"best-looking warship anywhere"?

...and they're really good for the economy!

 

There was a lot more going on than that. In the years leading up to the fall of the Soviet Union both sides engaged in misinformation. However, when all the first line Soviet, excuse me...Iraqi, AAW systems were taken out in the first 45 seconds of Gulf I the handwriting of who was lying the most was on the wall. Unable to actually protect Mother Russia the fall of Gorbachev and his Glasnost and Perestroika programs were a given... as shown by the August 1991 military coup just 8 months after the start of Desert Storm.

 

So would building a whole bunch of these...at a much smaller infrastructure cost. With a basic PDMS, CIWS Block 3, and a half-dozen TLAM/TSAM/IRBM/??? silos the only issue would be C3I.....which most likely would take the conflict into space....Kessler syndrome anyone?

USX-1 Defiant - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USX-1_Defiant

 

The Navy has finally made a smart decison. They are going to build the FF(X) frigates based on the Coast Guard National Security Cutter. Of Course the are going to up arm it and make a few other changes (in other words really make it more expensive) Navy will build new frigate based on cutter design https://www.stripes.com/branches/navy/2025-12-19/navy-new-frigate-from-cutter-design-20147533.html
As for the "Trump Class" it will never be built. The cost is in Billions just for one. The Navy will make a lot of changes, increasing the cost, and estimates now say that construction won't start until 2030. That will be set back for a few years. And Congress will never allocate the money anyway.

Not to mention that it can be taken out by a single drone.

 

The other problem with really large ships is it takes a really long time to build one. Smaller warships can basically be built on a production line of sorts.

 

capital ships are a thing of the past and always will be
To think of a drone strike sending 5000 sailors to Davey Jones locker is something terrible
probs the greatest Battleship ever was Bismark and she was sunk
It pains me, to think of all the waste. all those tens of thousands of skilled manhours, for nothing

 

Depends on what you define as a "capital" ship. "Capital" ships are required because of the realities of naval warfare, you need the concentration of power and defence to avoid Lanchester's Laws attrition traps. You can neither project power nor defend with ships that are too small to adequately strike and defend themselves (c.f the Jefferson gunboat navy or the recent LCS class fiasco). The USN decommissioned the IOWA class not because they were too expensive, but because to defeat them a modern opponent needed to hit with two or more thermonuclear weapons, and where therefore seen as world destabilizing after the fall of the Soviet Union (i.e. some petty despot may throw a nuke, but not a superpower).

The number of conventionally armed "drones" needed to sink a modern "capital" warship with a crew of 5000 with her screen and air cover would exceed the number of drones launched by Russia at Ukraine in the past month. Even using hypersonic missiles or SRBM/IRBMs with conventional MIRV's we are talking launching a number greater than 100 warheads....this is whole reason why you need a nuke. Even then you are only talking an effective kill...you still need to sink it.

Please, don't get caught up in the German "wunderwaffe" false narrative. The BISMARK, like the HOOD, was very flawed and one-on-one would have struggled to defeat a second generation Super-Dreadnought (TENNESSEE, QUEEN ELIZABETH, or COLORADO Class) let alone a USN fast Battleship (NORTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA or IOWA) or a NELSON or RICHELIEU (the KING GEORGE V's, LITTORIO's, and IJN ships had their own issues).

 

So, help clarify.

You are saying the Iowa class was unbeatable, so we stopped building it?

Or to reduce the likelihood of two nukes?

No snark intended..

 

suggest you look here

 

Not unbeatable, but that no conventional attack, by a peer or near peer, could with a reasonable chance of success, sink one.
Think of it this way, it took ~500 sorties of aircraft with 500# bombs and 1000# torpedoes to sink YAMATO and MUSASHI (at least 11-17 torpedoes and 5-11 bombs each)...and they and their screen did not have radar controlled AA, or VT fuses, or AAMs or AWACS or any modern fire control as well as having outdated IJN damage control. The USN learned a lot from the kamikaze...no modern drone has a 350 knt speed while carrying a 250kg warhead, yet WWII USN DDs absorbed 3-5 each. Just like the USS STARK, damage control does not let a single hit equal a kill. Add who in 1995 could put up a 500 aircraft/missile strike...
Basically, in the late 1990's, at least one tactical nuke is required to render a USN battle group inoperative.

 

Don't trust me, or my knowledge. This channel covers it better than I would be willing to invest in it.
https://www.youtube.com/@Drachinifel

 

The video pretty clearly suggests the Bismarck had flaws and wasn’t the greatest battleship and lacked high speed maneuverability, so I find the exchange interesting.

 

I still think ike is right, this is doa. Might get lip service from a congressional session or two just to line someone's pockets but its not likely to see the light of day. Seems like the trend line has been less for more on a rather steep curve when it comes to spending and procurement. Were not an industrial enough society to scale fast enough to get anything in a timely fashion.

If by some miracle it does get produced, it will probably languish like its massive predecessors at the head of fjord... scared of the changing reality outside safe waters. Multi polar moment has arrived yet again, it would be nice to see a return to accepting that reality.

 

Yep, this is not the right platform in the present environment.

But taken out by a single drone....not likely.