Trump floats the idea of bringing back battleships

Guno צְבִי said:
Trump suggested that he's considering bringing back US Navy battleships, vessels that were retired decades ago, long after the kind of naval combat they were built for had become a thing of the past.

Battleships were heavily armed naval powerhouses built to slug it out with other warships. During the World Wars, they dominated the seas, but by the end of the Cold War, these once mighty warships were completely obsolete.

Speaking at a high-profile summit with top US military leaders at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia on Tuesday morning, Trump said battleships are on the table.

"It's something we're actually considering," he said, "the concept of battleship, nice six-inch side, solid steel, not aluminum, aluminum that melts if it looks at a missile coming at it. Starts melting as the missile's about two miles away. No, those ships, they don't make them that way anymore."


news.yahoo.com

Trump floats the idea of bringing back battleships

American battleships were a symbol of naval power for decades but became obsolete with the rise of missiles and other warships.
news.yahoo.com news.yahoo.com
Click to expand...
The New Jersey an Iowa class battleship was used in Vietnam to shelled coastal cities in North Vietnam.
She was modernized to carry missiles and participated in operations during the Lebanese civil war in 1983. .
 
you people are stupid as fuck.
Dutch Uncle said:
It's sad that our best option is to pray God takes him home.

a7vdad.jpg
Click to expand...
you're secretly trump's number one planner arent you?

you old slick dog.

:cheers:
 
Phantasmal said:
Battleships like DonOld wants to build are too expensive to build, man and maintain, plus they are cumbersome, as warfare from the air proved.
Click to expand...
The word "insanity" and the phrase "25th Amendment" are being heard more in Congress....and not just from the left side of the room. LOL

a7wezi.jpg
 
Phantasmal said:
Battleships like DonOld wants to build are too expensive to build, man and maintain, plus they are cumbersome, as warfare from the air proved.
Click to expand...
Good point.

Fat Don just likes the theater and physical grandeur of the old fashioned battleships.

God help us if an 80 year old former reality game show host is selecting 21st century weapons systems for America's military.
 
Kurmugeon said:
Well, when a trouble spot develops, such as the Yemen Missile strikes on shipping, you send in the Carrier task force. That's the fast response
Click to expand...

Well, it would be quicker, definitely, but we already had bases close by, plus we have bombers based right here in the States that hit Yemen recently.

AI Overview


Based on attacks conducted during 2024 and 2025, U.S. bombers that hit Yemen launched from
Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri and from a forward-deployed location in the Indian Ocean.

Specifically, the U.S. used B-2 Spirit stealth bombers for strikes against Houthi weapons sites, with missions originating from two locations:

  • October 2024 strikes: B-2 bombers flew a long-range mission directly from their home base, Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, to strike underground Houthi facilities in Yemen.
  • March–May 2025 strikes: B-2s were forward-deployed to the remote British island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, a strategic outpost well within striking distance of Yemen.
Other U.S. aircraft also participated in military actions against the Houthis, including:


    • Fighter jets from the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower: In January 2024, F/A-18s from this aircraft carrier conducted airstrikes on Houthi anti-ship missiles.
    • B-1B Lancers: These long-range bombers, including some based at Dyess Air Force Base in Texas, were involved in U.S. airstrikes against Iran-backed militia targets in Iraq and Syria in February 2024. However, the same B-1Bs have not been explicitly confirmed to have hit Yemen, while B-2s have.
How long would it have taken to haul a mobile base there? We're already just hours away from bases here in the States.
 
Last edited:
Phyllis Diller said:
you want to Nuke the those Yemeni pirates in the middleast?
Click to expand...

Nukes are obsolete, except with gangster regimes like Russia, Pakistan, Iran, etc. We have developed conventional weapons that are far more effective than old WW II tech. Backward shitholes like Russia, Iran, and Red China rely on nuke threats as extortion attempts. They know how it makes the burb brat faggots hysterical when they hear the words 'nukes' and makes them cry and snivel and want to bend over and spread their cheeks.
 
EdwinA said:
Nukes are obsolete, except with gangster regimes like Russia, Pakistan, Iran, etc. We have developed conventional weapons that are far more effective than old WW II tech. Backward shitholes like Russia, Iran, and Red China rely on nuke threats as extortion attempts. They know how it makes the burb brat faggots hysterical when they hear the words 'nukes' and makes them cry and snivel and want to bend over and spread their cheeks.
Click to expand...
battleships seem perfect.
 
Reagan brought back the Iowa class battleships back in the 1980's.The dumb-ass even brought back the USS Missouri, which is a historical ship, world war two ended on her decks with the surrender of Japan. They don't make shells for those 16 inch guns anymore, all the remaining shells for 16 inch guns are old stock in storage.

Iowa-Class Battleships: Would the U.S. Navy Ever Bring Them Back?​


Key Points: The idea of reactivating the Iowa-class battleships—notably the USS Iowa, USS New Jersey, USS Missouri, and USS Wisconsin—is often debated, but the obstacles are immense.

-These WWII-era vessels were modernized during the Cold War and performed admirably in Desert Storm.

-However, their reactivation today faces significant challenges: age, high personnel requirements, budget constraints, vulnerability to modern anti-ship missiles, and maintenance hurdles.

