Battleship for the Price of an Aircraft Carrier: US Navy Requests Funding for Trump-Class

The US Navy has requested $17 billion to fund research and development and construction of the first Trump-class battleship, which has already been designated USS Defiant (BBG-1). For example, the most advanced aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford, cost the US budget approximately $13,3 billion for its pennant, and including all research and development, the total cost exceeded $18 billion.

The FY 2027 funding request includes $1 billion for advance procurement and $837 million for research and development, in addition to the $134 million already committed for initial design work.

Currently, the concept involves the creation of a ship with a massive hull that will be able to carry 12 hypersonic conventional intercontinental ballistic missiles. missiles CPS, 128 Mk41 VPU (for Tomahawk cruise missiles, SM interceptors and other weapons), advanced directed energy weapons (rail systems, laser weapon based on ODIN and HELIOS) with a capacity of 300 to 600 kW (with the possibility of upgrading to approximately 1 MW) and, possibly, a SLCM-N cruise missile with a nuclear warhead.

The close-in defense armament will be represented by 2 RIM-116 launchers (against missiles and aviation), two 5-inch guns with a barrel length of 62 calibers (against surface targets) and four 30-mm systems (against small aircraft).

This will enable one ship to perform tasks traditionally distributed among several combat units.

The ship is expected to be 260 to 270 meters long and 32 to 35 meters wide, slightly larger than the Japanese battleship Yamato. Its speed is expected to exceed 30 knots, a speed matched by the German battleship Bismarck. The crew is estimated at 650–800. Its displacement of over 30,000 tons (approximately three times that of the Arleigh Burke and slightly larger than the Russian cruiser Admiral Nakhimov) will allow for an impressive arsenal of weapons, capacious missile magazines, cooling systems, and powerful propulsion systems.

The aviation infrastructure includes a flight deck and two hangars capable of accommodating V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft. A sensor system based on the AN/SPY-6 radar will provide comprehensive detection and tracking of air targets and missiles.

The Trump-class ships are designed to fill the capability gap left by the retirement of the Ticonderoga-class cruisers. They were previously expected to be replaced by the DDG(X) destroyer, but its design was deemed insufficient to accommodate the required number of launcher cells, hypersonic missiles, and high-energy weapons. Ultimately, a larger ship was chosen.

Estimated equipment of the ship:

The cost of the entire Trump program currently stands at $43,5 billion: the price of the first building is expected to be $17 billion (construction is scheduled to begin in the 2028 fiscal year), the second – $13 billion (2030), and the third – from $11 to 11,5 billion (2031).

Major American shipyards such as Bath Iron Works, Ingalls Shipbuilding, and Newport News Shipbuilding are currently operating under labor shortages and overloaded with orders. Expanding production capacity may be necessary. South Korea's Hanwha Philly Shipyard is reportedly being considered as a potential participant, although it has not previously built warships.

Comments

[andrey martov]

The US simply views war as a safari. A pleasant pastime of hunting natives.

[Zoldat_A]

Quote: Andrey Martov

The US simply views war as a safari. A pleasant pastime of hunting natives.

It is probably still harmful to the mental health of a nation to never fight on its own territory against invaders, when the issue is not about "robbing the natives," but about the existence of the country and the people.

[novel66]

It's probably sedition, but we should have fought the Germans against the rest in World War I. Maybe we would have lived to see the landing in the States.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Excuse me, but how is this possible? After all, it was the Germans who attacked (declared war) on the Russian Empire in 1914. Please research the issue.

[KCA]

After Russia announced mobilization, which was a direct threat to the Germans, and if they had let them fight with the frogs and the insolence and not interfere ahead of time, it is unknown how things would have turned out

[bukhach]

Excuse me, Russia's mobilization was aimed at Austria-Hungary's aggression against Serbia! Following your logic, it was the Germans who should have stayed out of the fray, but the truth is, it was Germany, not Russia, that needed the war, so Russia posed no threat to the Germans until the moment war was declared on us.

[KCA]

Why the hell did the Russian Empire get involved in Serbia? To help its bros? How many fought the Turks for Bulgaria, for example? They were Germany's allies during World War II, and after the collapse of the USSR, they became a NATO member. What the hell are we talking about with these bros? Are you sure the Serbs aren't currently selling weapons to NATO countries, like Bulgaria and the surrounding areas? Yugoslavia also turned west after the war with Tito. Small countries are just slobbering and being tossed around.

[mocnijogurt]

First of all Russia was selling weapons to the enemies of Serbia in 90s, Russia did not place veto against bombing of Serbia in 99. Serbia expected help from Russia when Yugoslavia collapsed (one s300 system would prevent everything). Please do not talk about allies, when Russia could not help their own in modern time. While Serbs are looking at Russia as ally because of history, tradition, religion, and because of support on issue of Kosovo we do not expect to receive crucial help in the event of some war, it happened before it will happen again - Russia likes to trade with bigger players, interests of Russia are far beyond any brotherhood that people like to feel. On selling weapons to NATO, I can confirm that our country - Serbia is vastly controlled by west and NATO in the past 25 years, some of our politicians are trying to work around that fact, sometimes the have success sometimes not. Yugoslavia was a zombie country from the start, it was led by Tito which placed Serbia in an unfavorable position which degraded even more over time. Fun fact - Tito fought against Serbs in WW1. Uzdravlje

[bayard]

Quote: Buhach

Excuse me, Russia's mobilization was aimed at Austria-Hungary's aggression against Serbia!

There was a slightly different sequence there: Austria attacked Serbia and even managed to get some flak from them, and France stepped in on its behalf, issuing an ultimatum to Austria. Germany, as Austria's ally, declared war on France, and the Russian Empire (well, Nikita No. 2 had to get involved in the Entente and thus extend the treaty with France) then declared mobilization. This signaled its threat to Germany, and Germany declared war on us, too. And the Russian Army marched into East Prussia, saving Paris. It was all a "pot of VARI."

Quote: novel xnumx

It's probably sedition, but we had to fight the Germans against the rest during the First World War.

