- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How do you protect Battleships in the modern era? Trump building 25
Posted on 12/22/25 at 6:13 pm to PsychTiger
Posted on 12/22/25 at 6:13 pm to PsychTiger
quote:I can explain exactly why I think this is a dumb idea without mentioning Trump once. You should be able to explain why it’s a good idea under the same constraint.
It doesn’t matter what is proposed. They will hate it because Trump.
This has nothing to do with “knowing more than military leaders” and everything to do with whether the idea makes sense on its own merits. If there were a program of record, a Navy request, or even a coherent description tied to existing doctrine, that would be something to debate. What’s been described instead is a very large surface ship that requires escort by Aegis ships and strikes remotely with missiles. That is not controversial analysis. That is simply how modern surface combatants already operate.
The problem is structural. Concentrating more firepower into one hull does not increase survivability in a missile and submarine environment. It increases risk. That is why the Navy moved toward distributed firepower across destroyers, cruisers, submarines, and carriers instead of building ever larger single targets. That logic holds regardless of who is president.
If the ship needs Aegis cruisers to protect it, then those cruisers are already doing the hard work. If it adds “more firepower,” the question is why that firepower is better concentrated in one expensive, high-value target rather than spread across multiple cheaper, harder-to-kill platforms. If it strikes remotely like a carrier but does not carry aircraft, then it lacks the one unique justification carriers actually have for their size.
None of this changes based on who proposed it. Physics, cost, and naval doctrine do not care who you vote for.
So if this is a good idea, make the case without defaulting to “people just hate it because Trump.” Explain what concrete problem this solves better than existing destroyers, cruisers, submarines, and carriers. Until then, dismissing criticism as partisan is just liking it "because Trump."
0
Posted on 12/22/25 at 6:18 pm to Penrod
quote:
They will be more like aircraft carriers in that they will be protected by a fleet that carries defensive weapons.
With the advances in drone tech, who is to say that in the long run aircraft carriers will be obsolete.
The need would be for a ship just as big, armed to the gills with a ship load of drones and high-tech weapon systems, protected by the DDGs.
(IMO - this isn't his idea, he's just the bearer of the news and putting his name on it)
This post was edited on 12/22/25 at 6:20 pm
Posted on 12/22/25 at 6:18 pm to ItTakesAThief
How do you protect any surface ship?
Posted on 12/22/25 at 6:19 pm to Thoresten
quote:
Government pays my bills.
Good for you, bubba
Posted on 12/22/25 at 6:25 pm to Thoresten
quote:
Roger the shrubber . Government pays my bills.
Saw earlier he is retired and lives in an apartment. Feel bad for the guy probably why he comes off as a loon.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 6:27 pm to ItTakesAThief
No chance we build 1, much less 25 of those
Posted on 12/22/25 at 6:27 pm to teke184
quote:
How do you protect Battleships in the modern era?
AEGIS cruisers perhaps?
It's a much more capable replacement, AESA radar equipped and a more heavily armed version of the Ticonderoga Class
Posted on 12/22/25 at 6:29 pm to Jugbow
He depends on the government for his money I’d feel the same way about trump if my life depended on government money
Posted on 12/22/25 at 6:30 pm to terd ferguson
Battleships as a launch platform for Drones
It’s about Parking a couple all around the gulf and South America to get our Hemisphere in order
It’s about Parking a couple all around the gulf and South America to get our Hemisphere in order
Posted on 12/22/25 at 6:37 pm to Thoresten
Definitely would make sense.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 6:47 pm to keks tadpole
One advantage of a battleship these days is the armor. You could active armor the thing and make it really damn hard to crack it open. Inside you could have gazillions of drones that can't be set off by a bomb smacking the deck.
Think of it as a city full of drones with drones not just doing attack jobs. They'd also be doing anti air defense 24/7. We really have to change the way we think about warfare at this point. Fast.
Still vulnerable to submarine drone attack though and I'm not sure how you mitigate that other than counter submarine drone working the same way the air defense ones would be.
Think of it as a city full of drones with drones not just doing attack jobs. They'd also be doing anti air defense 24/7. We really have to change the way we think about warfare at this point. Fast.
Still vulnerable to submarine drone attack though and I'm not sure how you mitigate that other than counter submarine drone working the same way the air defense ones would be.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 7:04 pm to ItTakesAThief
quote:
There is a vast array of weapons, missiles, planes and torpedos that can deal with large slow surface ships.
You think that BBs are somehow more vulnerable than CVNs? While I question their absolute value for the cost as a large gun platform, let's not pretend that literally every surface ship the USN sends out is equally as vulnerable as the next. Especially to long-range missiles (and now, drones).
