Jinx.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Monday, December 22, 2025 - 07:14 pm: Edit

Regarding Letters of Marque & Reprisal. AFAIK, the last time these were issued was during the Spanish-American War. A couple private groups fitted out old merchant ships as armed freighters and used political connections to get Letters authorizing them to attack Spanish shipping.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, December 22, 2025 - 07:39 pm: Edit

Our triumphant results with the Freedom class littoral combat ship... uhhh... I mean the Independence class littoral combat ship... that is to say... the Constellation class frigate... fills me with near unlimited confidence about a "Trump" class "Battleship"; as I'm sure it does everyone else here...

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, December 22, 2025 - 08:15 pm: Edit

Alan,
Very valid point.

I have zero doubt, if left to themselves, the bureaucracy will continue to screw up the production and/or development of ship building.

If they were left alone.

It is anyone’s guess how much or how little control Trump or his hand picked appointees will leave to the bureaucrats.

It is possible (however unlikely…) that large scale firings and demotions of the presently employed persons (in places of authority) will follow.

Where the replacements come from has not been revealed.

I am justifiably curious to see if this results in commissioned warships.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, December 22, 2025 - 09:22 pm: Edit

Fear not, it takes years to design a ship, by the time it's launched it will be named for the president of that time (Mark Cuban).

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Monday, December 22, 2025 - 09:30 pm: Edit

Perhaps, and this is a bold thought, some competition from foreign yards would be good.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, December 22, 2025 - 10:12 pm: Edit

Tried that.

The Recently cancelled Constellation class started with an Italian design.

The change orders issued by bureau of ships totally screwed up everything related to the initial proposal.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, December 22, 2025 - 10:27 pm: Edit

Steve Cole:

Good point, but we must never forget we are dealing with political critters in power.

Look at what Admiral Jackie Fisher did in a similar circumstance.

I doubt any one with any real knowledge of ship building procurement or even engineering ever loved the H.M.S. Dreadnought… but the historians are still bestowing laurels and praise on the “history making” accomplishment.

Fisher was neither the first or even the only person to push for improved warship designs, just able to take advantage of already ordered components (mostly big ticket items that required years to produce) like 12” naval rifled guns in twin gun turrets with matching barbets and associated gun sights and the (at the time) rudimentary fire control systems. I forget what the power plant was for the nelson class pre dreadnought battleships, but since the guns came from that class ship, wouldn’t be surprised if they used the engines as well.

I do know Fisher was a fan of the new turbines, just do not remember what the H.M.S. Dreadnought Ended up with.

The Dreadnought was completed in record time, something like eighteen months iirc.

Just beat the U.S.S. Delaware into service in spite of the American ship having started construction earlier.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, December 22, 2025 - 11:32 pm: Edit

I think you meant the USS Michigan and USS South Carolina.

I saw Trump’s speech on battleships. If he actually knew what he was talking about, he’d be a truly bold leader.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Tuesday, December 23, 2025 - 06:15 am: Edit

Jeff, I meant the ships could be built in shipyards outside the US.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, December 23, 2025 - 08:23 am: Edit

While rare, the united states has commissioned ships for service in the Coast Guard and the navy.

A quick google search result:

Quote:” During WWII, the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard operated Flower-class corvettes, known as the Action-class (PG-62 to PG-70) and Temptress-class (PG-62 to PG-65), primarily transferred from the Royal Navy for escort duty, with ships like USS Temptress (PG-62), USS Surprise (PG-63), and USS Saucy (PG-65) serving, often crewed by Coast Guard personnel, before returning to the UK.
Action Class (USN Designation)
These were British-built Flower-class corvettes transferred under Lend-Lease, serving as patrol gunboats (PG).
USS Temptress (PG-62) (ex-HMS Veronica)
USS Surprise (PG-63) (ex-HMS Surprise)
USS Spry (PG-64) (ex-HMS Spry)
USS Saucy (PG-65) (ex-HMS Saucy)
USS Restless (PG-66) (ex-HMS Restless)
USS Ready (PG-67) (ex-HMS Ready)
USS Impulse (PG-68) (ex-HMS Impulse)
USS Fury (PG-69) (ex-HMS Fury)
USS Vigilant (PG-70) (ex-HMS Vigilant)
Coast Guard Involvement
Many of these corvettes, like the Temptress, were manned by U.S. Coast Guard crews while serving the Navy.
Key Role
These small, effective ships performed vital convoy escort and anti-submarine warfare duties in the Atlantic and Caribbean. ”

There are some other examples, but I believe this makes the point.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, December 23, 2025 - 08:45 am: Edit

December is the month for announcing new ship construction, it seems.

