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.
My operating assumption is that this is entirely phantomware and after three years of spending on design and maybe one hull it is shuttled off into oblivion.
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.
So what shipyard gave him a solid gold statue of himself as Posiedon?
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.
The thing is even if you could generate the power for both systems…they’re really still not what we need.
They’re both cost effective ways to deal with targets that we use more expensive munitions on now.
But for a high end fight? We need VLS cells and the missile production to sustain a fight.
I think some 12 year olds need to read Honor Harrington not Horatio Hornblower.
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!
If you're looking for a good laugh, then an apology for nuclear-powered battleships is at your service - https://substack.com/home/post/p-182369494
Intellectual MAGA apologetics is the funniest thing I've ever read in my life.
Oh I can assure you beyond a shadow of a doubt I was not looking to read that
My operating assumption is that this is entirely phantomware and after three years of spending on design and maybe one hull it is shuttled off into oblivion.
I genuinely probably wouldn’t be shocked if that’s the actual outcome
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.