Posted on 12/22/25 at 7:08 pm to Captain Rumbeard
quote:
One advantage of a battleship these days is the armor. You could active armor the thing and make it really damn hard to crack it open. Inside you could have gazillions of drones that can't be set off by a bomb smacking the deck.
Think of it as a city full of drones with drones not just doing attack jobs. They'd also be doing anti air defense 24/7. We really have to change the way we think about warfare at this point. Fast.
Still vulnerable to submarine drone attack though and I'm not sure how you mitigate that other than counter submarine drone working the same way the air defense ones would be.
If (BIG if) you can build “active armor” that defeats modern hypersonic weapons, why wouldn’t that same technology be better applied to smaller, cheaper platforms rather than one massive hull?
If the ship is essentially a floating city of drones providing 24/7 air defense and strike capability, why does that city need to be centralized instead of distributed across multiple ships, subs, and unmanned platforms that are harder to find and harder to lose all at once?
If drones are doing most of the work, what advantage does a giant armored surface ship provide that a carrier, amphib, or distributed drone network does not?
If submarine drones remain a major vulnerability and the proposed solution is more counter-drones, at what point does the defense stack become so complex and expensive that losing a single hull becomes catastrophic?
And if the future of warfare really is decentralized, autonomous, and fast-moving, why build a platform that concentrates people, drones, logistics, and command into one of the most visible targets on the ocean?
Posted on 12/22/25 at 7:13 pm to ItTakesAThief
And we still can’t field a competent escort/ASW to replace the older Burkes or the defunct Perry’s.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 7:16 pm to RogerTheShrubber
He isn’t a shipfitter, engineer or part of the planning yard.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 7:17 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:you're making the case against large platforms.
You think that BBs are somehow more vulnerable than CVNs? While I question their absolute value for the cost as a large gun platform, let's not pretend that literally every surface ship the USN sends out is equally as vulnerable as the next. Especially to long-range missiles (and now, drones).
If large surface ships are all similarly vulnerable to modern missiles, torpedoes, and drones, then what advantage does making one much larger and more expensive actually provide?
If survivability doesn’t scale meaningfully with size, why concentrate more capability, people, and cost into a single hull instead of spreading it across multiple platforms?
If a destroyer, cruiser, and carrier are all targetable in the modern threat environment, isn’t the rational response to reduce the consequences of losing any one ship rather than magnify them?
And if the argument is that carriers are still worth it despite that vulnerability, isn’t that because they provide a unique capability, mobile airpower, that no other platform can replace?
So what unique capability does a massive ship provide that justifies accepting the same vulnerability profile with far higher downside if it’s hit?
If there isn’t one, why would “equally vulnerable” ever be an argument for making something bigger instead of smaller and more distributed?
Posted on 12/22/25 at 7:36 pm to northshorebamaman
Kinda steel manning it to be honest. I have thought Carriers were obsolete for awhile now. I'm just trying to figure out what they would do this for knowing what we know about the direction of warfare. I agree smaller would be better. If you've got a big fleet asset like that you'll have to kill their satellites to stay hidden and they'll do the same to ours. Honestly I think the direction of the future in pretty much all things is distributed. Small units able to act independently but in synch. We're making humans obsolete.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 7:41 pm to Captain Rumbeard
quote:Yep.The “drone mothership” idea actually cuts against the core lessons of drone warfare.
Kinda steel manning it to be honest. I have thought Carriers were obsolete for awhile now. I'm just trying to figure out what they would do this for knowing what we know about the direction of warfare. I agree smaller would be better. If you've got a big fleet asset like that you'll have to kill their satellites to stay hidden and they'll do the same to ours. Honestly I think the direction of the future in pretty much all things is distributed. Small units able to act independently but in synch. We're making humans obsolete.
The whole advantage of drones is dispersion, redundancy, and low cost. You win by having many launch points, many sensors, and many platforms that are cheap enough to lose. Centralizing drones, control, logistics, and command on one massive surface hull does the opposite. It creates a single, high-value target where one successful hit degrades a huge portion of your capability at once.
If anything, drones argue for smaller ships, submarines, land bases, and expendable platforms operating in parallel. Turning them into a justification for a giant mothership misunderstands why drones are effective in the first place.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:01 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
So either it’s a literal battleship, which modern doctrine rejects, or it’s a remote-strike platform that already exists under different names and should not be described as a battleship at all.
I think it’s the latter.. Except it will have some new weapons systems. Should not be called a battleship
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:05 pm to ItTakesAThief
quote:I've not studied whether this battleship notion makes sense yet, but I doubt that its primary weapons will be the 16-inch guns of the Iowa class.
(Aircraft carriers) have stand off weapons and air assets for protection
Battleship guns have to pull right up to the target
It seems more likely that this "battleship" will be a missile platform and that its weapons would have at LEAST the range of an aircraft carrier.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News