It's like a Burke destroyer, except that it's much more expensive and there are fewer yards that can build it
>>526176764>What's the point of this thing?Transfering money from the goyim to the military-industrial complex
>>526176764needs a larger beam for augment capability
Trump's name goes on the back.
>>526176764Better ocean crossers that dont need to refuel like destroyers. Theyre actually cruisers that should replace the cold war fossils of the the ticonderoga class. Thats literally it.
you know who else commissioned pocket battleships
>>526177256Does it really need to displace >35,000 tons to have adequate range? A Ticonderoga displaces less than 10,000 tons, and has a nominal range of 6,000 nautical miles at 20 knots according to the wiki
>>526176764why don't they make this ship bigger so they can put more and bigger guns on it?
>>526177613This is the opposite of a pocket battleship. It's supposed to displace >35,000 tons and yet be barely better armed than a warship displacing 10,000 tons
>>526176764It looks like its just meant to go to thirdies, lob missiles at them, then leave. Which is the only form of interaction we ever should've had with any of them in the first place.
>>526178432A B-52 or a Burke can do that
>>526177056Extremely based game that I'm surprised I don't see referenced here more often
>>526178501Yeah but they can't loiter nearby in-case some survive.
>cannon the size of Texasholy based, didn't know we had these
>>526178759Well, actually you don't. The US railgun project was canceled in 2021 because the problem of rapid barrel wear could not be fixed.Which makes this warship concept even weirder
>>526176764>No Wave Motion GunIt so ogre
>>526178943i hated how in Battleship Yamato that they used lasers for their main weaponry. If battleship doesn't use a big GUN it's not a battleship.
>>526176764>What's the point of this thing?>it's much more expensiveyou answered your own question
>>526179978I guess HII will be a shoo-in for the contract
>>526176764Someone explain to me why ships are still being built when submarines are superior and far more lethal in every way.
>>526176764It's literally a battleship only in name and is basically 1000% odds a cruiser design that got rebadged to 'battleship' to entice Trump to fund it.The cost is stupid yeah but I bet like a third of it is estimated cost for the railgun and its ammo. Of which they are cool as a concept but in practice I don't think anyone has fixed the barrel overheating problem and even with their 200 mile range I mean, tomahawks go 500 miles already all day. Waste of VLS space for a weapon there just for the cool factor. The lasers make sense and in fact may be crucial to address the potential of drone swarming attacks. But the railgun has gotta fucking go and is there only so they could tell Trump it has cannons like the old days.
>>526182061Communication and detection work totally different underwater. As in no radar or GPS. Surface vessels can carry big ass radar and be basically floating air denial and missile interceptor systems, also physically block other surface vessels etc to do blockades and boardings of vessels to enforce them. They also carry food and can freely coordinate restocks, visit whatever ports anywhere etc where subs are very limited logistically.That being said, a Virginia attack sub is about 1/5th the price of the trump battleshit. They can get ten ships or fifty attack subs to address a Pacific naval war where the objective would be to halt a blockade/invasion hence sink as much enemy tonnage as possible and I think there is no fucking way ten cruisers would sink more ships than fifty subs. But we have to live with the reality Trump understands defense and strategy basically like an eight year old.
>>526176764>Railgun>extreme range weapon >Navy was talking about >200 miles>defeated by earth's curvatureGreat weapon for a ship.
>>526182595Lasers are probably nice, but lasers should be complemented by other anti-air/anti-drone weapons as well, in case the weather is foggy, right?Given Iron Dome and other similar systems, I'm not sure how easy it is to intercept large, long-range railgun/gunpowder shells. If they are more difficult to shoot down than long-range missiles, then that would be a use case for them.
its a big stinking piece of shit. Battleships have been and will continue to be outdate tech with no place in modern combat. the future of combat is massive missile and/drone carriers. Think protoss carriers from SC1. this also opens up a lot of non traditional combat vessels for use. Got an old oil tanker laying around? stuff it full of drones, toss some radar and coms systems on it, and boom you can project power with hundreds of thousands of drones and or hundreds of missiles. modern combat is quickly moving away from LOS based attacks and moving towards all over the horizon capabilities.
