New Battleships

[si1491]

It looks kind of stealth?

As stealth as it can be. The superstructure exterior (top parts of the ship) look to be angled similar to modern designs like the DDG 51 class and the DDG 1000 (Zumwalt, only 3 built). These selected angles help deflect radar returns away from the source, making it more difficult to pick up. It may be a combination of composite exterior components (like the Zumwalt class) and actual hull structure components that have exterior mounted radar/sensors etc.
I don't currently see the diesel and gas turbine engine intakes and exhaust areas from the first renderings, maybe they are also behind some composite superstructure elements that help hide them.

I believe we can do a decent job of hiding from surface radar. Sonar signature and thermal signature might be more difficult, especially from well-designed acoustic tracking capabilities and satellites.

 

[si1491]

I’m rather surprised they are not nuclear powered

It may be due to a cost and power to weight ratio for desired performance capabilities. Nuclear would be nice but I think it requires a significantly more amount of money, manpower, training, and tracking. It definitely would require less refueling (for power) and could "effectively" go further without needing a fueling hit (maybe for the aircraft JP-5 fuel, parts, and food). Depending on how the electric power and propulsion plant is designed, along with fuel storage capabilities, will determine its effective range. The range of the ship is something I didn't see listed.

 

[Shrike9]

It may be due to a cost and power to weight ratio for desired performance capabilities. Nuclear would be nice but I think it requires a significantly more amount of money, manpower, training, and tracking. It definitely would require less refueling (for power) and could "effectively" go further without needing a fueling hit (maybe for the aircraft JP-5 fuel, parts, and food). Depending on how the electric power and propulsion plant is designed, along with fuel storage capabilities, will determine its effective range. The range of the ship is something I didn't see listed.

I’m sure cost comes into play as well as longer build time and more training

As slow as the US has gotten in ship building & how painstaking slow at building subs they are, it seems to be overly optimistic to get 2 built as soon as they say

 

[97prizm]

I thought they were rendered obsolete even before WW2 started? No expert.

The supposedly greatest and largest battleship was the Japanese Yamato. It was sunk by airplanes .

As was the Tirpitz

 

[si1491]

And I quote: "They'll be the fastest, the biggest, and by far 100 times more powerful than any battleship ever built," Trump claimed during the announcement at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida."

So what is a civilian supposed to think?

I don't blame you or anyone else. The average civilian heard "Battleship" and reverted to what they have read, learned on TV, and in history about the last battleships that were used.
Navy, Navy affiliated personnel, and other military knowledgeable folks looked at the specifications and generally knew right away how different this version is.

 

[si1491]

I’m sure cost comes into play as well as longer build time and more training

As slow as the US has gotten in ship building & how painstaking slow at building subs they are, it seems to be overly optimistic to get 2 built as soon as they say

We shall see.

 

[ripcord]

"G 1"

"You sank my battleship!"

 

[Shrike9]

We shall see.

Yep & if you look at historical ship building data like the Constellation class frigate or the Ford class carriers let alone the new Columbia submarines & Virginia class boats

Americans suck at building ships

 

[nickaluch]

So have the Marines but they still have vehicles designed for beach landings

I think to win any conflict you need bodies on the ground you can't win by air n sea alone. I guess it's one of the ways to accomplish this

 

[4wd]

Yep & if you look at historical ship building data like the Constellation class frigate or the Ford class carriers let alone the new Columbia submarines & Virginia class boats

Americans suck at building ships

Hence my early comments on Korea - I worked in all 3 of their major shipyards - and there is a reason they are moving in to reorganize our shipyards - they mastered a skill we let dwindle away …

 

[Astro14]

And I quote: "They'll be the fastest, the biggest, and by far 100 times more powerful than any battleship ever built," Trump claimed during the announcement at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida."

So what is a civilian supposed to think?

You’re supposed to think that it is a newly designed, newly built ship with new weapons.

Now go back and read all of the posts in this thread.

Many of them are predicated on a complete misunderstanding of that announcement and are wildly off topic as a result.

 

[Astro14]

I’m rather surprised they are not nuclear powered

Me, too, but the construction cost on nuclear power is very high - and takes years because of long-lead items like the reactor vessels - so, if we want to see these soon, they need to be conventional.

 

[4wd]

Me, too, but the construction cost on nuclear power is very high - and takes years because of long-lead items like the reactor vessels - so, if we want to see these soon, they need to be conventional.

Yep, dual fuel turbines won’t become critical path in construction

 

[SC Maintenance]

You’re supposed to think that it is a newly designed, newly built ship with new weapons.

Now go back and read all of the posts in this thread.

Many of them are predicated on a complete misunderstanding of that announcement and are wildly off topic as a result.

OK. Is the mis-communication the fault of those receiving the message?

 

[Astro14]

OK. Is the mis-communication the fault of those receiving the message?

No. The irrelevance of the posts is from those who decided to voice their opinion before equipping themselves with the facts of the situation. It’s not about receiving the message - it’s about not even knowing there was a message - not knowing that the administration had announced new battleships, not knowing what the design criteria were on this announcement - but having an opinion about battleships anyway.

 

[SC Maintenance]

No. The irrelevance of the posts is from those who decided to voice their opinion before equipping themselves with the facts of the situation. It’s not about receiving the message - it’s about not even knowing there was a message - not knowing that the administration had announced new battleships, not knowing what the design criteria were on this announcement - but having an opinion about battleships anyway.

I will politely disagree. I am clearly a non knowledgeable person, just a civilian. However I did go to the navy website, and its really not any more clear than the "announcement". https://www.goldenfleet.navy.mil/

Its not as long as the Iowa class, nor as fast as the Iowa class. It has lots of cruise missiles - including nuclear ones. I assume we can launch those from surface ships currently? Rail guns are cool - I assume they have tested them further than the limited tests they ran years ago. I am unsure where I would go to equip myself with more facts?

I did re-read all the posts. Other than maybe wandering off topic on some "battleship" history (that is what the guy in charge called it), I don't really see anything too off base? Obviously I don't understand the issue.

 

[Passport1]

I'm no military strategist boffin or naval architect but it seems to me that the platforms for our most lethal weapons are already afloat. How many times do we need to make the rubble bounce? A porcupine has just enough quills to insure its tranquility. More adds nothing.

 

[IndyFan]

Ukraine took out a Russian sub with a underwater drone

In port. Not at sea.

That's the nature of weapons and war. New tech, new countermeasures. Old tech sometimes comes back, too, and finds a use.

 

[Ronsant]

LOL didn't we already have the

So many opinions. So few based in the reality of what was announced today.

We are not talking about the Iowa class - we are talking about a large, heavily armed, surface combatant.

This warship: https://www.goldenfleet.navy.mil/

MK-41 VLS can carry everything from Tomahawk Cruise missiles, to SM-6 Surface to air missiles, to SM-3 Anti-satellite missiles (and, in Case you missed it, the USS Lake Erie shot down a satellite in 2008) and several other types of missiles.

The large missile magazines offer new capabilities. Railguns are an impressive capability, with a range of roughly 200 miles and large magazine capacity, they bridge the gap between conventional guns and directed energy weapons, which this ship will also have.

So, if you want to talk about what was announced today, stick to the topic of what was announced today, not some off topic misconception about bringing back the Iowa class.

So not a battleship in the historical sense, but a “ship for battle”. With these new weapons, might this be a way to project power without having to send a carrier group to a geography?

 

[Ronsant]

I’m rather surprised they are not nuclear powered

Same, diesel and gas seems like old tech at this point. Why risk running out of fuel when we have submarines and ships powered by nuclear that don’t need refueling for years?