Quote:” France has officially committed to building a new nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the Porte-Avions Nouvelle Génération (PANG), to replace the aging Charles de Gaulle, with President Macron announcing the decision to ensure long-term naval strength, costing around €10 billion and expected to enter service by 2038.
Key Details:
Official Announcement: President Emmanuel Macron confirmed the project while addressing troops in Abu Dhabi, calling it a generational commitment to maritime power.
Purpose: To maintain France's ability to project power globally and support its nuclear deterrent.
Timeline: Aiming for service entry in 2038, replacing the Charles de Gaulle, which entered service in 2001.
Scale: It will be Europe's largest warship, displacing around 78,000 tonnes, much larger than the Charles de Gaulle.
Technology: It will feature nuclear propulsion and electromagnetic catapults.
Cost & Investment: The project is a significant naval investment, estimated at about €10 billion (roughly $12 billion), with work already underway on propulsion components.
Economic Impact: The project is expected to involve hundreds of French companies, supporting small and medium-sized businesses. ”

This is a google AI response to a question, so, as always, there may be errors in the content. Be aware.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, December 23, 2025 - 10:06 am: Edit

The French ship is giving me pangs....

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, December 23, 2025 - 10:45 am: Edit

OK, serious question: What is the point of these proposed "Trump class battleships"? The idea behind the Constellation frigates was supposed to be something capable but (comparatively) inexpensive, that we could build (comparatively) quickly and in large numbers. We needed (so it was said) to increase the number of hulls in service, to counter the large (and rapidly increasing) number of Chinese warships.

Well, we seem to have gotten the Constellations wrong; not, so far as I have heard, because of problems with the basic design itself. Rather, we couldn't resist making numerous changes that detonated cost and schedule projections.

But that doesn't make the problem of insufficient numbers of ships go away. If it was a problem before, it's still a problem. And if it still a problem, these "Trump class" are completely wrong as a solution. What we need to do is figure out how to procure large numbers of reasonably capable ships, whether we produce them ourselves or procure them from an ally. (Japanese Mogami class perhaps?)

I understand the drive to revive our own shipbuilding capabilities. But we already know how to build small numbers of extremely expensive ships (aircraft carriers, Arleigh Burke class destroyers, nuclear submarines). "Trump class" ships won't help us relearn how to rapidly build large numbers of small but still-capable frigates. But partnering with someone who still remembers how to do that (Japan or South Korea), just might.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Tuesday, December 23, 2025 - 11:59 am: Edit

Carl,

The proposal specifically requires the ships to be build in U.S. shipyards.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Tuesday, December 23, 2025 - 12:06 pm: Edit

Alan,

Given the described armament, it looks like the purpose - inasmuch as there is an official purpose - is to revive the old concept of an "arsenal ship" (aka a "missile truck") from SC-21. Mind, we already have an excellent missile truck in the form of Virginia-class submarines, which are a good deal more survivable than a large surface combatant, but yeah.

I cannot comment on the likely unofficial purpose here.

By Burt Quaid (Burt) on Tuesday, December 23, 2025 - 12:29 pm: Edit

The new frigate based on a coast guard cutter. Are those ships large enough for a VLS system?

Burt

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Tuesday, December 23, 2025 - 01:13 pm: Edit

>> we already have an excellent missile truck in the form of Virginia-class submarines

The problem with Virginia VLS is lack of support for SM3/SM6 for air defense, in particular BMD. So it doesn't really help much vs. Chinese IRBM defense. That's a big VLS capacity gap. Probably need some cheaper ships, either cheap frigates with significant VLS or perhaps cheap missile freighters/barges. Using any expensive ship as a VLS truck (Trump class BB, Virginia SSN, Burke DD) doesn't really scale as the underlying vessel carrying the VLS is just too expensive. Your all in cost for ocean mobile VLS is just too high.

