Scrutable

FlammableFlower wrote: Mon Dec 22, 2025 4:32 pm Basically they couldn't have done a worse job than they have. They have acted like petulant teenagers.

jimbob wrote: Sun Dec 28, 2025 11:00 pm 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

Stranger Mouse wrote: Tue Dec 23, 2025 11:25 am 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

4piE-7 wrote: Mon Dec 29, 2025 11:24 am

jimbob wrote: Sun Dec 28, 2025 11:00 pm 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.

4piE-7 wrote: Mon Dec 29, 2025 11:24 am

jimbob wrote: Sun Dec 28, 2025 11:00 pm 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.

Chris Preston wrote: Tue Dec 30, 2025 8:20 am 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 wrote: Tue Dec 30, 2025 9:57 am

Chris Preston wrote: Tue Dec 30, 2025 8:20 am 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 wrote: Tue Dec 30, 2025 10:42 am

jimbob wrote: Tue Dec 30, 2025 9:57 am

Chris Preston wrote: Tue Dec 30, 2025 8:20 am 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.