Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 Posted December 28, 2025 Posted December 28, 2025 I can't believe that the navy would give any more than lipservice to building a class of ships designed by a real estate dealer. 1 Quote
Abilene Slim SASS 81783 Posted December 28, 2025 Posted December 28, 2025 12 minutes ago, Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 said: I can't believe that the navy would give any more than lipservice to building a class of ships designed by a real estate dealer. I think that’s exactly what they’re giving it and little more. 2 1 Quote
Nickle Posted December 29, 2025 Author Posted December 29, 2025 2 hours ago, El Chapo said: 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. I meant Iowas. There are 4 of them. New Jersey just out of dry dock looks fantastic. I'm not sure about the other three. It's pretty expensive to maintain these true battleships as museum ships. To bad they couldn't be put to work in some capacity. Even light duty. The last time the Iowas were brought back into service the cost of bringing one Iowa back was same cost as a new frigate. But the 16inch shells are all destroyed now. The powder apparently is to old as well. With the decision to build new heavy cruisers I'm thinking the Iowas are dead horse now. Quote
Stump Water Posted January 13 Posted January 13 US Navy to set first Trump-class battleship schedule within 60 days The U.S. Navy is preparing to define the initial design schedule for the BBG(X) guided-missile battleship, also referred to as the Trump-class battleship, within the next 30 to 60 days, according to Huntington Ingalls Industries CEO Chris Kastner. 1 Quote
Nickle Posted January 14 Author Posted January 14 2 hours ago, Stump Water said: US Navy to set first Trump-class battleship schedule within 60 days The U.S. Navy is preparing to define the initial design schedule for the BBG(X) guided-missile battleship, also referred to as the Trump-class battleship, within the next 30 to 60 days, according to Huntington Ingalls Industries CEO Chris Kastner. They are already back peddling a bit in your link about the rail gun. I expect the 6 inch armor to end up being a belt or maybe dropped all together. Well that’s what battleship New Jersey guy is saying. Actually he is saying if this does get built and he doesn’t really believe it will but if it does then it’s basically going to end up a missile cruiser like navy has been wanting for last 50 years. The name battleship is more about getting President on board. 1 Quote
Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 Posted January 14 Posted January 14 https://www.amazon.com/BBN-63-Ross-Carson/dp/B0FM3ZWF8C 2 Quote
Abilene Slim SASS 81783 Posted January 14 Posted January 14 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 said: https://www.amazon.com/BBN-63-Ross-Carson/dp/B0FM3ZWF8C Sounds like the Japanese sci-fi tv series, “Space Battleship Yamato” 😊 Edited January 14 by Abilene Slim SASS 81783 2 2 Quote
Abilene Slim SASS 81783 Posted January 14 Posted January 14 Adding on, this is from an internet search illustrating the Yamato has a similar nostalgic pull in modern culture as the Iowas. “The battleship Yamato remains a potent cultural symbol in modern Japan, representing national pride, technological prowess, hubris, and tragic sacrifice, appearing in films (like Otoko-tachi no Yamato), anime (Space Battleship Yamato), manga, and museums, often as a metaphor for Japan's wartime experience, its idealized spirit (Yamato Damashii), and the human cost of war, embodying the Japanese cultural theme of "nobility in failure". 1 1 Quote
Chantry Posted January 14 Posted January 14 21 hours ago, Nickle said: They are already back peddling a bit in your link about the rail gun. There some technological breakthroughs that need to happen for a usable railgun to reach production 1 Quote
Nickle Posted January 14 Author Posted January 14 2 hours ago, Chantry said: There some technological breakthroughs that need to happen for a usable railgun to reach production Even if they could get it to work and I'm no expert or authority on this. It would be good for shooting another ship. But not good to use like traditional artillery. Example like in Vietnam War. So the rail gun Even if it existed and worked. It doesn't really serve a purpose. What Navy in the known universe would currently send a surface ship to challenge American Navy or Carrier Group. It's never going to happen. Quote
Stump Water Posted January 18 Posted January 18 Quote “Battleships are obsolete. This is not us blowing the dust off the design of the Montana-class, which was to be a successor to the Iowa-class at the end of World War 2, and then we won World War 2, we didn’t need the Montana-class. It’s true we don't need that class. This is a ship we do need.” – RADM Derek Trinque, the U.S Navy Director of Surface Warfare (N96) https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2026/01/u-s-navys-top-brass-unveils-additional-bbgx-battleship-information/ Quote
Stump Water Posted February 21 Posted February 21 (edited) https://www.instagram.com/p/DUigCJ5ElWu/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ== . Edited February 21 by Stump Water 1 Quote
Pulp, SASS#28319 Posted February 22 Posted February 22 When my brother (Sawyer, for those that remember) was in ‘Nam he called in artillery support . They were close to the gulf. He never could say for sure, but he assumed the New Jersey answered the call. He’d heard incoming shells many times, this sounded like nothing he’d ever heard before. They impacted about 1/4 mile up the mountain from his position. After an impact a wave in the soil would come down the mountain, like a wave in water. 3 Quote
watab kid Posted February 22 Posted February 22 i suspect we are designing our current fleet to be effective regardless of past ships based only o what current needs and projected needs might be , at this point in time im not worried at a;ll 1 Quote
Chantry Posted February 22 Posted February 22 13 hours ago, Pulp, SASS#28319 said: When my brother (Sawyer, for those that remember) was in ‘Nam he called in artillery support . They were close to the gulf. He never could say for sure, but he assumed the New Jersey answered the call. He’d heard incoming shells many times, this sounded like nothing he’d ever heard before. They impacted about 1/4 mile up the mountain from his position. After an impact a wave in the soil would come down the mountain, like a wave in water. Either the USS New Jersey or the 8" gunned cruiser Newport News. Probably the New Jersey, because your description sounds familiar and I'm familiar with the USS New Jersey's history. 1 Quote
Grumpy Old Man Posted February 22 Posted February 22 Our chopper was called up North for Eastertide. They were flying just above the arc of the shells. The chopper did not have a heat deflector, the door gunner said do a 180, generally that was to avoid a heat seeker. The pilot said what was that for. DG said I never seen a big ship. Also ruined the rotor bearing. 1 Quote
Nickle Posted February 23 Author Posted February 23 Seems like the new way is what is being tried in Venezuela and maybe in Iran. Trying to get rid of key players without getting stuck in a conventional or what we would call a ground war. Lasers for drones take alot of electricity. The laser concept makes sense because a destroyer wouldn't use up all its missiles on cheap drones. Once missiles are fired the ship has to come home to get reloaded. But if no ground war then no need for artillery or 16 inch 50 cal. Even if in a ground war. Iowa would have to get dangerous close to shore to be in range. 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.