Iowa battleships

[Nickle]

President Trump is on live TV right now announcing the construction of two brand new battleships. 

Lazer guns, nuclear weapons,  artificial intelligence, supposedly way bigger than a Iowa.

Old Iowas were a tight fit in Panama canal so I guess we will see.

[Utah Bob #35998]

On 11/5/2025 at 11:18 PM, Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 said:

Targets

Ridiculous idea. 

[Cypress Sun]

7 minutes ago, Nickle said:

President Trump is on live TV right now announcing the construction of two brand new battleships. 

Lazer guns, nuclear weapons,  artificial intelligence, supposedly way bigger than a Iowa.

Old Iowas were a tight fit in Panama canal so I guess we will see.

 

I just saw that on the news. This thread was the first thing I thought of.

[Utah Bob #35998]

On 11/6/2025 at 9:31 AM, Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 said:

what can a battleship do that can't be done by less expensive platforms?

Pose for gigantic photos.

[Nickle]

The 2.5 year build on these seems like a impressive deadline for all the new technologies.  Seems incredible actually. 

You guys will have enough firepower to take on the galaxy . 

[Sedalia Dave]

Maybe in 2 1/2 Decades. 

[Cypress Sun]

11 hours ago, Nickle said:

The 2.5 year build on these seems like a impressive deadline for all the new technologies.  Seems incredible actually. 

You guys will have enough firepower to take on the galaxy . 

 

10 hours ago, Sedalia Dave said:

Maybe in 2 1/2 Decades. 

If it sounds too good to be true, it usually isn't true. It's not even designed beyond a drawing that looks like a 10 year old drew it. 

Remember Reagan's "Star Wars"?

I seriously doubt that this ever comes to fruition.

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

 

I didn't really think it could get any more STUPID.  I was wrong.  I seriously doubt it will ever come to fruition.  Like many other announced "Pipe Dreams." 

[Eyesa Horg]

13 hours ago, Utah Bob #35998 said:

Pose for gigantic photos.

Big beautiful gigantic photos!

[Nickle]

I'm just wondering what the purpose is?

If the whole world got together and said we are going to war against America. Well my money would  be on America. 

This talk of needing Greenland for security.  Russia is on verge of collapse.  There is no threat there. China has a big army that are all greenhorns. Most of these countries like north Korea can't even feed themselves.  

So this new navy would be a boom to rustbelt states. Would be a boom to coal and steel industries.  

Could the plan be that countries that want to do business with America must pay protection money or face huge tarrifs?

[Stump Water]

15 hours ago, Nickle said:

supposedly way bigger than a Iowa

 

Trump's new barge

 

 

Iowa

 

 

'Bout the same.

[Nickle]

21 minutes ago, Stump Water said:

 

Trump's new barge

 

 

Iowa

 

 

'Bout the same.

I understand the getting away from aluminum  because America has to import aluminum.  

The Iowas had 16 inches of armor. I forget how much deck armor but much more than other battleships.  In the bridge of New Jersey the armored tower I think is 18 inches of solid steel and the little door to get into it weighs 4000 pounds and is hydraulic powered. 

These new Trump class battleships are not really a traditional battleship.  Trump mentioned they would have 6 inches of armor.  

6 inches is less than half the armor of the very first Dreadnoughts built 125 years ago.

WW2 Yomato battleships had turret armor 26 inches. 

WW2 cruisers which were not considered armored and couldn't face a real battleship had about as much armor as these new Trump Battleships.

 

[Trailrider #896]

And not even nuclear powered! Wonder how many fleet tankers will be required to deploy with one of these pocket battleships? Will Congress approve the funding? Especially if the balance of power in the House shifts.

Merrry Christmas, Pards!

[Nickle]

1 hour ago, Trailrider #896 said:

And not even nuclear powered! Wonder how many fleet tankers will be required to deploy with one of these pocket battleships? Will Congress approve the funding? Especially if the balance of power in the House shifts.

Merrry Christmas, Pards!

In the 60s ,the navy was building nuclear cruisers.  But in the 90s they went away from nuclear because they determined the money would be better spent on conventional destroyers.

 

[Sedalia Dave]

This is all smoke and mirrors to get our potential adversaries to do stupid stuff in an attempt to counter it. 

[Chantry]

Do we even have any shipyards not already being used that are big enough?