To achieve this, it was necessary to agree to a military alliance with Germany on the eve of the Russian Revolution. The Kaiser really wanted one and offered it to his cousin. But the narrow-minded Niki, instead of an alliance with a natural ally... referred to an alliance with France, saying that the French dandies would be offended.
But the treaty with the French had a time limit, which expired soon after the Russian Revolution. If "secret agreements" had been made with the Kaiser back then, that upon the expiration of the treaty with the Franks, either a tripartite treaty would be concluded, or the treaty with France would not be extended, and the treaty with Germany would become official. Then the Russian Empire would have received maximum geostrategic stability, support, and assistance on the eve of the Russian Revolution and its course (which would have obviously led to a different outcome), would have ensured mutually beneficial and complementary trade, and would have allowed the Russian Empire to avoid WWI and ensure Serbia's immunity without military escalation. The Germans would have dealt with France themselves, but the war with England would have continued at sea, and the United States would have been forced to intervene prematurely. The Russian Empire could have avoided participating in this war altogether, instead profiting from trade and supplying the warring armies, while also building up its own potential, like the United States did in both wars. They would have entered in the final phase, primarily with the fleet. And they would have taken everything they had long wanted – the Black Sea straits and bases in the Mediterranean.
And in the Pacific Ocean, the Pacific Fleet would simply dominate by definition.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: bayard

But the narrow-minded Nicky, instead of an alliance with a natural ally... referred to an alliance with France, saying that the French dandies would be offended.

If we side with the Reich, the question of French credits and Russian loans arises. The Republic held the Empire by its most vulnerable spot: 70% of Russia's foreign debt is owed to France.

[bayard]

Quote: Alexey RA

If you go over to the Reich's side

Whose side? Wilhelm first persuaded Alexander III, and then his son, to join forces as Junior Partner (Germany was the junior partner). But later, with Nika, the discussion turned to an equal but mutually beneficial alliance.

Quote: Alexey RA

The question of French loans and Russian credits arises.

At the end of the reign of Alexander III (and he had no intention of dying then, they helped him), Russia had no need for foreign loans. And those that had been taken out earlier could easily be repaid within the terms established by the loan agreements, without any damage to the economy and finances of the Russian Empire. At that time, the Sharapov group was the tsar's advisor and think tank. Their plans and programs were approved by the tsar. Over time, all foreign banks would have been kicked out of Russia – for being unnecessary and because of the damage they caused and espionage. Remember the success of the first five-year plans in the 1930s and up until 1955? This group was the one who managed the economy back then, forming the core of the Soviet Gosplan (Stalin's). And they had drawn up all their programs, projects, and plans back then – in the first half of the 1890s. And they had already been approved for implementation by the tsar and began their implementation. But the sudden death of the intelligent tsar and the accession to the throne of his young and melancholy son led to the disruption and halt of these reforms. Only the Trans-Siberian Railway, the KBM, and the CER were completed. Preparations for the Russian Nuclear War (which the City of London and its US affiliates were pushing on us) were already underway. A competent and harmonious, and most importantly, balanced and timely, program for building ships for the Pacific Fleet, developing the naval base, deploying an army in the Far East... everything was disrupted, crumpled, and altered, with the war readiness deadlines postponed by two years (to mid-1905). While England and the US were rushing Japan to start the war in mid-1903.
Where does the money for all this come from?
Well, we can't take loans from the Rothschilds. Sharapov had a very well-thought-out and practically brilliant program of financial reform, which was already being implemented. And it was precisely thanks to this that the Trans-Siberian Railway was built without a penny of external or internal loans and without any treasury expenditures. The Russian investment ruble! Money was printed in full for the needs of railway construction, and spent as construction progressed. And the Trans-Siberian Railway was built in a record eight years! Russian metallurgists and industrialists selected for contract work received loans from the state (from funds issued for the CER), and they, having expanded and developed their production with these funds, or even built new ones, repaid these loans with practical deliveries: rails, all railway fittings, cars, locomotives, sleepers, timber and everything else. Chinese workers were brought in as labor, paid in Russian banknotes, and they bought various goods in Russia and sent them home. As a result, domestic demand grew significantly, leading to a sharp increase in domestic production and supply. In other words, everything was practically the same as in the USSR during Industrialization, when they started almost from scratch, without external loans (only loans for supplies, which were repaid by the end of each current year). You know the result; everyone knows it.
And then, with the right decisions, everything would have been exactly the same, only even better and easier. And it was, until Witte shut down the entire program, citing (about the Miracle) ) on "economic overheating." Although there was no overheating, there was rapid growth of the Ingush economy, healthy, systemic, and planned.
And this method is also true for the construction of warships, naval bases, the production of weapons and all equipment for the Army, for the development of the Merchant Navy, railway construction and for the settlement of Manchuria (which we already considered ours) with thirty million settlers from the western provinces of the Empire (this program was later nevertheless started, but the resettlement took place in Southern Siberia according to the program altered by Stolypin).
And the loans would have been repaid through the extremely profitable fur trade! This industry was being developed back then, and its profitability could rival that of the drug trade. Stalin used counter-deliveries of Russian fur to export much of his industrialization. Remember the wonderful Soviet film "A Girl with Character"? It's about this very thing; remember the opening scenes and why she went to Moscow. All these plans were ready, laid out, and approved by Alexander III, but they were only realized under Stalin.
And in 1955, Khrushchev abolished and disbanded Gosplan. I knew one person from that - Stalin's Gosplan.

Quote: Alexey RA

The Republic held the Empire by its most tender place: 70% of Russia's external debt

They would have paid off those loans without much encumbrance. But they would have tried to put pressure on - they would have simply unleashed Germany on them, and then they would have paid Germany indemnities.

