And as I said before, barrel deformation begins after as few as a couple dozen firings. And rearm times are long because of the need to recharge the capacitors. And efforts to install any kind of guidance package in a round have been stymied by the destructive nature of the launch energy.

There is no evidence that the railgun undergoing testing on Asuka has solved these problems; it's been fired precious few times, none of which have come within days, let alone minutes, of each other.

Deployable railguns are sci-fi at this point. They may become feasible at some later date (new materials, hardened guidance circuitry, improved recharge, etc.), but they're not there yet...and frankly, they don't show any real advantage over conventional missiles at this juncture.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Saturday, October 04, 2025 - 12:01 pm: Edit

So for fun I went through the online resources for proposed upgrades to NJ (and possible her sisters) back in the 80s. Some really wild stuff. The conversion into a "Sea Control Ship" with the installation of a diagonal ski jump on the back of the vessel (plus 12 V/STOL aircraft) was particularly ambitious.

Piecing together parts of different proposals that I liked:

* Replace each of the 10x 5" dual mounts with 16 cell VLS
* Replace each of the 3x 16" turrets with 88 VLS
* Add more sophisticated radars and AEGIS

The ship would have no guns to fire, so concerns about overpressure and shock damaging sensitive electronics largely disappear.

You end up with a ship with 432 VLS cells. That would be the missile firepower equivalent of 4.5 Burkes, or about 3.5 Ticos. If one wanted to build equivalent Burkes to match this, it would cost roughly $11.25-13.50 billion ($2.5-3.0 billion each) and take more than 20 years to build given the current production schedules.

The whole thing feels like a Captain's Log article about conjectural B10 variants!

--Mike

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Saturday, October 04, 2025 - 12:40 pm: Edit

432 VLS cells. Reminds me of the Honor Harrington SD(P) ships...

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, October 04, 2025 - 02:57 pm: Edit

Mike Erickson posted:

“ The ship would have no guns to fire, so concerns about overpressure and shock damaging sensitive electronics largely disappear. ”

It would still need a close in weapons system, phalanx or an equivalent system.

At least two, one on port side, other on starboard.

Four would be better. On the bow/stern firing arcs.

Could do worse than four gatling type weapons loaded with depleted uranium rounds (kinetic kills on drones, suicide Iranian boats or at aircraft venturing too close have proven effective.)

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, October 04, 2025 - 10:20 pm: Edit

In other news, some may already know this, but the U.S. Navy has announced that when the USS Nimitz CVN-68 returns from her current deployment, she is to begin the process for ship inactivation procedure.

Commissioned in 1975, after 50 years of service to the nation, final determination of her fate has not been officially announced, but is likely to be scrapped after her two reactors are removed for disposal.

A proud ship with an accomplished record, she will be missed.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, October 04, 2025 - 10:46 pm: Edit

One further thought concerning reactivation of the Iowa class battleships:

Alan Trevor might be totally mistaken concerning the motivation behind the decision to refit and rearm the four ships.

Back in the 1980’s, the same arguments were being made by both sides of the question.

What drove the decision to reactivate the Iowa class ships was neither military or cost considerations.

It was the era of Ronald Reagan and Star Wars… the process of forcing the U.S.S.R. To either risk bankruptcy and compete in both strategic nuclear weapons race, and to expand into a weapons production contest.

The U.S. purchased the B-1 bombers, M1-A1 main battle tanks, F-15 and F-16 fighters, and expedited production of aircraft Carriers, Cruisers, Destroyers, Frigates-and Submarines.

The Battleships were reactivated in great fanfare.

But to be honest, removing a few dual purpose twin 5 inch 38 cal secondary armament, replacing it with a few harpoon missiles did not greatly expand the combat power of the then U.S. navy.

(I bet the Russian cost estimates of trying to build a comparable ship class equal or superior to that of an Iowa class battleship, in Rubles, would have been eye poppingly huge! Not sure if Russia then had the ability to fabricate 400+ mm of armor plate, and 16 inch main battery guns was even an option at the time…)

In any event, added on top of the prospect of a nuclear arms race, expanding the Warsaw Pact forces (tanks, soldiers aircraft, expanded munitions to equip all of the needed troops would have been huge.

Just wondering if President Trump is even actually serious about reactivating the Iowa class ships.

