billion on a new Aircraft Carrier, just so they can stick their noses in other's business while homeless vets are freezing outside. I can't see why anyone would ever join the military if that is how the US Armed Forces treats it's retirees. It's down right disgraceful!

[Rissyanne]

@Daniela1982 what is disgraceful is liberals prioritizing illegals over American citizens

[Daniela1982]

@Rissyanne You don't have to preach to me, I live in California. :(

[Stoner710]

@Daniela1982 we got thoughs dang Canadian up here lol jk (Washington )