France was of interest to the Russian Empire only briefly as a supplier of technology and equipment for military and civilian shipbuilding, licenses, and machine tools. From the early 20th century, we were able to obtain all of this from Germany, with mutual benefit, through harmonious trade.
Meanwhile, Germany would be fighting our enemies in the west, while we would be developing our economy and infrastructure, developing the Far East, and especially Manchuria, where the climate, soil, and landscape were similar to those of Kuban and Little Russia. Northern Manchuria (very sparsely populated) is two or three times the size of France, with all the necessary mineral resources and minerals for development, suitable for extraction and industrial development. Within 20-30 years of the beginning of the resettlement of the surplus rural population from the western provinces of the Far East, we would have developed a second agro-industrial center of the country, roughly equivalent to the European part of the Russian Empire.
I am telling you this from memory from the program documents of Sharapova’s group now.
So it was precisely then that we could and should have switched from France to Germany. And let them then wallow in Europe, let the US and England figure out how to deal with Germany. The center of our development would gradually shift to the Pacific region. With warm seas, ice-free ports, fertile lands, rich mineral resources, and convenient maritime logistics. And yes, the main forces of the Russian Navy would also be concentrated there. With a complete lack of investment funds, Russia would have developed at such a pace (and this is the opinion not only of Sharapov's group, but also of the City of London and American stock and banking analysts of the time) that after 20 years of such reforms, the Russian Empire would have become the richest, strongest, and most powerful nation in the world, one that neither the US, nor England, nor all of Europe could have caught up with. These are their conclusions from an analysis of Sharapov's Program.
That's why Alexander III died so suddenly.
That's why the Russian Revolution was prepared for us as a trap to disrupt our plans for Manchuria, and they didn't allow us to win that extremely inconvenient war. That's why they dragged us into the Entente, and then into WWI, and then overthrew the Tsar and destroyed the Empire.
Only the Bolsheviks, the General Staff (which created the Red Army and won the Civil War) and the Sharapov Group (which created and staffed the USSR State Planning Committee) saved Russia.

[bukhach]

Agree that declaring a threat and declaring war are two different things. Even an ultimatum isn't war. The Austrian ultimatum against the Serbs, for example, wasn't a war. The point is that it contained completely impossible conditions, and that was enough to use them as a pretext for aggression. But that was the Germans' choice. They got carried away and pushed the Austrians into starting a global war. If Germany hadn't wanted this war, it might never have happened, so the threat was originally posed by the Germans. Regarding your opinion about the Russian Revolutionary War, I doubt the outcome would have been different even if some kind of agreement had been reached with the Kaiser, since the generals would have remained the same, as would the fleet and admirals, plus supplies, communications, etc. One can, of course, dream of alternatives and take solace in the fact that, according to the theory of the multiverse, in one of them, exactly this is what happened, but, alas, we will never know.

[bayard]

Quote: Buhach

As for your opinion about the Russian Navy, I doubt that the outcome would have been different even if some kind of agreement had been concluded with the Kaiser, because the generals would have remained the same, as would the fleet with its admirals,

Needless to say, the generals didn't shine, and the navy wasn't impressive either. Although it's important to understand that the units and formations sent to the Far East were hastily mobilized, and their command was also partially mobilized, unfamiliar with the local theater of operations, unfamiliar with their personnel, and therefore lacking confidence in them. Reconnaissance was woefully poorly organized, and difficult to conduct because the local population—Chinese, who are extremely difficult to use as scouts (and there simply wasn't time to train them)—were unknown to our command, and the Japanese were taking draconian security measures. It seems the French, who were present as observers in both armies, were also playing against us as "allies." Apparently, they were reporting that the Japanese forces were twice as large as they actually were. And the Japanese were being told that the Russian army had half the strength it actually had. This is precisely why the Japanese (near the same Mukden) advanced so confidently, while Kuropatkin, on the contrary, was afraid of being surrounded by superior enemy forces and preferred to retreat. He cannot be blamed for caution here, precisely because the information supplied to him by the "ally" about the almost two-fold superiority of the Japanese (in fact, Kuropatkin even had some numerical advantage, but there were fewer machine guns, and the Japanese artillery fired from closed positions (the Germans taught them) easily knocking out our batteries exposed "for show" on the heights for direct fire. He saw in front of him approximately equal enemy forces, which means the rest are outflanking somewhere and the enemy has reserves ... And Kuropatkin did not intend to stubbornly hold out in Southern Manchuria. He, and Russia as a whole, were interested in Northern Manchuria, which the Russian Empire intended to receive under its protectorate, and then into the Empire. He was simply stalling for time, waiting for the completion of the southern branch of the KBM for normal supply of the army. He initially planned a maneuver war and a gradual retreat until the accumulation of sufficient forces and resources for a confident and decisive an offensive for which his army could not be ready before the second half of 1905. That is why the Japanese were in such a hurry to get there before that deadline. They did not make it in time. But when the army was already in a position to attack and had the necessary resources and reliable supplies... Kuropatkin was recalled, and Witte went to conclude the Obscene Peace.
As for the capabilities of building and preparing the fleet for war... Here everything is much more interesting. MK drew up a plan for the construction of ships at its own shipyards and for ordering abroad. They intended to build 10 new battleships, 10 armored deck cruisers of the Diana class (not like the ones that were built, a completely different project) and the Askold class, 10 light high-speed cruisers of the Novik class. The deadlines allowed, our and foreign shipyards were ready to build, they prepared projects and even began construction of the lead ones... Until in mid-1898, in the entourage of Nika-2, there was (I'm not afraid to say it) a palace coup. And due to Witte's intrigues, Sharapov's group was removed from the court and Witte (on his maternal grandmother's side from the French Rothschild clan) seized complete power. We know how it was under Witte. But how and what the General Staff and the Ministry of Defense actually planned... historians prefer to remain silent or brush it aside.
Want to take a look?
At least for the shipbuilding program?
Everything here was well-designed and consistent. To build high-quality ships, powerful propulsion systems (steam engines and high-performance, reliable, and efficient boilers) were needed. In 1897, the most powerful twin-shaft propulsion system could produce 15,000–15,500 hp. And the most reliable and efficient boilers at the time were the Belleville boilers. This propulsion system was planned for use in new battleships and armored cruisers. The Japanese also built battleships with engines of this power.
Projects? Several (almost five) battleship designs were prepared for the Pacific Fleet. The "Prince Potemkin" design was arguably the best, but for the Pacific Fleet at the time, it had a slightly different appearance, very close to the "Retvizan" (the "Retvizan" was built based on this design; in any case, the casemate battery and general appearance were derived from it, although Kramp himself based the design on a different battleship). It was according to this design that they intended to lay down five battleships... If Witte hadn't intervened and they began building the "Borodinets" class, laying down the lead ship a year later due to the design's unreadiness. Had a domestic design been chosen then (as the MK intended), all ships in the series would have been built a year and a half earlier (the design is simpler and cheaper to build).
In addition, the MK ordered a two-shaft propulsion plant with a capacity of 20,000 hp from the German company "Vulcan", which was ready in the autumn of 1898. And it was in this year that the MK faced a dilemma - the slipways for the construction of two "cruiser-raiders" became free, but the project was not approved. The MK wanted to lay down two ships based on the Peresvet project, but with a lowered forecastle, a raised stern (almost a flat deck), a two-shaft propulsion plant of 20,000 hp, improved 1-inch guns and a casemate battery like the Potemkin/Retvizan. If this decision had been made (and the laying down had to be in the spring - early summer), then we would have received magnificent armored cruisers with a speed of at least 21 knots, with 10-inch main guns and 12 x 6-inch water guns. Moreover, according to this project, it would have been possible to lay down two more such cruisers at the Vulcan company (where only one Bogatyr was built for us instead), and the American Cramp was supposed to build two more such cruisers for us (two battleships of the Retvizan type and 2 such armored cruisers). As a result, by the deadline (no later than the first half of 1903) we would have received 6 such cruisers, which could very well compete with battleships, if we take into account the capabilities of the 45-caliber 10" main guns.
As for battleships... At least four Potemkin/Retvizan-class battleships built in St. Petersburg, two similar battleships built by Kramp, and possibly two more from the Frenchman Lagan, who also wanted to build two battleships and two armored cruisers. If Lagan had been commissioned not for his multi-turreted fantasy, but for the same Tsarevich, but with a casemate battery like the Retvizan, he would have built them faster and even somewhat cheaper.
So consider:
- battleships 4 + 2 + 2 = 8 units (not counting the three "Poltavas"), a total of 11 units.
- 6 armored cruisers described by me + 2 "Bayan" (which, with all its advantages and disadvantages, would not have been hurt by having 10" 45-caliber guns in its single-gun turrets, not 8" ones, like the "Pobeda". In total - 8 excellent armored cruisers that outshone their Japanese classmates in every respect.
- armored deck: 4 units of the Diana-Iznachayalnaya project (power plant 15,000 - 15,500 hp, speed 21-22 knots, 8" main guns in two single-gun turrets, 8 x 6" water guns), 6 units of the Askold project (two of which were built by the Vulcan factory).
- 10 light armored deck ships of the Novik class (including 4 built by the Schichau company, as was agreed with them initially).
All of this (well, almost everything about armored deck cruisers) was ready for service and in Arthur no later than the second half of 1903.
And where would the Japanese fight here? The war simply wouldn't have happened.
These ships were planned for construction, the schedules were perfected, Sharapov's group had the money for it, and they knew how to earn currency for foreign trade. But due to the seizure of power in the Russian Empire by a rogue from the Rothschild-Witte clan, all of this remained in a parallel reality. And in this one, there was only the shameful defeat in the Russian Empire, the disruption of all the projects and plans of Sharapov's group approved by Alexander III, the revolution of 1905-1907, Nika's deception of the Entente, WWI, and the collapse of the Empire.

