I caught the orange man talking on the radio, as I am not american I knew it was going to be something stupid but this? I thought it was a joke, an onion like thing, but nooooo. What sealed it is when in the very speech about the new 100x battleships, trump stated that he did not know why the us stopped using battleships…
elect a clown get a circus, all of this is just bullshit meant to distract you from the actual christofacist powergrabs going on bts
all of this is just bullshit meant to distract you
I personally doubt this; Trump is an egotistical moron who is behind the times and doesn’t like listening to any counterarguments. Battleships are cool, thus battleships are effective, and the USA was stupid to stop making them, and they should make them again, and by the way, they should slap his name on it because he’s so smart and also a good military leader and better than Sleepy Joe. It doesn’t need to be a distraction to exist.
USS deficient
Just realized they’re calling the first one the USS Defiant. My Star Trek bones are aching.
Could we please not associate the name of the coolest starship ever with this likely colossal failure? 😭
Well lets face it they are both fictional and have about even chances of getting commissioned.
They’ll start calling it the Defiant class the moment Trump leaves office, just you watch.
a useless waste of resources, just like its namesake.
I guess nobody bothered to ask an admiral how long it took to design a new class of ship. I don’t think trump has enough years left in him to see the first one built.
They just failed at the last set of ships! Can they not even finish the first failure before starting a new one?
Oh and this one is based on some sort of coastguard design, I guess that will help?
think of it this way. the trump class of battleships will be the first battleships of the 21st century to be a complete failure. that’s quite a legacy.
What interesting times we live in. yay
they certainly are among the most of all times.
President Fuckwit is just being as noncredible as he can, to give us material for years to come.
Excuse me while I drink myself to death.
And railguns are back! You know that program that just got ended as a naval weapon since it shoots in a flat trajectory and therefor rather useless in modern naval combat as the curve of the earth limits the range to effectively ship equivalent of knife fighting range.
Well its back, to be the big gun on a battleship… in the age of missiles and drones.
shoots in a flat trajectory
Lol what? That’s physically impossible, the projectile absolutely follows a ballistic tragectory like any other gun. A 20MJ railgun has a range of 93km, which is much farther than the horizon.
No, that’s not the reason the railgun was not completed. It can only be used by specialized ships, and cannot be fired many times before extensive maintenance is required. It’s too expensive to sustain. They also realized that they could get some benefit from using the more effective high velocity projectiles with conventional guns, anyway.
“Relatively” flat sorry, but yes the range was a major issue as if you fling a thing slow enough for a over the horizon shot you lose the whole point of the super high velocity railgun. So in the end you have a stupid expensive, very experimental, with a high amount of needed maintenance gun that can ether work like a normal naval gun (that has long been subplanted as the main offensive system on ships) or like a hypervelocity gun that can only shoot real close or real far away.
if you fling a thing slow enough for a over the horizon shot
That doesn’t make any sense and is not how physics works.
can only shoot real close or real far away.
No!
The world is, and I know this might be a shocker, round.
Railguns when tested have an odd issue in that they shoot things real fast, and therefor a much flatter ballistic trajectory. Now this is good! if the curve of the earth did not put a fuck load of water between the railgun and the target. In fact due to physics (you know that thing that we are both clearly experts in) you end up with a big old dead spot in your range tables (more so with high sea states) where the railgun’s dart will hit the waves on route to the target and although moving wicked fast the uncaring ocean will still stop or really change the darts course. This changes when you range out far enough that the ballistic trajectory curves enough but at those ranges accurate guidance is another issue (this was found out in 2019).
So yeah according to physics shooting a thing at over 8000 km/h out of a tube means a flatter then needed trajectory for mid range (in ship to ship context) and when you get out to the full range you are talking 180 km or so, and at that point even the super fast darts are avoidable/hard to get on target.
This is nonsense, and the source you linked does not support or even mention anything about what you’ve claimed about trajectories. Did you just hope no one would actually read it? It does, however, talk about the sustainability problems with maintaining the railgun as well as the benefit of simply using the projetile developed for the railgun in conventional guns. From your source:
As the Navy was developing EMRG, it realized that the guided projectile being developed for EMRG, which weighs about 23 pounds, could also be fired from 5-inch and 155mm powder guns. When fired from EMRG, the projectile reaches hypervelocity (i.e., Mach 5+) speeds, and thus came to be known as the hypervelocity projectile (HVP). When fired from a power gun, the projectile flies quickly, but not as quickly as it does when fired from EMRG.
“We thought rail guns were something we were really going to go after, but it turns out that powder guns firing the same hypervelocity projectiles gets you almost as much as you would get out of the electromagnetic rail gun, but it’s something we can do much faster,” [then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert] Work said.
The trajectory of any projectile, including the shot of a railgun, follows an elliptic ballistic curve.
There’s no such thing as a dead spot in the range. You just aim up.
Yes, for longer range shots. For the middle of your range, you can’t “aim up” that would not hit the target at the speeds needed. Lobbing rounds with a railgun is mostly worthless and can be done, as you have said, with a normal naval gun. So take your diagram (that has the labels wrong) and compare to an old one, from when battleships where still in use.
See you are assuming that all ballistic curves are the same but the old 16 inch guns (for example) shot at 762 m/s vs the railgun that shoots at 2,220 m/s so the railgun will be more “flat” then the naval gun. Still a curve yes, but one that is now awkward when at sea. From what I was seeing this issue can be mitigated by moving the gun higher on the ship (its not by much the dart clips the waves) but that introduces new issues. The distance before something is “lost” over the horizon at sea is between 5 and 10 km (based on the height of the ship), at this range the railgun is still mostly going “straight” (its not but the drop is not enough yet). So if you want to hit something say 12 km away (in range of normal naval guns fyi) you would need to shoot so high that you would be putting the dart into a sub orbital trajectory and without guidance be lucky to hit anything (and good luck making a system that can withstand air at sea level when traveling at mach 6).