--Mike

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Tuesday, December 23, 2025 - 01:26 pm: Edit

>> The new frigate based on a coast guard cutter. Are those ships large enough for a VLS system?

That's how it began with Constellation. Rather than accepting the limited but functional nature of a small pre-existing design (FREMM, Legend), the urge is to uprate it by adding a few VLS, for example. Maybe just enough for basic self defense? Or how about strike length VLS for SM3/6 and Toms to be able to help do more (like BMD)? Those VLS are about 27 feet long -- not the easiest thing to fit deep into a pre-existing hull not designed around them.

And then once you add VLS, you need a better radar, right? How about a small one, but kinda like SPY? A baby SPY? And then you need a combat management system. Not Aegis, it's just too expensive. How about a baby Aegis instead?

And then that's mostly air defense. What about subs? How about a nice towed array? VDS for littorals? Hull mounted too for better multistatic?

And then the helo contingent. You need 2x MH60 and a nice sized flight deck to accomodate their enormous rotors. I mean, even old Perry's had 2x helis!

And then comms gear, ESM, ECM, decoys, small boats, crew, engines, fuel, etc.

And then you have a baby Burke which isn't a cost effective value add vs. a regular Burkle. And you have negated the value of the "off the shelf" ship by making so many upgrades it would have been much better to simply start from a clean sheet of paper and define clear requirements and projected costs from the beginning.


--Mike

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Tuesday, December 23, 2025 - 02:02 pm: Edit

Jessica, yes, that is apparently part of the problem: intentionally limited competition has weakened the USA ship building industry.

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Tuesday, December 23, 2025 - 03:46 pm: Edit

I've mentioned my wife's claim that they regularly got requests to arm their light tactical recon drones.

And fought them off with a two pronged approach:
1) Which of the battery, radio, or cammera do you wish us to remove to make room for a grenade?
2) Our organizational charter says "unarmed", talk to the Pentagon and get that changed if you want us to arm them.

Note, point (1) WAS NOT ENOUGH, you could make the airframe "just a little bigger" and fit in "just a small grenade" "it won't add that much to the cost or wieght or propulsion system".

Stopping mission creep ALSO needed "We're not allowed to even study the feasability of arming this".

A frigate is a full up warship, it will have some RADAR, it will have some ASW, it will have some weapons. There is simply no similar hard stop on "let's just add a little more capability". Which means you need the contractor(s), the project office, and the people at the Pentagon above the project office, and at least a good part of Congress to ALL AGREE, "We are not going to mission creep this", because it's really hard to push back against, "But spending 'just a bit more' will make our sailors/country safer."

Edited to add: And no one has a strong incentive to push back, a more expensive ship makes for more profit for the contractor (right up to the point where the program gets cancelled due to cost overruns), the people at the top of the project office are more likely to get promotions/big contractor jobs after they retire if they are running a bigger program, the people above have similar incentives, and congressmen want to score political points and get pork for their district. The pressure is ALL toward gold plating the system. You need a hard limit on gross tonnage or on cost or on something with a solid statement, "exceed this and the entire program is cancelled".

By Burt Quaid (Burt) on Tuesday, December 23, 2025 - 04:39 pm: Edit

Found online where they had offered a variant 4921. It has a 12 cell VLS so I guess the answer its yes it is. Barely.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, December 23, 2025 - 06:19 pm: Edit

I think the purpose of the new BBs is psychological. "Behold... the mighty battleship!" While the Virginia class subs might be cheaper and more survivable, the sheer visibility of the BB has political and psychological impact both strategically and tactically.

Personally, for that reason alone, I'd want several such BBs to project the political/psychological impact and then - like an iceberg (almost literally) - have far more of the subs providing the most (and hidden) weight of the threat for the opposition's professional tactical thinkers to fret about.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Tuesday, December 23, 2025 - 07:45 pm: Edit

As a note: greatly overshadowed by this new "battleship" concept, Pres. Trump also announced that there would be a new class of aircraft carrier larger than the new Ford class. No details beyond that were provided.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Tuesday, December 23, 2025 - 07:47 pm: Edit

Ted,

I agree that the point of these "BBGs" is indeed psychological...just in a rather different and more personal way than you intended.