Getting back to real world military issues, I just saw a news report about greenland.

A Google inquiry showed:

Quote:” Yes, the United States is in advanced, classified negotiations with Denmark and Greenland to open three new military bases in southern Greenland. The talks are focused on establishing a strategic footprint to monitor Russian and Chinese maritime activity in the Arctic and North Atlantic.Key Details of the Negotiations:Proposed Locations: U.S. officials have floated sites in southern Greenland. Identified sites include Narsarsuaq (a former U.S. base with existing infrastructure) and Kangerlussuaq.Strategic Mission: The bases would be utilized to monitor activity in the GIUK Gap—a strategic chokepoint between Greenland, Iceland, and the U.K.—a mission the existing Pituffik Space Base is not equipped to perform.Sovereignty Proposals: U.S. diplomats have floated an arrangement that would designate the new installations as U.S. sovereign territory.Status of the Deal: While the White House and Greenland's Prime Minister have confirmed that high-level diplomatic talks are actively progressing, no final agreement has been reached yet. Greenlandic officials have made it clear that while they are open to deeper defense and economic ties, the island's sovereignty remains non-negotiable.”

Sovereign territory sounds a lot like a very permanent arrangement…

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Saturday, May 16, 2026 - 11:51 am: Edit

So my take on the Trump BB discussion:

I don't have any issue with building a larger ship per se, so long as there's a reason for the size. Not sure the BB design really articulates that? Maybe the railgun would theoretically need a large stable platform to manage recoil?

The obvious thing a large surface combatant could host would be a large UHF array. But the plans are just for a tiny S-band like Burke, which is really a compromise due to the small superstructure and weight distribution design of Burke. A clean sheet BB doesn't have those limitations. The large UHF could provide very long range cueing for the Burkes, as well as very long range self-cueing and self-targeting for the AA and BMD missions.

Not sure I'd put a lot of eggs in the railgun and laser basket. Nice ideas, but IMHO those are still maturing technologies. Get a working, tactically useful railgun up and running on a test hull before you commit a class to it. Same with lasers. So, no railgun, and maybe 2x smallish lasers and 2x smallish HPM? But the rest of the design should lean into proven weapons.

So in the absence of a large UHF (or maybe a large conformal hull sonar?) I don't think the large hull really makes sense. Probably better to make more smaller hulls.

The recent nuclear idea I completely agree with conceptually. Nuclear powered ships are tactically and strategically faster, are lower cost over a well planned, long service lifetime and generate little pollution (USN is one of the largest polluters in the world). The problem is there is a logjam of nuclear construction and maintenance right now (classes: Virginia, Columbia, Ford, and maintenance on Nimitz). So adding another nuclear hull into the mix is probably poorly timed.

So I guess we'll see. I don't see cancellation as the most likely outcome. The design will probably move along during the Trump administration and then just morph into a new cruiser or destroyer design later. Neither the industrial base nor USN will want to let go of all those allocated dollars. Even folks who oppose the BB concept will probably be supportive as they want the cash for their own projects.

--Mike

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Saturday, May 16, 2026 - 12:22 pm: Edit

IMHO the "BB" designation is wrong.

More like CGN or BCN would be appropriate.

Current Ticonderoga's are just slightly upsized DDs.

By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Saturday, May 16, 2026 - 03:11 pm: Edit

Mike would the reality be something similar to the Strike Cruiser design of the 1980s as far as size

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, May 16, 2026 - 03:19 pm: Edit

Guys, Ted Fay was kind enough to post the details of the proposed ships:

Quote:”

Design & Capabilities

Size: 35,000–41,000 tons; 840–880 ft long Wikipedia+1.

Speed: >30 knots Wikipedia.

Crew: 650–800 Wikipedia.
Propulsion: Nuclear reactor for unlimited range and high power generation www.twz.com.”

Please see what Ted posted before making any comments.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, May 16, 2026 - 03:39 pm: Edit

35,000 tons is a battleship. Nothing called a cruiser has ever been that big. Nothing that big has ever been called a cruiser.

WWI battleships were under 35,000. Lots of WWII battleships were that size. Nevada was 27,000, Pennsylvania was 32,000. North Carolina was 35,000.

Point of information. Battleships have several weights. Deadweight tons, gross register tons, empty, light load, full load, others.
Bismarck was 42,000 standard load, 50,000 tons full load (ship, full fuel tanks, full ammo load, full crew, full food.)

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, May 16, 2026 - 04:15 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

35,000 tons is a battleship. Nothing called a cruiser has ever been that big.

---

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, May 16, 2026 - 04:23 pm: Edit

Heck, even a "small" modern fighter like a Block 50 F-16 has a higher maximum takeoff weight than some WW2 medium bombers like the B-25. You can't classify types based simply on size, when comparing across different eras with different technologies.

