Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of MIBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of MIBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Investment Strategies / Mechanical Investing
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (62) |
Author: Dope1   😊 😞
Number: of 84359 
Subject: Re: Those Trump Class "Battleships"
Date: 12/23/25 2:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 2
Wisconsin was commissioned in April of 1944. Missouri was commissioned in June of 1944. Looked it up because I wasn't sure of the exact dates.

Fair enough. I was going by whose keel was laid down last, and that was the Wisconsin (hence the larger hull number).

This isn't a DDG(x), it is a BBG. Significantly larger than a DDG. Power plant likely won't be an issue on a new design (if it is, someone screwed up). That, however, does not make me incorrect about the Navy not wanting this. This isn't a replacement for the Ticos. They were only about the size of the Arleigh-Burkes (~9K tons). This is a completely different class of ship that arguably won't fill the gap in capabilities. With only a few more VLS cells than the much smaller Ticos. They need fires, and a lot of them. You could build 4 DDGs for one of these things, giving you a lot more "bang for your buck", and filling the gap left by the Ticos very nicely.

The Burkes don’t haul enough stuff to sea. They’re not big enough. For in-shore bombardment you need something with over the horizon capability to make the aerial drone problem harder. That normally means missiles, but they’re bigger and heavier and you can only carry so many. That’s why the rail gun concept keeps coming back, because it’s needed.

Blue water operations call for ships that can stay on station for weeks or months on end. The Burkes are fantastic ships but we’re never designed for some of the jobs they’re being asked to do.

I don’t particularly care what Trump calls them: they’re not battleships. Battle cruiser is more apt, but whatever. They’ll carry an Osprey or two which means they have some airlift capability along with the enhanced firepower. They’ll also carry multistage hypersonics in addition to the larger number of vertical cells.

The rail gun + laser + bigger radar combo == much bigger power plant than the Burkes have. They’ll probably repurpose/modify the one in the America-class LHD designs.

For the frigate they’re just going to use the Legend class design (large Coast Guard cutter) as the base. We already make those.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to Dope1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (62) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of MI | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community