It can actually (theoretically) shoot real far away.
As in, when the target area is far enough that the projectile would have slowed down due to drag, long ago and start dropping more than it is going forward.
The problem here, would lie in the stabilisation of the bullet and making sure it actually hits the target instead of a few km away, because faster bullets apparently have a greater difficulty staying on track.The projectiles fired by the railgun leave the atmosphere and are GPS guided.
Yeah, did you look into what “GPS guided” means here? Its not what you think.
- You don’t shoot it slowly. You fire it at the same speed, but tilt the gun up. The resulting parabolic trajectory is considerably greater than anything a standard gun can get.
However:
2. As mentioned in the video, they are very power hungry. Like they need their own nuclear reactor in a ship to power it. 3. The barrels only last less than a dozen shots. This means you either need tons of extra barrels and the crane to replace them, or you need a logistics ship to do that every few hours in a battle.In short: railguns are neat but we don’t have the tech to power or build them.
This is NCD, railguns just fire super cool laser bullets here 👍
Firstly, yes this is colossally stupid at first glance. Trump is an egoist and an idiot, and he’d absolutely want a fleet of the biggest ships ever named after him so he can wave his tiny dick around for decades after he dies. However, I believe this is a renamed project that was already in development, not a new thing Trump wanted made. The main thing that makes this interesting to me and makes me consider why it might be more practical than the name leads on is the inclusion of a high powered laser system. With sufficient power, a naval laser could literally be the ultimate tool for naval combat and completely negate the weaknesses of a battleship style design. I’m not sure this ship will have a laser that powerful, but if it’s in the megawatt range then it could very well be essentially invulnerable to most modern aircraft and missiles. The US military even before Trump was focusing heavily on lasers in new developments as they’re likely going to define warfare in the next few decades, if not longer. There’s good reason for this, a sufficiently powerful laser could be able to destroy any unshielded aircraft or missile within seconds. The primary limiting factor for their effectiveness is getting to that power range in a portable form (which a nuclear ship solves), and turret rotation which basically limits the number of targets they can engage. One of the proposed Lockheed Martin F-47’s primary new features is an aerosol dispenser designed for laser defense, in another example of laser focused design. As silly as it is to call them battleships, this legitimately might be a decent call for a design. A fast, large ship with high power, long range guns and a laser defense system that protects it from missiles and aircraft to allow it to get in range to use those guns. If nothing else, it’s a big platform for missiles and has a decent gun for shore bombardment purposes. I think 100 of them might be crazy, though.
There’s a very good reason why the Iowa class battleships, built during the second world war, were still firing their guns in anger during the Gulf War.
Batleships are no use against other vessels, at least not with the main guns, but they’re absolutely fearsome as a shore bombardment weapon, and that’s something the US may very well have a need for in the near future, particularly if China gets handsy with Taiwan or other nearby island nations.
There’s a very good reason why the Iowa class battleships, built during the second world war, were still firing their guns in anger during the Gulf War.
Because Reagan wanted a 600-ship navy without having the capacity to build enough new hulls and Congress is full of nostalgia blinded boomers who wouldn’t let the navy retire them no matter how much they begged?
Yeah, but even in that role they are just out done. Missile, plane or drone carriers are cheaper then maintaining, deploying and supplying a fucking battleship. If you look at the last time the Iowas fired their guns in anger you will see it was also even then found to be a massive waste of money. Also they can’t be used in a place they could be sunk, so only beating up minor nations, in such case that they are not really needed.
Oh you can change the topography with 16 inch guns, sure. But bombs, missiles and now drones are better at mission kills at a fraction of the price.
I’m not so sure about that, aircraft carriers are phenomenally expensive to buy and run. Having a massive, fast vessel absolutely loaded to the gills with weapons is still a very useful thing to have.
Any modern battleship would certainly have substantial missile batteries in addition to the main guns.
Aircraft carriers are very expensive to run, about the same as a battleship actually. And the Iowas did have a modernization done that added:
- 32 × BGM-109 Tomahawk launchers (8 Launchers x4)
- 16 × RGM-84 Harpoon launchers (4 Mounts x4)
- 4 × 20 mm Phalanx CIWS
And even then, they where still seen as a colossal waste of money, even vs an aircraft carrier (that can do more and is real “force projection”) that was seen as more vulnerable then an aircraft carrier. That was in the 1991 and now? 34 years later? They would be the biggest waste of soon to be sunk money in modern warfare.
They can’t safely do this within range of anti-ship missiles and they can’t outrange those missiles with guns.
That’s what your destroyer escort is for.
Ha, about that…
It’s not gonna work, China can hit those ships with their hypersonic missiles.
They can hit an aircraft carrier too.
Besides, this is what a destroyer escort is for.
Suuuuure, those escorts
It’s like the Zumwalt… But BIGGER!! What could possibly go wrong? 🤭
Oh damn, yeah this is like that but with fricken lazers and railgun!
He’s like a Star Trek villain. He’s gonna hide the
augmentsEpstein files in the torpedoes.Just got back and there are already some good videos
The wooden juggernaut The Trump Donald Class was just announced to the apparent pleasure of the geriatric president. He asked if it delivered food and if Obama had had one.
Military-Industry Complex