By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Saturday, May 16, 2026 - 04:24 pm: Edit

The naval treaties of the 1920s and 30s originally defined the qualifications of the different classes. Hood for instance was defined as a battle cruiser bacause she did not have the armor of a battleship, but was much faster, and in fact was tonnage wise much larger that what was considered a modern battleship in 1920. Cruisers on the othe hand were defined as heavy of light depending on their gun armament. The naval treaties decided that ships with 6 inch guns or less were light cruisers and larger guns generally 8"(mostly standard) were heavy. inside that for cruisers were weight differences. Cruisers in general were from 3500 tons up to 13700 tons by the end of WWII. Destroyers after WWII went crazy from less than 3000 tons to the present Burkes of 10000 tons. The destroyers and cruisers are really a blinded design now.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, May 16, 2026 - 05:48 pm: Edit

"35,000 tons is a battleship. Nothing called a cruiser has ever been that big. Nothing that big has ever been called a cruiser."

**Perhaps not in the US Navy - but as Eddie mentiioned the Royal Navy did make some big (Battle)cruisers...

HMS Hood was over 46K
HMS Repulse and HMS Renown was 32K

I think the Japanese also had some large Battlecruisers (mainly because they was British pre/WW1/post designs).

But on the 'BBGN' or what ever it's designated.

Persoanlly, 2 5" Guns does not make it a Battleship.

No idea if the "Railgun or Laserguns" have sufficent firepower to even say 8 12" guns - never mind 9 or 10 14"+ guns (or even 9 x 18".....).

Based on being 35K+ - I would go for calling them 'Strike Cruisers' and make a new designation for them.

** Note - Is it relevant 'what they are called' - the current Japenese Navy does not have any Carriers (although 2 got redesignated IIRC - but 4 of their ships can operate aircraft plus some can also operate the MV22.

Yep - legal dodge, but it works for them.

So on BBGN or SC (Strike Cruise) - if the Railgun and Lasers work - the former might be deemed acceptable - but if it doesn't, it could be a very embarassing title.

Also - will there not be an issue with BIG Railguns and Laserguns - if it visible - a smaller gun will be just as big - and if the target is over the horizon.... how would you hit it?

(I am guessing Railguns and Lasers will only hit something in a line from gun to target....a curved planet will effects it's range.)

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Saturday, May 16, 2026 - 06:34 pm: Edit

Quote:
"35,000 tons is a battleship. Nothing called a cruiser has ever been that big. Nothing that big has ever been called a cruiser."


The USN Lexington class, cancelled under the Washington Naval Treaty (with 2 incomplete hulls converted into carriers) were planned to be about 44,000 tons standard and were officially designated as "Combat Cruisers" (CC). This was a matter of the USN having an obsession about not calling anything a "battlecruiser," but it indicates the flexibility of nomenclature in naval architecture.

Additionally, the WW2 Alaska class were officially designated as "large cruisers" (CB) and were just shy of 35,000 tons full load. Again, the USN has a historical hatred of the word "battlecruiser."

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, May 16, 2026 - 08:03 pm: Edit

It may not have been historical hatred of the word battlecruiser, as it was the historical record of. British battlecruisersduring the battle of Jutland, may 1916.

“ Three British battlecruisers were lost during the Battle of Jutland on May 31, 1916:HMS Indefatigable: Hit by German battlecruiser Von der Tann, causing her aft magazines to detonate.HMS Queen Mary: Exploded and sank after taking heavy, successive fire from German battlecruisers Derfflinger and Seydlitz.HMS Invincible: Exploded and broke in half after her midships magazine was penetrated by a shell from the German battlecruiser Lützow.These rapid losses resulted in catastrophic casualties, with each ship suffering the loss of almost her entire crew. For deeper historical accounts, explore the details on the Imperial War Museums Battle of Jutland Timeline or check out The National Archives Jutland Resources.”

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, May 16, 2026 - 09:08 pm: Edit

The US has a number of military quirks that are just different from other nations. We were always very very reluctant to create higher generals; even George Washington was just a 3-star during his lifetime and five-stars were not used until late in WWII. (Dewey and Pershing had unique ranks now considered to be six-stars.) We didn't want to call ships battlecruisers, but they were. We call Brigadiers by the title Brigadier General. We had Rear Admiral Lower Half. We refused to put a GPMG into rifle squads. Let's not forget tank destroyers.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Sunday, May 17, 2026 - 12:06 pm: Edit

Gentlemen, with regards to whether the new warship should be called a "Battleship," please remember that the Gorn referred to their War Cruiser as a Heavy Destroyer to hide its cost from the credit pinching members of the Confederation Assembly...

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Sunday, May 17, 2026 - 12:11 pm: Edit

And the WW2 Fletcher class DD displaced between 2k and 3k. Different eras have different standards. And the standards aren't always very standard.

--Mike

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, May 17, 2026 - 02:19 pm: Edit

An Iranian drone hit the Abu Dhabi nuclear power plant, apparently on purpose. The whole Arab world started screaming ESCALATION. The IAEA says the four nuclear reactors are not leaking. The US is surging F16 Viper SEAD aircraft in preparation to hit what is left of Iran’s air defenses.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, May 17, 2026 - 02:27 pm: Edit

Israel is setting iron dome air defense systems in Arab countries.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, May 17, 2026 - 06:18 pm: Edit

The drone war revolution is having effects and causes and implications that are yet to be fully discussed.

