Trump 2.0

[jimbob]

We have the smoking gun for bad faith.

File #468 was initially released and then deleted.

https://x.com/OversightDems/status/2002430296172745079

And it is a not-very damning but distasteful photo including Trump with young woman in bikinis. Also there was no possible legal reason to redact this.

Then there is a photo of Bill Clinton and Michael Jackson with Diana Ross and three redacted kids.

Except that they are Ewan Ross and Michael Jackson's kids.

https://m.imdb.com/news/ni65628031/?ref_=nwc_art_perm

In fact Joseph Schmidt had been secretly filmed predicting this would happen

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/2 ... g-00666788

[jimbob]

So, to recap:

At least one Jane Doe has her name illegally left in the released files.

At least one shot of Clinton with redacted individuals should not have had anyone redacted as they were not victims but the kids of the other two identifiable people in the photo (Michael Jackson and Diana Ross)

And at least one photo of Trump (with young women or girls in bikinis) was removed, when there was no legal reason to do so.

It's almost as though the FBI is concentrating on trying to pretend that people other than Trump were far more important. And a smear campaign.

Yes, one Jane Doe has complained as her name was left in the released files.

[FlammableFlower]

Basically they couldn't have done a worse job than they have. They have acted like petulant teenagers.

[jimbob]

Basically they couldn't have done a worse job than they have. They have acted like petulant teenagers.

Peter Jukes of Byline Times described it as "extraordinarily malevolent" and "extraordinarily inept"

Meanwhile I have seen it claimed that the redaction was done by changing the background colour around the font to match

[FlammableFlower]

I've seen it claimed that due to the inept way it was done, it can be undone...

Also, as people have pointed out and complained about, they've released some stuff that was already out there. But worse, the new rereleases have more redactions for added pointlessness.

[Stranger Mouse]

You may have heard about the shocking segment on CECOT “detention centre” that 60 minutes pulled to butter up the Trump admin.

It was mistakenly broadcast in Canada so people have ripped the video. Here it is - well worth watching to the end where they show how they substantiated the claims. Well worth 13 minutes of your time

https://x.com/danavaneffen906/status/20 ... 93474?s=61

[jimbob]

The Trump class "battleship" is an even worse idea than I had thought.

Video by "perun" whose day job is in Australian military procurement.

https://youtu.be/qvUbx9TvOwk

[4piE-7]

The Trump class "battleship" is an even worse idea than I had thought.

Video by "perun" whose day job is in Australian military procurement.

https://youtu.be/qvUbx9TvOwk

"Nice big target" - every single submariner.

[IvanV]

You may have heard about the shocking segment on CECOT “detention centre” that 60 minutes pulled to butter up the Trump admin.

It was mistakenly broadcast in Canada so people have ripped the video. Here it is - well worth watching to the end where they show how they substantiated the claims. Well worth 13 minutes of your time

https://x.com/danavaneffen906/status/20 ... 93474?s=61

Here's an open archive link, in case you don't have an X login, or if it has been taken down, as many copies have.
https://archive.org/details/60minutes-cecotsegment

[jimbob]

The Trump class "battleship" is an even worse idea than I had thought.

Video by "perun" whose day job is in Australian military procurement.

https://youtu.be/qvUbx9TvOwk

"Nice big target" - every single submariner.

Yes, that was along the lines of my initial thinking, but he went into a lot more detail. About the infrastructure costs and impact on the rest of the navy

[dyqik]

The Trump class "battleship" is an even worse idea than I had thought.

Video by "perun" whose day job is in Australian military procurement.

https://youtu.be/qvUbx9TvOwk

"Nice big target" - every single submariner.

Not to mention every drone boat operator.

[Chris Preston]

Does anyone have battleships anymore? The Royal Australian Navy has none. The last battlecruiser it had was decommisioned in 1954. The Royal Navy also has none with HMS Vanguard being sold for scrap in 1960. For modern navies, this is an obsolete type of ship. The Chinese navy also appears to have no battleships.

[jimbob]

Does anyone have battleships anymore? The Royal Australian Navy has none. The last battlecruiser it had was decommisioned in 1954. The Royal Navy also has none with HMS Vanguard being sold for scrap in 1960. For modern navies, this is an obsolete type of ship. The Chinese navy also appears to have no battleships.

Nope and for very good reasons. The stated dimensions are very similar to the Iowa class, with less displacement as there isn't the armour.


Perun was talking about the possible mission and mostly, for the sake of argument, ignoring its vulnerability to submarines.

The powerplant seems limited for something armed with railguns and directed energy weapons. Compared to the Zumwalt, at least than half the displacement. And indeed the specifications of said weapons don't seem very future proof. It also seems to limit the amount of power available for radar etc.

Apparently, the main thing determining firepower is the number of vertical launch cells, and the 128 cells plus 12 hypersonic missiles isn't very impressive for the 35,000 tons compared to the 122 for the under 10,000 ton Ticonderoga class. Or the numbers planned for the 14000 ton DDG(X) that this is supposed to supersede.

Then there's the question about this weird mix of long range and unproven short range weapons.

Meanwhile it seems that the biggest problem is that it would also use up shipyard capacity which could be better used in building more hulls.



In short, the main problem isn't the reliance on multiple unproven technologies in a single hull (which I guess is an achievement of sorts). Nor is it the odd mix of these hypothetical systems being optimised for relatively close range use and long range missiles. But the actual impact of trying to build these vessels instead of other ones that are easier to build. And the planned numbers compared to the mandated size of the USN.

