US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

O

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
Virtup said:
The number of missiles carried on board does not match the displacement of the ship. This might indicate higher survivability; The ship might not get one-shotted by a hypersonic missile. It will also be much tougher against other threats such as subsonic stealth cruise missiles and water drones. Keep in mind, bigger ships are harder to sink, especially if they're not crammed to the brim with ammunition and other systems. And with the increased survivability requirements of the US navy (which caused the constellation disaster in the first place), I believe this new Trump class will be deserving of the classification of Battleship RELATIVE to other modern warships.
Click to expand...
PLA doesn't care for actually physically sinking the ship.

Mission kill is what it will be aiming.
For such an expensive, low quantity, and critical node ship of the US, it will surely receive a premium package of hypersonic missiles

Any such missile hitting, and it is probably a near 100% certainty that it will get mission killed.

So I don't think the survivability argument is valid here


Virtup said:
Another important thing that was mentionned by Phelan in the press release is that this will be a "command" ship, which could indicate that it might operate in coordination with other manned and unmanned surface vessels, serving as a central "node", kinda like a ship equivalent of an AWACS.
Click to expand...
But having such an expensive and limited numbers ship, it actually goes against the distributed lethality concept that the US has been following. If they concentrate all these functions into one big node, it will only help China by introducing such a big target that if mission killed would affect the entire battle ground


To be fair, I am not that against the entire concept. Something close to it is what I envision the next type 055 iteration to be, but that would only work for China as you can trust it's MIC to pump it out in reasonable numbers, good build speed, and relative cheap price.

If US has to spend almost a 10 billion dollars for a single ship and take god knows how many years to build it, it would be built in minimal numbers and China could easily take them out if specifically targeted. And once out of action, congrats, your Asia Pacific theater out of the blue now has a big hole

For US national conditions, cheaper, distributed lethality platforms is imo the way to go. Really bizarre seeing them go the opposite way now
 
Last edited:
A

AndrewJ

Junior Member
Registered Member
Apparently, Trump got inspired from Kim. Noticed the similarities? :cool:

Trump-class BBG:
2025-12-23_205006.jpg

Choe Hyon-class DDG, North Korea:
2025-04-30-KCNA-Missile-Test-with-Choe-Hyon.png


The Huuuge Portrait!
 
S

Soldier30

Captain
Registered Member
US President Donald Trump announced the launch of a large-scale construction program for the "Golden Fleet" and the Trump-class battleships. The new ships will be the largest in the history of the US Navy and will be equipped with hypersonic weapons, lasers, and capable of carrying nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, and railguns. It is worth noting that the last American battleship, the USS Wisconsin, an Iowa-class battleship, was decommissioned and transferred to a museum in 2006. The Iowa-class ships were decommissioned after World War II and periodically returned to service for service in the Korean and Vietnam Wars. The first of the new battleships will be named USS Defiant. The construction is planned to cost $26 billion. The photo shows the armament of the future battleships. Two ships will be built initially, with plans to build up to 25 battleships in the future. The displacement of the American battleships will be approximately 30,000-40,000 tons. By comparison, the Russian nuclear-powered cruiser Pyotr Velikiy (Project 1144M) displaces 25,860 tons. In addition to the new class of battleships, the "Golden Fleet" envisions increasing the number of other types of warships and building 15 submarines, including a more compact and maneuverable class of frigates, previously announced by the US Navy.

 
leonzzzz

leonzzzz

Junior Member
Registered Member
Virtup said:
The number of missiles carried on board does not match the displacement of the ship. This might indicate higher survivability; The ship might not get one-shotted by a hypersonic missile. It will also be much tougher against other threats such as subsonic stealth cruise missiles and water drones. Keep in mind, bigger ships are harder to sink, especially if they're not crammed to the brim with ammunition and other systems. And with the increased survivability requirements of the US navy (which caused the constellation disaster in the first place), I believe this new Trump class will be deserving of the classification of Battleship RELATIVE to other modern warships.

Another important thing that was mentionned by Phelan in the press release is that this will be a "command" ship, which could indicate that it might operate in coordination with other manned and unmanned surface vessels, serving as a central "node", kinda like a ship equivalent of an AWACS.

These two points are important in my opinion because it might indicate that the US realized they might never ever match China in sheer number of warships so it is better to focus on force multipliers instead. Phelan mentionned that he consulted with navy admirals and realized that this ship is what the navy actually needs, so it might be related to what I mentionned above. Or it might just be Trump's narcissism dialed to 100. But I found it curious that he mentionned that it was Phelan who came up with the battleship suggestion first, so there's that.
Click to expand...
Your biggest mistake is believing that this ship is actually economically, industrially and militarily viable, while it is so obvious that this is simply a 15 billion political sex vibrator for the commander in chief. It needs to be designed, built, tested and commissioned first before any slight hair of Chinese missiles touching it.

Just for reference, the USN spent 8 years just to fail at FFG(X).
 
T

tanino

New Member
Registered Member
Here, the only real winner is the wooden pedestal (perhaps the same one used to present the infamous rendering of the F-47). I think we need something better than a rendering.

I say this as someone whose first graphic design job at the age of 18 was to create airbrushed illustrations of the RAM-K (Soviet).

Several years have passed, and the chatter is still the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top