The phrase "economy of war" has suddenly appeared when someone started spending $1,000,000 missiles to shoot down $50,000 drones. That cannot go on beyond a demonstration of capability. The race is to find a counter. Ground-based cheap interceptors (guns, small missiles) are well known and used for two years now. Aerial interception is just starting to happen but only with low-performance prop-driven aircraft carrying guns or cheap interceptors. Experiments to fire cheap interceptors from jet fighters have started (at least on paper) but Stingers and the cheap Ukrainian interceptors were never designed to survive the shock and stress of jet aircraft maneuverability and speed. (This is why helicopters use TOW and jets use the much more expensive Maverick/Hellfire missiles to kill tanks.) I suspect that aerial interception will remain the Cessna War.

Decades ago I wrote and published an essay that said "the submarine is the second-choice weapon of an inferior naval power." I cited Germany in two wars, the US in 1942, and the Russians in 1960-1990. Drones are becoming the same thing.

Iran made a conscious decision to use its Air Force as a damage sponge and effectively abandon it to destruction. The planes were old and spare parts were not available. No one would sell Iran new fighters. The Iranians decided to go for drones since they were cheaper, could be built in small hard-to-find factories, did not need expensive pilots that took years to train, and did not need runways that were impossible to hide and difficult to protect. Ukraine took the lesson to heart. Russia learned it quickly an bought off-the-shelf solutions from Iran. One wonders if Taiwan has started building the 10,000 attack drones that would make a Chinese invasion impossible.

It makes me wonder... What if Nazi Germany had the technology to build drones and decided in September 43 to abandon fighters and bombers and V2 and just build drones. (V1 was an offensive drone but improved technology would have actually let it hit a specific target like the Horse Guards government command bunker instead of just a random street in London.) Let's talk, however, about defensive anti-bomber drones. You could build, just a guess, 50 ground-to-bomber drones for the cost of an FW190. So instead of sending 100 109/190 fighters to claw through 500 Mustangs to hit the bombers, you send 5000 drones. The Mustangs cannot get more than 1000. The bomber gunners cannot get more than 1000. That leaves 3000 drones ramming B17/24/Lanc bombers with a warhead more than big enough to bring them down. The bomber offensive stops in about a week when bomber losses pass 67%. I'm not saying that would change the war, but it would help. Then imagine that small ground attack drones going after US and British and Soviet headquarters, fuel dumps, and artillery batteries. Or landing ships off of Normandy, which would change the war. The war could well end in a negotiated peace leaving Hitler in power. Negative outcome/not good.

I am beginning to suspect that Jessica knew something she never shared about why she had so much confidence that Ukraine could actually win the war if given another year.

I also suspect that Jessica might never have shared her secret knowledge of the reason behind her conviction that Iran could not be forced to unconditional surrender.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Sunday, May 17, 2026 - 07:02 pm: Edit

I don't know about Jessica, but I have been continually insisting that Ukraine will win.

I still believe that. Their use of drones is just so much more effective than Russia's.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Sunday, May 17, 2026 - 09:18 pm: Edit

Jessica remains under the non-disclosure conditions of her TS/SCI debrief until 2062.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Sunday, May 17, 2026 - 10:22 pm: Edit

With zero secret knowledge, it seems to me that the reason Iran hasn't been forced to surrender is that the US is behind the curve on the drone revolution.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, May 18, 2026 - 12:22 am: Edit

While we are definitely behind the curve, that's not why Iran hasn't been forced to surrender.

Reason one: the IRGC leadership is on a "Mission From God (TM)" and you cannot just tell God that you abandoned the mission.

Reason two: As long as they have a truck with some Shaheeds on it that can zip out of hiding, launch them, and run back into the cave, Iran is "still in the game". They probably have at least two dozen such trucks (if not 100) and a thousand Shaheeds (if not five thousand).

Trump does not have a tiger by the tail. He has a hold on the tail of an angry housecat who thinks he's God. That darn cat doesn't care how many times you bomb the sofa, he's still gotta jump out and bite any chance he gets.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Monday, May 18, 2026 - 01:36 am: Edit

The situation may have been the same if Iran had no drones, since they got missile "cities" and naval mines, too. The same can probably not be said about the impact of drones in Ukraine.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, May 18, 2026 - 02:03 am: Edit

Test. The bbs has intermittently been locking down. I will ask Jean to check.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Monday, May 18, 2026 - 08:45 am: Edit

But with enough drones, the US could keep constant watch on the air above cities and send an attack drone in whenever an IRGC person shows themselves.

If the IRGC never shows themselves, then the local population can take control of the city.

Critically, this would be nowhere near as expensive as the type of operations we ran in March and April.