---------


Separately, you have the replacement for the planned Constellation class, which apparently seems to be recreating some of the mistakes of the LCS in being under armed, because it's based on a coast guard cutter, and seems to lack any vertical launch systems.

[jimbob]

Does anyone have battleships anymore? The Royal Australian Navy has none. The last battlecruiser it had was decommisioned in 1954. The Royal Navy also has none with HMS Vanguard being sold for scrap in 1960. For modern navies, this is an obsolete type of ship. The Chinese navy also appears to have no battleships.

Nope and for very good reasons. The stated dimensions are very similar to the Iowa class, with less displacement as there isn't the armour.


Perun was talking about the possible mission and mostly, for the sake of argument, ignoring its vulnerability to submarines.

The powerplant seems limited for something armed with railguns and directed energy weapons. Compared to the Zumwalt, at least than half the displacement. And indeed the specifications of said weapons don't seem very future proof. It also seems to limit the amount of power available for radar etc.

Apparently, the main thing determining firepower is the number of vertical launch cells, and the 128 cells plus 12 hypersonic missiles isn't very impressive for the 35,000 tons compared to the 122 for the under 10,000 ton Ticonderoga class. Or the numbers planned for the 14000 ton DDG(X) that this is supposed to supersede.

Then there's the question about this weird mix of long range and unproven short range weapons.

Meanwhile it seems that the biggest problem is that it would also use up shipyard capacity which could be better used in building more hulls.



In short, the main problem isn't the reliance on multiple unproven technologies in a single hull (which I guess is an achievement of sorts). Nor is it the odd mix of these hypothetical systems being optimised for relatively close range use and long range missiles. But the actual impact of trying to build these vessels instead of other ones that are easier to build. And the planned numbers compared to the mandated size of the USN.

---------


Separately, you have the replacement for the planned Constellation class, which apparently seems to be recreating some of the mistakes of the LCS in being under armed, because it's based on a coast guard cutter, and seems to lack any vertical launch systems.

The DDG(X) was cancelled in favour of this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDG(X)

It was planned to have 96 VLS type 41 cells and 42 other anti aircraft missiles, and under 15000 tons. So for probably less than half the building capacity utilisation and cost, you get a very similar sensor suite, somewhere between 80-120% of the missile firepower, and a design that's nowhere near finalised, but a decade and a half further down the planning stage, so likely to be in service at least a decade earlier.

[jimbob]

Does anyone have battleships anymore? The Royal Australian Navy has none. The last battlecruiser it had was decommisioned in 1954. The Royal Navy also has none with HMS Vanguard being sold for scrap in 1960. For modern navies, this is an obsolete type of ship. The Chinese navy also appears to have no battleships.

Nope and for very good reasons. The stated dimensions are very similar to the Iowa class, with less displacement as there isn't the armour.


Perun was talking about the possible mission and mostly, for the sake of argument, ignoring its vulnerability to submarines.

The powerplant seems limited for something armed with railguns and directed energy weapons. Compared to the Zumwalt, at least than half the displacement. And indeed the specifications of said weapons don't seem very future proof. It also seems to limit the amount of power available for radar etc.

Apparently, the main thing determining firepower is the number of vertical launch cells, and the 128 cells plus 12 hypersonic missiles isn't very impressive for the 35,000 tons compared to the 122 for the under 10,000 ton Ticonderoga class. Or the numbers planned for the 14000 ton DDG(X) that this is supposed to supersede.

Then there's the question about this weird mix of long range and unproven short range weapons.

Meanwhile it seems that the biggest problem is that it would also use up shipyard capacity which could be better used in building more hulls.



In short, the main problem isn't the reliance on multiple unproven technologies in a single hull (which I guess is an achievement of sorts). Nor is it the odd mix of these hypothetical systems being optimised for relatively close range use and long range missiles. But the actual impact of trying to build these vessels instead of other ones that are easier to build. And the planned numbers compared to the mandated size of the USN.

---------


Separately, you have the replacement for the planned Constellation class, which apparently seems to be recreating some of the mistakes of the LCS in being under armed, because it's based on a coast guard cutter, and seems to lack any vertical launch systems.

The DDG(X) was cancelled in favour of this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDG(X)

It was planned to have 96 VLS type 41 cells and 42 other anti aircraft missiles, and under 15000 tons. So for probably less than half the building capacity utilisation and cost, you get a very similar sensor suite, somewhere between 80-120% of the missile firepower, and a design that's nowhere near finalised, but a decade and a half further down the planning stage, so likely to be in service at least a decade earlier.

Well, maybe not cancelled. It seems unclear

[Chris Preston]

My comment was more a comment on Trump's narcisism than anything else. Trump wants battleshops named after him because they are big and powerful, not because they might in ang way be useful. It is the same reason he wants a triumphial arch. It is about feeding his ego.

[Martin Y]

Indeed, it matches his comment the other day that he was naming things after himself because he knew nobody else was going to do it.

[Formerly AvP]

It has provoked a deal of humour... USS Compensation was common. One suggestion was suggested that it would only take one letter change to call it USS Deviant... Another one I liked was calling it the Debt Star . Someone suggested that the words 'Trump' and 'class' should never appear together under any circumstances. The Constellation class was also renamed the Cancellation Class. Meanwhile, the People's Liberation Army Navy just keep putting new hulls in the water... I particularly liked their standard merchant ship just covered in container boxes containing Vertical Launch Systems, radar etc. I'd be really curious to know what their replenishment and supply strategy is - are they planning long term world wide blue ocean capabilities, or is it just Taiwan?

[El Pollo Diablo]

Given the seriousness of recent events, I've moved the Venezuela discussion into its own thread, here.