[bukhach]

Apparently, you are an expert in the history of the Russian Navy, the story about the fleet is a real poem (without irony), but in fact, I remain with my opinion about the possibility there would be no other outcome to the war if he were friends with the Kaiser.

[bayard]

The only possible outcome could have been different if Sharapov's group had remained at court and the projects and plans approved by Alexander III had continued. But the opposite happened: Witte, a spy, rose to power. He was not only the "godfather" of the Russian Revolution and our shameful defeat, but also the "godfather" of Bloody Sunday and the First Russian Revolution, the "godfather" of Nika No. 2's capitulation to England and Russia's entry into the Entente, the introduction of gold coins into circulation to make it easier for crooked bankers to smuggle gold out of Russia... And if Sharapov had remained at court, the Russian Revolution might never have happened at all. The Pacific Fleet would have simply been built on time, the Army would have been transferred within a few years by sea (by chartering ships in Germany and France), Manchuria and Korea would have become new Russian provinces, and the Far East would have become Russia's second economic center in 20-30 years, with developed industry, agriculture, a transportation network, trade, and maritime logistics. I read the plans of Sharapov's group. I calculated options based on the real possibilities of the time. But the Empire was doomed even a little earlier – when the conspirators finally managed to kill (poison) Alexander III. Under Nika No. 2, the Empire rapidly tumbled into the abyss. And only the Bolsheviks, the General Staff, and the Slavophiles (Sharapov's group, but without their leader, teacher, and inspirer) saved it.
As for friendship with the Kaiser... he asked for it himself, it was just necessary to react to it correctly. And take advantage of the opportunities of this rapprochement.
If Russia had been led by an intelligent and conscientious ruler, Russia, Germany, and France could have created (and almost did, during the suppression of the Boxer Rebellion) a coalition of continental powers to counteract England. This, incidentally, greatly frightened England. And then they began to accelerate the preparation of the Russian Nuclear Forces for us under the most inconvenient and unfavorable conditions for us. And they succeeded.

[bukhach]

In which they succeeded
I agree with this completely.

[Zoldat_A]

Quote: novel xnumx

It's probably sedition, but we had to fight the Germans against the rest during the First World War.

I'll say something even more seditious: Hitler shouldn't have fought with Russia, but should have been friends. Then it would have definitely come down to landing in the US – the whole world would have been divided up.
Remember F. Dick's "The Man in the High Castle"? The only inaccuracy there is that Germany divided the world with Japan. Otherwise, it could have easily sounded like a prediction.
Well, things didn't work out for Hitler. And he listened, mind you, again, to America and the Brits. It's worse for him...

[Alex777]

Quote: Zoldat_A

Well, things didn't work out for Hitler. And he listened, mind you, again, to America and the Brits. It's worse for him...

To begin with, the United States helped Hitler rearm so he could destroy the British Empire. Which they did successfully.
And then they committed suicide against the USSR. For the Moor had done his work.

[Zoldat_A]

Quote: Alex777

To begin with, the United States helped Hitler rearm so he could destroy the British Empire. Which they did successfully.
And then they committed suicide against the USSR. For the Moor had done his work.

Well, so be it. It doesn't change much.
Although the United States never explicitly quarreled with the British, and Time magazine, which declared him "Person of the Year," was, after all, British. And Churchill himself said that his greatest diplomatic success in life was his ability to turn Hitler against Russia.