[Abilene Slim SASS 81783]

57 minutes ago, Chantry said:

Do we even have any shipyards not already being used that are big enough?

No

[Nickle]

This guy lists so many problems with what President Trump announced that I can't remember them all.

I was initially all for using the Iowas.  Navy already has them and they are in good condition. Main reason was because the Iowas are just gorgeous.   Sort of like why scrap 1911s for some plastic 9mm or why throw away a good old truck that's in great condition for some  new plastic truck. 

But to spend 5 billion on each of these heavy missile cruisers  just seems like a waste of resources.  Whole thing if you watch the video I posted doesn't make sense. 

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

 

Yep.  More "Smoke and Mirrors" to divert attention away from some of the other goings on.  You know, like "Lets build a really BIG but USELESS Ball Room"  Or, > > > > > >

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

On 12/22/2025 at 8:51 PM, Nickle said:

President Trump is on live TV right now announcing the construction of two brand new battleships. 

Lazer guns, nuclear weapons,  artificial intelligence, supposedly way bigger than a Iowa.

Old Iowas were a tight fit in Panama canal so I guess we will see.

The new channels are 180’wide.

[Stump Water]

https://babylonbee.com/news/check-out-these-amazing-features-on-the-new-trump-class-battleship

[Cypress Sun]

6 minutes ago, Stump Water said:

https://babylonbee.com/news/check-out-these-amazing-features-on-the-new-trump-class-battleship

 

Now that's funny!!!!

 

 

[Chantry]

17 hours ago, Abilene Slim SASS 81783 said:

No

Got this from the U.S. Naval Institute after you responded

 

"Where to build Defiant? HII Ingalls Shipbuilding, which builds bigger amphibious warships, could handle the size of the ship. Likewise, HII Newport News Shipbuilding could build the ships but their graving docks have been configured for carrier construction. Hanwha Ocean’s Philly Shipyard inherited graving docks from the Philadelphia Navy Yard big enough to build the Trump-class but is still tooling up for higher-end Navy work. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works built the Zumwalt-class but can they build a ship twice the size?"

[Nickle]

19 minutes ago, Chantry said:

Got this from the U.S. Naval Institute after you responded

 

"Where to build Defiant? HII Ingalls Shipbuilding, which builds bigger amphibious warships, could handle the size of the ship. Likewise, HII Newport News Shipbuilding could build the ships but their graving docks have been configured for carrier construction. Hanwha Ocean’s Philly Shipyard inherited graving docks from the Philadelphia Navy Yard big enough to build the Trump-class but is still tooling up for higher-end Navy work. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works built the Zumwalt-class but can they build a ship twice the size?"

But aren't the shipyards that could do it already booked to do other navy ships?

[Trailrider #896]

And where is the money coming from? I'd bet Congress won't appropriate the funds needed to complete such a program.

Merry Christmas, Pards!

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

54 minutes ago, Trailrider #896 said:

And where is the money coming from? I'd bet Congress won't appropriate the funds needed to complete such a program.

Merry Christmas, Pards!

fundraising dinner in the new ballroom

[Chantry]

2 hours ago, Nickle said:

But aren't the shipyards that could do it already booked to do other navy ships?

 

In theory Hanwha Ocean’s Philly Shipyard, but a lot of money would need to be spent to equip it to the level to handle the published size of the ship.  A guess would be that the Hanwha shipyard could be made ready by the time the design is finalized and ready to be built.

 

I doubt Congress would fund it, although that would be a lot of well paying jobs for PA and NJ

[Utah Bob #35998]

On 11/6/2025 at 4:04 PM, Abilene Slim SASS 81783 said:

Missiles and drones. Don’t have to sink it, just disable it. Germans did that with their Fritz-X glide bombs in the Mediterranean.
 

Like Old Salty said, these things were conceived in an another era. Like mounted cavalry and ironclads that were fearsome in their own day, these ships days are past. 
 

My last post on this topic. 
 

Well Special Forces did participate in a successful cavalry charge in Afghanistan . But of course it’s not a large scale type tactic. 😉

I’m afraid weapon technology has far exceeded ship tech since WW2.. The Great White Fleet days are over. I shudder to think of where the money would come from to build a new group of Dreadnoughts.

And to what end? To curb the hideous threat from Venezuela? 😂

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

Something about this reminds me of what Khrushchev called a Cult of Personality, when he came ito power everything in USSR was Stalin, Stalin this, Stalin that, Stalin’s name was everywhere.  
 