-Despite their historical firepower and speed, these battleships are better preserved as museum ships than in combat.(y)

Five Reasons to Say No to Battleships in 2024​

That’s a great record, but now what?

Should we even consider that the Iowa-class could come back in service?

First, they are just too old for reactivation. No ship from World War Two should embark on the open seas again.(y)

Second, the personnel needs would be prohibitive. It takes around 1,500 sailors to make the Iowa-class a floating doom-bringer.

Due to current recruiting shortfalls, there are not enough sailors to staff the ships. And one could make the case for using those sailors on new ships instead.

Third, money is always tight. With the vast expense of the new Ford-class carrier, rejuvenating battleships is not in the budget.

Fourth, they have no role in a sea battle in which they could be sunk by Chinese anti-ship missiles. They would need to be equipped by the Aegis Combat System to ward off enemy fire and again that is cost prohibitive and impractical.

Fifth, the Iowa-class would be difficult to maintain. Where would the Navy get spare parts? Where do they dry dock for maintenance?

I could go on, but you get the picture. Let’s put this speculation to bed and consign the battleship for continued public displays as museums. They have no place in modern maritime combat. This seems to be a debate that won’t die because the battleship is a neat historical lesson in the use of overwhelming firepower and the ability to dominate the enemy on the sea and on the shore. But they are just too old to bother with.

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2024/11/iowa-class-battleships-would-the-u-s-navy-ever-bring-them-back/
 
signalmankenneth said:
Reagan brought back the Iowa class battleships back in the 1980's.The dumb-ass even brought back the USS Missouri, which is a historical ship, world war two ended on her decks with the surrender of Japan. They don't make shells for those 16 inch guns anymore, all the remaining shells for 16 inch guns are old stock in storage.

Iowa-Class Battleships: Would the U.S. Navy Ever Bring Them Back?​


Key Points: The idea of reactivating the Iowa-class battleships—notably the USS Iowa, USS New Jersey, USS Missouri, and USS Wisconsin—is often debated, but the obstacles are immense.

-These WWII-era vessels were modernized during the Cold War and performed admirably in Desert Storm.

-However, their reactivation today faces significant challenges: age, high personnel requirements, budget constraints, vulnerability to modern anti-ship missiles, and maintenance hurdles.

-Despite their historical firepower and speed, these battleships are better preserved as museum ships than in combat.(y)

Five Reasons to Say No to Battleships in 2024​

That’s a great record, but now what?

Should we even consider that the Iowa-class could come back in service?

First, they are just too old for reactivation. No ship from World War Two should embark on the open seas again.(y)

Second, the personnel needs would be prohibitive. It takes around 1,500 sailors to make the Iowa-class a floating doom-bringer.

Due to current recruiting shortfalls, there are not enough sailors to staff the ships. And one could make the case for using those sailors on new ships instead.

Third, money is always tight. With the vast expense of the new Ford-class carrier, rejuvenating battleships is not in the budget.

Fourth, they have no role in a sea battle in which they could be sunk by Chinese anti-ship missiles. They would need to be equipped by the Aegis Combat System to ward off enemy fire and again that is cost prohibitive and impractical.

Fifth, the Iowa-class would be difficult to maintain. Where would the Navy get spare parts? Where do they dry dock for maintenance?

I could go on, but you get the picture. Let’s put this speculation to bed and consign the battleship for continued public displays as museums. They have no place in modern maritime combat. This seems to be a debate that won’t die because the battleship is a neat historical lesson in the use of overwhelming firepower and the ability to dominate the enemy on the sea and on the shore. But they are just too old to bother with.

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2024/11/iowa-class-battleships-would-the-u-s-navy-ever-bring-them-back/
Click to expand...
Soon he’ll want one of these

IMG_4075.jpeg
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Kurmugeon,

It is asking the enemy to toast it in flames. A highly mobile force is harder to hit. You don't have to get close to do damage with modern weapons. It's a novel, but archaic idea.

All an enemy would have to do would be lob old Greek Fire at it. You can't shoot down Greek Fire.
Click to expand...

If mobility was the key issue, why didn't ISIS destroy completely immobile land army bases?

Surely they would have "Greek Fired" them all out of existence, if ONLY mobility was a factor.

And any floating or Espon seabed grounded mobile base has a natural large mote surrounding the base, to act as a perimeter defense better than any fence or wall.

The M982 155mm guided, glide range artilery shell is an example of the type of munition to be used for such a platform.

en.wikipedia.org

M982 Excalibur - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fcz3wlMtatM


Though the Navy has its own versions, and none of the current designs are rocket motor range extended, but they already exist. The specs on these units are not yet publicly available.

The current MLRS M270 has a range of around 37 miles. 2nd rocket stage version have a range of around 200miles. The cost of one missile is around $400K. The cost of one M982 is $90K in bulk purchase. So they artillery shell is roughly 1/4 of the cost. The precision and payload are near identical.

The cost of 10 rounds is less than the cost of just the fuel for a B2 strike from Diego Garcia. The flight time of the artillery round is under 10 minutes. The flight time of the B2 is several hours.

For Sea-Lane protection from Speed Boats of Pirates, or Desert rocket launchers, the Artillery shell is not only more effective, it is 1/10th or less of the cost.

But we'll let you attempt the Greek Fire thing...

-
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top