It could just be all for show for the Chinese government to force them back to the negotiating table.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, October 04, 2025 - 11:37 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Alan Trevor might be totally mistaken concerning the motivation behind the decision to refit and rearm the four ships.

---

---

Quote:

Not sure if Russia then had the ability to fabricate 400+ mm of armor plate...

---

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, October 04, 2025 - 11:47 pm: Edit

Russia used wake-homing torpedoes to hit the propellers. Once those are wrecked, the armor becomes less important.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, October 05, 2025 - 12:15 am: Edit

If (and it's a big if) a railgun can work as advertised (shots one second apart or prefereably sooner) the ammunition would be cheaper than missiles. I don't think the required power plant would fit on a supertanker frame. You don't absolutely have to have guided munitions (Phalanx does not) if you fire bursts and have time to retarget. Incoming ballistic warheads tend to be rather fast. Also, some (e.g., Scud) separate the warhead from the empty missile body, but the empty missile body is still coming and is a gigantic radar target. Some of the Patriots fired in the Gulf War hit empty missile bodies and let warheads land.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, October 05, 2025 - 07:57 am: Edit

Alan, the point is, if the decision is political, practical and cost effective are no longer relevant.

Its a bargaining chip.

It also means, that, President Trump has no need to know the cost, or practicality of reactivating the four Iowa class ships.

He just needs to make the Chinese leadership think he is serious about a major military and naval rearmament.

You might not believe this, but there are some indications that China is in a worse economic position than The former U.S.S.R. Was in when Ronald Regan was first elected.

An escalating naval, army, air force and nuclear weapons competition could (and most probably would) collapse the Chinese economy.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Sunday, October 05, 2025 - 08:25 am: Edit

I suspect that the Chinese leadership, whatever else may be said about them, is both intelligent and informed enough to not give a single, solitary ripe fart should reactivation of the Iowa class battleships be ordered. If anything, they may point and laugh at us for wasting our defense war dollars.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, October 05, 2025 - 09:38 am: Edit

The leadership of Communist China is not what it was.

It could be argued that the reforms of the mid 1970’s thru the 1980’s created the conditions that transformed China from a largely agrarian, to a significantly illiterate population, to at least “Second World” status (on a par with United Kingdom, France and most of the European Union nations) to a nation with “First World” pretensions (essentially a competitor to the United States).

For at least the last ten years, decisions made in China have hurt the economy, created significant hardships on the population and ended the generally accepted assumption that China would overtake the United States economy, military power and potentially China’s position as a Leading nation in the affairs of the world.

We have discussed China’s apparent population decline, the abandonment of whole cities (and incidentally, hundreds of billions of dollars wasted as thousands of buildings, many uncompleted, become derelict.)

The leadership in China is anything but “intelligent and informed”.

Just look at the statistics related to wealth transfer out of China to Europe and the United States, and the fact that most (if not all) of the families of Chinas leaders not only have been educated in the west, but are living away from China.

It is very similar to what happened in the Philippines under Marcos.

The important thing is, the reactivation of the Iowa Class ships is a prop.

Or in other words, “Street Theater.”

I would point you to look at the 1939 movie, “the Wizard of Oz.”, and suggest that what Trump does behind the curtain, is rather more important than any off the cuff remarks made at a press photo op.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, October 05, 2025 - 04:03 pm: Edit

"We have discussed China’s apparent population decline, the abandonment of whole cities (and incidentally, hundreds of billions of dollars wasted as thousands of buildings, many uncompleted, become derelict.)"

Fair to say this isnt't the first time it has happened.

Ireland after falling from grace as the Emerald Tiger - and Spain in the 2000's lost huge amounts of money on property.

(I agree, perhaps not at the level China has - but Ireland and Spain was wealthy' - but not even close to China's wealth -percentage wise, I bet it's close!)

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, October 05, 2025 - 08:25 pm: Edit

Depends on your definition of “close”.



A quick google search on how much of the population in Spain is middle class and up to “wealthy” reveals that the percentage is 62% of the population qualifies as middle class and up.

A similar question about China indicated that perhaps 40% of the population qualified as middle class or better.

(The response did indicate that there is a dispute as to the accuracy of the government’s published statistics…)

I have not checked Irelands percentages.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, October 05, 2025 - 08:29 pm: Edit

Irelands numbers apperar to be some what better than Spain.