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

11 hours ago, Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 said:

Something about this reminds me of what Khrushchev called a Cult of Personality, when he came ito power everything in USSR was Stalin, Stalin this, Stalin that, Stalin’s name was everywhere.  

Khrushchev destroyed many Stalin statues. Putin is rebuilding them.

[Chantry]

I wonder if there would have been as much discussion about the proposed ship if had been called the next generation missile cruiser.   I also disagree on the vulnerability of front line warships to drones and missiles.

 

* Arleigh Burke Flight III destroyer - 9700 tons, about the size of a pre-War II American light cruiser or heavy cruiser

* Zumwalt destroyer - 15, 600 tons, bigger than the Cleveland class cruiser of WWII and about the size of the         Baltimore class heavy Cruiser.

*Ticonderoga class missile cruiser - 9600 tons, about the size of a pre-War II American light cruiser or heavy cruiser

CG (X) proposed, but cancelled in 2010, missile cruiser - 20,000 - 25,000 tons.

 

Given the growth of current missile destroyers compared to their WWII predecessors,  a 2025 designed missile cruiser replacement at 30,000 -35,000 isn't  outrageous, especially given the need for the ship to serve anywhere between 35-50 years and the needed room for both growth and to produce the necessary power electrical power to operate the current lasers and rail guns and future, more energy intensive lasers and rail guns*.

 

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun

 

Apparently the Japanese have managed to find a way to extend "barrel life" which seems to have been a major barrier in American rail gun research and testing.  The US is still funding railgun research, but at a much lower rate.

[Nickle]

35 minutes ago, Chantry said:

I wonder if there would have been as much discussion about the proposed ship if had been called the next generation missile cruiser.   I also disagree on the vulnerability of front line warships to drones and missiles.

 

* Arleigh Burke Flight III destroyer - 9700 tons, about the size of a pre-War II American light cruiser or heavy cruiser

* Zumwalt destroyer - 15, 600 tons, bigger than the Cleveland class cruiser of WWII and about the size of the         Baltimore class heavy Cruiser.

*Ticonderoga class missile cruiser - 9600 tons, about the size of a pre-War II American light cruiser or heavy cruiser

CG (X) proposed, but cancelled in 2010, missile cruiser - 20,000 - 25,000 tons.

 

Given the growth of current missile destroyers compared to their WWII predecessors,  a 2025 designed missile cruiser replacement at 30,000 -35,000 isn't  outrageous, especially given the need for the ship to serve anywhere between 35-50 years and the needed room for both growth and to produce the necessary power electrical power to operate the current lasers and rail guns and future, more energy intensive lasers and rail guns*.

 

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun

 

Apparently the Japanese have managed to find a way to extend "barrel life" which seems to have been a major barrier in American rail gun research and testing.  The US is still funding railgun research, but at a much lower rate.

In other militaries.  Type of new purchased aircraft, ships,equipment.  It's political and decision-making is done by politicians instead of people who are actually in the military. 

Even promotion in other militaries is not really based on performance of individuals as much as its about other things.  Terrible way to do things.

About huge targets 

I'm trying to remember the name. But in the 80s didn’t the American Navy try to sink one of their obsolete carriers?  They used it for target practice.  Shot cruise missiles into it. Because of the size and way the carrier was built.  Took a lot over period of days to sink it.

Kiroff cruisers that Ukrainians blew up only have splinter protection.  No armor.

On these Trump class ships. I'm seeing build cost estimates from 5 to 15 billion  per ship.

That's alot of bucks for a bang.

Iowa  could have been brought back for price of a new frigate.

[Nickle]

 

These guys whoever they really are. They give logic or reasons for the new Trump Cruisers. 

 

 

[Sedalia Dave]

If you want to know why China can afford to build like this. Just look at the trade imbalance between China and the rest of the world.
 

The developed nations of the world are fully funding China’s military expansion. 

[El Chapo]

On 12/25/2025 at 9:50 AM, Nickle said:

Iowa  could have been brought back for price of a new frigate.

 

Iowa has a destroyed turret and there are no parts to fix it.

 

It also needs over 2,000 men to man.  Any savings would be eaten up in no time.

 

We need to build an entirely brand new, nuclear powered, 60,000+ ton battleship if we're serious about bringing back the battleship.