I'm not a naval combat expert either, but I feel like I'm at least an educated amateur (Navy vet with defense industry experience). I agree with your assessment, and would like to add a couple of observations.
What conflicts are planning for? I've read what I could of the available intelligence and defense strategy documents, and a ship of this type only makes sense if you are almost certain of near-peer conflict with China and/or Russia. (Unless, of course, this is purely a vanity project.) Battleships were used for ship-to-ship combat until WWII when they shifted to a role of artillery for coastal targets (e.g. - beach landings and such). Neither of these types of engagement seem to match modern warfare needs.
A rail gun AND a laser? Just spit balling on what a design principle for this ship could look like, the Navy would want both weapon systems available at the same time. The energy storage needs for this would be massive. You could never keep up with instantaneous power demand of either weapon with a host of generators on board, let alone both. Now we're taking about batteries or capacitors, and I didn't think the technology exists for either method yet. And it's not for lack of trying.
IF one assumes the writer's assessment of the proposed armament load of the new Trump Class battleships accurately describes those to be included in the ships when built, the writer's conclusions logically follow. Beware of a fascination with large objects whose only attraction is their size.
Frankly, I find it hard to believe a twelve-year-old would think that looks cool. It's a low-poly grey brick with hardly any guns on it!
I'm not a naval combat expert either, but I feel like I'm at least an educated amateur (Navy vet with defense industry experience). I agree with your assessment, and would like to add a couple of observations.
What conflicts are planning for? I've read what I could of the available intelligence and defense strategy documents, and a ship of this type only makes sense if you are almost certain of near-peer conflict with China and/or Russia. (Unless, of course, this is purely a vanity project.) Battleships were used for ship-to-ship combat until WWII when they shifted to a role of artillery for coastal targets (e.g. - beach landings and such). Neither of these types of engagement seem to match modern warfare needs.
A rail gun AND a laser? Just spit balling on what a design principle for this ship could look like, the Navy would want both weapon systems available at the same time. The energy storage needs for this would be massive. You could never keep up with instantaneous power demand of either weapon with a host of generators on board, let alone both. Now we're taking about batteries or capacitors, and I didn't think the technology exists for either method yet. And it's not for lack of trying.
IF one assumes the writer's assessment of the proposed armament load of the new Trump Class battleships accurately describes those to be included in the ships when built, the writer's conclusions logically follow. Beware of a fascination with large objects whose only attraction is their size.
I think some 12 year olds need to read Honor Harrington not Horatio Hornblower.
So what shipyard gave him a solid gold statue of himself as Posiedon?