[bayard]

Quote: Alex777

To begin with, the United States helped Hitler rearm so he could destroy the British Empire. Which they did successfully.

They helped us with Industrialization too... from the heart. About 80% of all supplies for Industrialization came from the USA; they helped us build and launch practically entire industries. Germany provided about 18% of supplies. So, neither we nor Germany had any interest in quarreling with the USA back then, and there was no point. But to jointly bring down the British Empire – that would have been something. But British agents in Germany did their job and killed Germany over the USSR. And yet it could have turned out "beautifully."
If Hitler hadn't attacked us, but had instead "digested" all of Europe, taken Gibraltar, North Africa along with Italy, Suez, and paved his way to the Persian Gulf, even part of Africa and the Middle East would have been more than enough for Hitler. And the US would have gradually taken over the rest of the BI's legacy.
But the sucker's greed was his undoing.
And today's suckers are dying from this same disease. And they will die.

[Alex777]

Quote: bayard

They helped us with Industrialization too... from the heart. About 80% of all supplies for Industrialization came from the USA.

I would venture to suggest that assistance with industrialization began after Stalin’s promise to give Crimea to a Jewish state.
When Stalin did not give Crimea to the Jews, the Cold War began.
And even what Stalin could do for Israel didn’t help...

[bayard]

Quote: Alex777

I would venture to suggest that assistance with industrialization began after Stalin’s promise to give Crimea to a Jewish state.

No, we had already reached an agreement with Roosevelt's predecessor regarding free trade and recognition of the USSR. And under Roosevelt, things really took off – they helped us industrialize as quickly as possible, and we helped them escape the Great Depression with these supplies. It was mutually beneficial. And Roosevelt was preparing both Germany (loans) and the USSR (supplies for industrialization) for war in Europe. He intended for this to work against England. British intelligence managed to turn Hitler against the USSR, which saved Britain. But Britain quickly fell apart after that.

Quote: Alex777

Stalin's promises to give Crimea to a Jewish state.

It was then that Stalin created the Jewish Autonomous Region of Birobidzhan. Right then. And many people wanted Crimea for themselves. The Jews wanted it too after WWII, when Crimean Tatars were deported from there for serving Hitler. But Stalin decided that the state of Israel in Palestine would be much better, more historically just, and, again, a shame on British imperialism, since the territory was under British mandate.

But the role of Jews in intelligence and diplomacy of that time cannot be denied; they loved the USSR then just as they love the USA now. Everyone has their own motives. But Industrialization was definitely not about Crimea. Although, yes, they wanted to.

[Alex777]

Quote: bayard

British intelligence managed to direct Hitler towards the USSR, which saved Britain.

It's common knowledge that the Anglo-Saxons will help the loser. Initially, it was the USSR that lost.
So they started helping him with Lend-Lease and convoys.
Everything was aimed at mutual destruction. But they missed the mark. The USSR became too powerful and refused to give up Crimea. The Crimea agreement, as far as I understand, predates Roosevelt.
And they didn't help us for gold or bread until they promised Crimea. Look at diplomatic relations, see when they were established.

[bayard]

As far as I remember, it was Lenin who promised Crimea to England, not the US, supposedly in the future. Then Churchill approached Stalin with the same question, saying that Lenin had promised it. To which Stalin replied that Birobidzhan had already been created for the Jews, and to make it more convincing, he quickly created Israel, strengthening it with personnel from the USSR, including military personnel, including Heroes of the Soviet Union. And the British really got sick of Palestine. An attempt to arm the Arabs and kill all the settlers there resulted in the defeat of the Arabs. And the shaved heads had to pack up and leave the region altogether. And after the USSR thwarted them in an attempt to seize Suez together with France and Israel... Britain completely shrank and faded.
But there were always a lot of Jews in Soviet intelligence and intelligence residencies, and the British always wanted the most and dreamed of revenge. In 1991, they got even with the USSR for the collapse of their empire, and they also took the US, which (oddly enough) was then supported by the USSR, seriously, and all the US problems are primarily due to the work of the extremely dense and almost total British network.

Quote: Alex777

They did not help for either gold or bread until they promised Crimea.

Well, it was England's initiative not to recognize or trade with the USSR, even for gold. But then the Great Depression hit, and no one in the West had time to show off, and then the Americans, realizing that in the wake of crisis and recession, opening up the Soviet market threatened not just a way out of the deepest crisis, but also a powerful economic boost if they themselves embraced this program (industrialization), recognized the USSR and began trading. Palestine wasn't seriously discussed back then; Crimea was certainly wanted by many, and perhaps someone had promised it to someone. But it is documented that Stalin kept someone's word and created the Autonomous Jewish Region of Birobidzhan right then! That's it – the promise was fulfilled. And when both the British and the Jews approached him again with this issue after WWII, he, without further ado, solved all the problems in one fell swoop – he created the state of Israel in Palestine. Since then, this state has brought joy to everyone. It was created for such joy, and it could not be otherwise.

Quote: Alex777

Regarding diplomatic relations, look at when they were established.

As far as I remember from my History, History of the CPSU, and Political Economy courses, it was in 1930. That is, before Roosevelt came to power. But it was under Roosevelt that these supplies really took off. And when, by the end of 1940, the USSR became the world's second-largest economy... almost 80% of all supplies for this were provided by the United States.

[Alex777]

Quote: bayard

As far as I remember, Lenin allegedly promised Crimea not to the USA, but to England.

Stalin promised 100% after no one wanted to help for gold—not the US, but the Jews, as far as I know. They lobbied for industrialization in exchange.
There were still a lot of things they did when they didn’t get Crimea, but I don’t feel like writing about it here.

[bayard]

Well, yes, there was a whole epic about Crimea. But Stalin immediately assigned them the Promised Land, created a state and recognized it.
But he didn’t want to turn Crimea into a spy lair at all.
Well, for the sake of Industrialization, yes, it was possible to promise.

[Alex777]

Quote: bayard

But the sucker's greed was his undoing.

For a major war, Hitler needed oil, etc.
There was no oil in Europe. The British wouldn't let us import any.

[bayard]

Quote: Alex777

For a major war, Hitler needed oil, etc.
There was no oil in Europe. The British wouldn't let us import any.