67% of the population reported income of £60,000, while 4.3% reported incomes of £200,000 or more in 2022.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, October 05, 2025 - 08:33 pm: Edit

A google search on the same question for the United States figures:

“About 52% of U.S. adults lived in middle-income households in 2022, according to Pew Research Center. The percentage of Americans classified as "wealthy" or "upper-income" was 19% in 2022, according to the same analysis by Pew Research Center”

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, October 05, 2025 - 08:37 pm: Edit

Oh, let us do just one more.

Google search on middle class when china fell to the Communists.

“ In 1949, China was an overwhelmingly impoverished and agrarian country with a miniscule middle class and very high economic inequality. A specific percentage of the population classified as middle class or higher is not available from that time due to the lack of modern economic measurements and the country's social upheaval. However, historical context shows that the size of this group would have been extremely small. ”

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Sunday, October 05, 2025 - 09:40 pm: Edit

Google search on middle class when china fell to the Communists.

What standards are used to determine "Middle Class" in areas other than the U.S. (Not that it is explained here, other than picking a financial number and posting it)
As I see it, a country where the majority makes $1 or so a day, 90% would be middle class there...

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, October 05, 2025 - 11:08 pm: Edit

Mark Hoyle:

Valid point.

But we are not a government think tank here, and we are not submitting a scholarly article here subject to peer review by noted academic experts.

Just using google and its AI function due to convenience.

The truth is, China may be on the precipice of a long term deflationary spiral.

In plain english, unless current policies and existing trends change, (and change a LOT…) China’s debt crisis could make the U.S. Debt crisis of 2007-8 look like a tea party.

Point is, no one knows what that will do to China’s middle class.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, October 06, 2025 - 02:53 pm: Edit

So far, Trump’s peace deal in Gaza isn’t coming together because Hamas just isn’t going to surrender.

Trump’s deal is for all hostages to e released in 72 hours. Hamas says they will need months just to find them all, which is a BS excuse to keep them indefinitely.

Trump’s deal says Hamas must immediately give up power and have no role in Gaza government. Hamas says they will only hand over power to an independent Palestinian state and must be a part of the future government.

Trump says Hamas must disarm quickly. Hamas says it will keep its weapons until an Independent Palestinian state absorbs Hamas into their Army.

Trump’s deal says Israel will leave Gaza only at some future point when an International Stabilization Force is able to take over and guarantee no terrorists reorganize. Hamas says Israel must totally leave Gaza in a few days, putting Hamas back in charge, after which a future can be negotiated.

Trump’s deal says aid will be delivered under Israeli supervision. Hamas says it must be in charge of aid with no supervision.

The two sides are light years apart. Trump and Israel say Hamas must take the deal as is.

Does anyone actually think a deal to avoid having Israel take Gaza apart brick-by-brick down to bare dirt is even possible?

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Monday, October 06, 2025 - 03:09 pm: Edit

Not without a time machine, no (the solution was back in '48, when the brand-new U.N. should have sent in those brand-new blue helmets to enforce the Partition Plan).

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, October 06, 2025 - 03:18 pm: Edit

Was the U.N. also going to prevent the Arab nations from forcibly expelling their Jewish populations and confiscating their property? Was the U.N. going to stop Arab nations from invading? I note that the U.N. has done a marvelous job keeping Arab nations and groups from bombarding Israel with artillery and missiles for the last 77 years. Really a bang-up job.

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Monday, October 06, 2025 - 03:18 pm: Edit

I thought the 72 hour deadline was optimistic, given the amount of bombing and other military operations by the IDF. The leadership not knowing where they are, particularly the dead, is not a surprise.

Taking months is ridicules.

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Monday, October 06, 2025 - 03:24 pm: Edit

As to the UN, protecting Israel would have been part of enforcing the partition plan.

Preventing the expulsion of the Jewish citizens would likely not been stopped, if only to prevent them being killed by said countries citizens, forcing the retention property value would likely have been enforced to some degree.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, October 06, 2025 - 03:48 pm: Edit

On 4 October, a Ukrainian missile hit a Russian corvette. Not unusual. Except that this corvette was in Lake Onega, near the border of Finland, 1000km away. Hello! The corvette was two years old, named Grad, and carried Kaliber land-attack cruise missiles.