And so they made a deal with the Persian Shah, who immediately renamed Persia Iran to emphasize his Aryan affiliation (for Iran was founded by the Aryans of Spitamas Zoroaster, and the term itself comes from the Avesta, spelled with an "O" and meaning... plowmen/farmers, not some "sons of Ares" that the European infidels had concocted). He rushed at us, counting on an easy victory and paving a clear path/access to Persia, his ally. Rommel was supposed to pave the second route—from North Africa through Suez to the Middle East, Iraq, and Syria. He would have also cut off England from its colonies. He took a big step, but his pants still tore, and it didn't work out either way.
And we, together with England, occupied Persia/Iran in the very first days of the Great Patriotic War, so that it would not be a temptation to Hitler and would not play pranks.

[Alex777]

Quote: bayard

And we, together with England, occupied Persia/Iran in the very first days of the Great Patriotic War, so that it would not be a temptation to Hitler and would not play pranks.

Iran is far away. Oil couldn't be transported to Germany.
The British fleet did not give in.

[bayard]

Quote: Alex777

Iran is far away. Oil couldn't be transported to Germany.
The British fleet did not give in.

Hitler was planning to enter the Persian Gulf by land. He had agreements with local administrations in Iraq, Syria, and Jordan, where rebellions had broken out against the British occupiers during Rommel's advance on Suez, hoping for German support.
If Romel had taken Suez and closed it to British ships and vessels, then closing Gibraltar as well, the Mediterranean would have become the "Inland Sea of ​​the Reich," and pipelines and railways would have stretched from the oil-rich Gulf countries to the Mediterranean coast. And he would certainly have succeeded, if Hitler hadn't attacked the USSR. As a result, Romel simply didn't have the strength, and the Wehrmacht was stopped, defeated, and driven back from Moscow. In 1942, Hitler set a more realistic goal: to advance on the southern flank through Rostov to Volgograd and Grozny, and from there to Baku. The goal was precisely oil. But again, the forces were insufficient, and after that, the enemy only retreated.
The conclusion is that the Austrian artist and circus performer's mistake was the very idea of ​​war with the USSR. If he had limited himself to Europe, digested, organized, and synchronized its economy, launched the construction of a navy at his own, French, and Italian shipyards, built and trained a sufficient air force, captured North Africa, Suez, Gibraltar, and the entire Middle East up to Persia, which had become Iran, he could well have succeeded, stretching out the solution of these problems until the mid-40s. England would have been bent over by the blockade, forced to transport food around Africa from its colonies and from the United States in exchange for gold. The navy would have been unable to build due to the naval blockade. Hitler would have built his fleet in every shipyard in Europe, raised and repaired them, and completed the French battleships and battlecruisers, kept all the shipyards busy, and all the aircraft factories building the mighty Luftwaffe instead of what he had by 1941. And then he would have easily taken the British Isles or accepted their capitulation. He had such a chance, but he was convinced that a blitzkrieg awaited him in the USSR, just like Trump the other day, lured into the Iranian Trap. However, Trump is now dragging all of Europe into this trap. There is no need to look for a pause; now the time allowed for his war is expiring, and Congress must make a decision. Congress will not dare to take responsibility for admitting defeat and crawling away in disgrace. So Trump’s powers will be extended. Perhaps for six months. And everything will start again in about a week. Or maybe even earlier.

[Alex777]

Quote: bayard

If Romel had taken Suez

If.

As for Britain's victories, the most important was the decipherment of Enigma.

[bayard]

Quote: Alex777

As for Britain's victories, the most important was the decipherment of Enigma.

That too. But the main victory/success was Hitler's directing of his attack on the USSR. Churchill himself spoke of this.

[bayard]

Quote: Alex777

If.

Well, that's what I'm saying - Hitler took a big step and tore his pants.

[novel66]

I was afraid to write this...

[Zoldat_A]

Quote: novel xnumx

I was afraid to write this...

Well, I didn’t seem to say anything against the historical truth, but there were two overly serious ones...

[novel66]

Actually, history should begin with Napoleon—there was certainly nothing to divide there. Pavel understood this. Pavel is gone.

[abc_alex]

Quote: novel xnumx

It's probably sedition, but we should have fought the Germans against the rest in World War I. Maybe we would have lived to see the landing in the States.

If only such a thing were possible! :)
France's entire pre-war diplomacy was aimed at preventing an alliance between Germany and Russia, since in such a situation, France's fate would have been decided more quickly than during the Franco-Prussian Wars of 1870-1871.
And what was most important in that situation was the personal position of N2. Their Majesty had genuinely fraternal feelings for his cousin George V. And after marrying a hemophiliac wife, a confirmed Anglophile, from his "English grandmother," any "must" was not even considered. Even given that official England was Russia's geopolitical enemy and, even within the Entente, was unwilling to sign a binding military treaty with Russia. War against Britain was unthinkable. And Germany, by attacking France, would automatically enter into war with England.

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

Excuse me, but how is this possible? After all, it was the Germans who attacked (declared war) on the Russian Empire in 1914. Please research the issue.

No, no, no. It was more complicated than that. Essentially, the final say in starting the war rested with the N2. Well, that's simply how relations between Austria, Germany, France, and Russia worked out, and that's how the ultimatum cards fell. Yes, the Germans were the first to declare war on Russia. But the N2 had a real chance of avoiding war. The Germans weren't threatening Russia; they wanted to bend France once again. So WW1 could very well have been played out as a regular European Championship for the Alsace-Lorraine Trophy, with the final between France and Germany.

Quote: Zoldat_A

I'll say something even more seditious: Hitler shouldn't have fought with Russia, but should have been friends. Then it would have definitely come down to landing in the US – the whole world would have been divided up.

Hitler couldn't be friends with Russia. Nazism and Communism are antagonistic. But German expansionism doesn't necessarily have to be Nazi. Let's say that at some point (before June 22, 1941) Hitler was removed from power (it's unclear how, but let's assume) and Germany abandoned the ideology of National Socialism but retained the idea of ​​expansion. Actually, the Germans already had enough territory; they needed markets and sources of raw materials. At that time, this meant colonies. Colonies were Africa, Southeast Asia with India and China, Latin America and Australia. But there was a problem: you can't get to Latin America and Australia without a navy. And there were England and the USA, and their two most powerful navies. The Germans, in principle, could have built a competitive navy; they knew how. But who would have given them the opportunity?
But Asia and parts of Africa could be reached by land. All that was needed was to resolve the "Russian question." For example, by promising the USSR access to China and Korea, which would solve the problem of ice-free ports in the Pacific Ocean. Would the USSR have agreed to the PMR-2? Already "Asian"? I think so. The USSR would have provided the Germans with land access to Asia, and the Germans, by driving the British out of India and the French out of Indochina, would have gained the colonies, markets, and resources they sought.

[solar]

Hitler could not be friends with Russia. Nazism and communism are antagonistic.

Of course they could. There was an official Treaty of Friendship between Germany and the USSR. Socialist parties were in power in both countries.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Договор_о_дружбе_и_границе_между_СССР_и_Германией
Moreover, the USSR was preparing for a full-fledged alliance with Germany on the level of Italy and Japan - the Four Power Pact, which only fell through by chance - it was not possible to agree on the demands of all four parties.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Пакт_четырёх_держав

The Four Axis Powers Pact was a proposed treaty of friendship and economic support, with the possibility of joint military action against other countries, planned to be concluded between the USSR and the Axis powers in late 1940. The pact aimed to create a powerful military and political alliance and the de facto military division of the Eastern Hemisphere among the signatory countries. The treaty's name reflects the number of signatory countries: Germany, Italy, Japan, and the USSR.

In one photo, they are signing the Treaty of Friendship; in the second, they are negotiating the creation of the Four Axis Powers Pact.

[single-n]

Well, this country emerged fighting the largest empire in the world at the time. And isn't the fact that they fought without letting the enemy in—a plus? Maybe we should learn from this, instead of rebuilding half the country from scratch every 50 years.

[Zoldat_A]

Quote: Single-n

They fought without letting the enemy in - isn't that a plus?

Americans say that too.
Could you remind us who they fought with and how, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, how exactly they prevented the invaders from entering their territory?

[single-n]

The creation of the most powerful navy on the planet. Also, an excellent air force. And last but not least, diplomacy. Their diplomats forged alliances, not just spawned memes.
And their industrialists spent more time developing the economy than cutting up budgets and buying yachts.

[Zoldat_A]

Quote: Single-n

The creation of the most powerful navy on the planet. Also, an excellent air force. And last but not least, diplomacy.

I asked about the war. Where and with whom did they fight on the outskirts of the United States, preventing the invaders from entering their territory. Which powerful empire? Mexico? A decrepit Spain, surrendering everything and everyone? Hitler, I believe, didn't land troops in Texas...

[single-n]

Mexico in the mid-19th century wasn't much smaller than the United States was then. And isn't the ability to choose an opponent and strike at the right time a sign of intelligence? Instead of waiting for an invasion and then, with bloodied snot, boasting, "We destroyed half the country here, but we fought back." We're the best.
In my opinion, this is a sign of feeblemindedness and incompetence.
And Hitler didn't launch an airborne assault because the United States was preoccupied with creating the best navy on the planet. Which, by the way, scuttled the German fleet. And the US aircraft industry and the Air Force weren't the only ones who destroyed the Luftwaffe, but their contribution was enormous.

[KCA]

With one empire - Britain, France and Russia were on the side of the USA, I don’t remember what they were called then

[solar]

With one empire - Britain, France and Russia were on the side of the United States

Moreover, twice - in the First World War and in the Second.

[Willy-V]

Did the British ever take Washington? In that war? On August 24th, if I'm not mistaken! I might not remember.

[Captain Pushkin]

Quote: Single-n

Well, this country emerged fighting the largest empire in the world at the time. And isn't the fact that they fought without letting the enemy in—a plus? Maybe we should learn from this, instead of rebuilding half the country from scratch every 50 years.

To keep everyone out of our way, all we need to do is dig a small ocean between Russia and the rest of Europe, at least a couple of thousand kilometers wide.
But who's going to take on this job? The Ukrainians have no time for it right now, and the others lack the experience and expertise...

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Single-n

Isn't the fact that they fought without letting the enemy in—a plus? Maybe we should learn from that, too.

How is that possible, I wonder? Like shutting yourself off from the rest of the world with two oceans?

[single-n]

I don't recall an ocean between the US and Mexico. And the ocean didn't exactly help China or India avoid conquest. Maybe it's not just the vast expanses of water? They have a strong economy, a huge and modern navy, an air force, and diplomacy that allowed them to avoid embroilment in awkward wars. But at the same time, they didn't allow anyone to unite against them. And at the same time, those they attacked were isolated, allowing them to quickly crush resistance. A sound immigration policy and the overall structure of the state—which attracts the best minds on the planet. Meanwhile, we don't know how to impose serfdom so that public sector workers don't run away.
All that stuff. But it's somehow awkward for the patriots to remember all this. They always point to the oceans.
Just for example. In 2014, we offered the Americans trampoline flights. In 12 years, they've created the most advanced rockets. They've deployed thousands of cutting-edge communications satellites, sent people to the moon, and two Mars rovers. Along the way, they've knocked Russia out of the space launch market.
And we painted Khokhloma, posted memes, and hit the moon with a device that took us 10 years to make.
Were there some oceans in the way here too?

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Single-n

I don't remember there being an ocean between the US and Mexico.

You've also forgotten Canada, which, along with Mexico, tops the list of the most powerful and aggressive countries. And they've been tackling America for the entire 250 years of its existence.

Quote: Single-n

The ocean somehow did not help China or India from being conquered

What are you talking about? Alexander the Great's conquest of part of India and the Mongol conquest of China?

Quote: Single-n

Just for example

Just for reference, America's budget is ten times larger than Russia's, its population is twice as large, and half the world uses the dollar. With those resources, Americans could already live on Mars, while they're still orbiting the Moon.
And yes, this is definitely not about the Americans being great because they don’t allow Mexico and Canada to attack them.
And the question of how Russia could follow America's example and ensure that no one attacks us remains completely unanswered, I would even say ignored and forgotten.

[single-n]

The US fought Canada. And they got it in the neck, by the way. Because Canada is PART of the British Empire. That's in case you didn't know.
Mexico was MADE quiet and obedient. The USA. In the early 19th century, it was significantly larger. And if not for a ton of internal upheavals and troubles, who knows what would have happened. So who stopped them from developing industry and attracting immigrants? The USA was then a deeply agrarian country with hordes of black slaves and wasn't exactly a superpower.

I understand that the hurray patriots only have ancient history and the greatness of the Russian Federation. But they should at least have known that Britain ruled India. As well as how the Chinese fought the Europeans. How did that piece of Britain called Hong Kong come to be? Haven't you heard about the French taking over Vietnam? Didn't they mention that at those hurray patriotic rallies again? Hmm. How sad.
And the fact that the US budget is 10 times larger than Russia's. So did the US suddenly become like that? Or did these guys just spend 200 years fighting their way to the top? And not just covering up and justifying thieves.
Well, if our oligarchs' yachts are bigger and more expensive than the Black Sea Fleet's flagship, which has now been sunk, then the budget is to blame.
No. It's the rocket assembler's fault, earning twice the minimum wage. That's right. That bastard eats too much and doesn't want to work 12/7.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Single-n

Blah blah blah

I don’t see an answer to the question: how can we make it so that no one bothers us?

[single-n]

1. Climb to them first.
2. Make correct conjunctions.
3. Improve the economy. Everyone beats the weak.
Or do you want an answer on how to fix in 2 seconds the crap that the idiots have happily dragged us into for 30 years?

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Single-n

1. Approach them first. 2. Form the right alliances. 3. Improve the economy. Everyone beats the weak.

How simple it all is. It's a shame you're only responsible for the concept.

[single-n]

In the world, everything is simple. The global laws of physics are formulas of 10-15 symbols. All constitutions and religions are based on a dozen or so "commandments." All music is made up of seven notes.
Difficulties arise during implementation. And this demonstrates the level of competence.

[Azim77]

Quote: andrey martov

Such a pleasant pastime

Indeed, they still need a golf course. And they're not at all worried that the debt is growing and growing. I wonder how high it will reach.

[lynnot]

Now you don't even need paper. They'll write as much as you need.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Azim77

there is not enough golf course

Now that's a serious flaw. Trump without a golf course isn't Trump, it's some cheap Chinese imitation.

[knn54]

Hypersonic missiles, lasers, railguns—which of these are mass-produced or have proven effective in real-world conditions?

[Michael]

A battleship for 17 is normal. Destroyers cost 9, and here's a whole battleship!

[svarog77]

Well, that's according to plan, but in reality it will double, or even more...

[paul3390]

A battleship without even a hint of armor? Marvelous are Your works, Lord...

That same Seydlitz took about 20 hits from 343-380mm caliber cruisers in the Battle of Jutland. And he still managed to limp back to base! How many hits from a heavy cruiser would be enough for this one? Two? Three?

[Michael]

Quote: paul3390

A battleship without even a hint of armor?

Well, the Yamato, to which this Degrader is compared, held out for two hours against 300 aircraft only thanks to its armor and maneuverability. It took ten torpedoes and six half-ton bombs without sinking. The Japanese were blown up in mass seppuku.

[KCA]

Why only cruise missiles? No, the Kh-22 with a 900 kg warhead will certainly do the trick, and there's also the Zircon and Chinese ballistic anti-ship missiles.

[TermNachTer]

Well, so what?))) I have a ton of money, why not spend it on all sorts of crap?)))

[Coconut Tima]

A gilded sculpture of Trump will be installed on the bow of the battleship.

[zelivee]

For 17 billion you can make it out of pure gold.

[svarog77]

For ramming and subsequent boarding...

[paul3390]

That's right! They're going to ram Donnie right in the forehead!

[Sergey39]

Reminds me of another US "Zimvolt." But time will tell.

[solar]

This stupidity will end with the end of Trump's presidency. Maybe they'll finish building one, maybe not.

[Altai2026]

One missile with a tactical nuclear warhead and there are no 17 billion!!!

[single-n]

One missile with a tactical nuclear warhead and not

and there is no city. Maybe there is no point in building houses?

[Ivanhoe]

Given the conditions on the robotic plane for the means of defeat - surface water (BEK), underwater and airborne, what is the meaning of the "dreadnought" thesis? Or and te samite she sa platformi za tezi robotizirani complexes.

[hostel]

For 17 billion, you could build five Early Burkes; their combined firepower would be 3-4 times more powerful than Trump's.

[Paldiski]

How are things going here? Have we built much, done much R&D, given today's realities? These respected people can't even draw any conclusions given the dismal experience of using the fleet! Should we laugh at the striped ones?

[north 2]

I'd like to ask you, fellow commentators. Let's say, let's say, the USSR hadn't been destroyed, and by now the USSR would probably have built several units of ships like the ones the US is now planning to build under the name "Trump." It turns out their future battleship is a missile-artillery ship, adjusted for modern times, not much larger in displacement than our Project 1144 "Orlan" ships, and not much more powerful in armament than the "Admiral Nakhimov," as it will be after reconstruction. Perhaps the US will also abandon aircraft carriers, something the Soviet Navy wasn't keen on when Gorshkov and his Navy Staff commanded it and determined its strategy. If the USSR was already building such ships thirty years ago, then the USSR would still be alive, and we would already have ships like the ones the US is now planning to build. By the way, what about the nuclear-powered destroyer "Lider" (Lider) from the Russian Federation, not the USSR? Did the project stall? Well, at least we have the "Nakhimov" and "Pyotr Velikiy" (Peter the Great) from the Soviet era. So, it turns out that the world's navies are going to be built like the USSR's, based on the concept of Admiral of the Fleet Gorshkov...

[abc_alex]

Quote: north 2

It turns out that the world's nations are going to continue to build their fleets in the same way that the USSR built its Navy according to the concept of Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov.

No. There's a cause-and-effect relationship here. Look, the US Navy is a carrier-based fleet. The carrier strike group's air wing is responsible for the entire strike mission. Currently, US ships don't even have harpoon launchers. If an Arleigh Burke were to face another ship one-on-one today, they'd fight like they did in WWII, using cannons and torpedoes.
Unlike the US, the Soviet fleet was missile-carrying. Its strike role was assigned to heavy anti-ship missiles. And it was the development of this concept that called into question the very concept of the US Navy. Just five years ago, both here and elsewhere on the Russian internet, aircraft carrier advocates defended the absolute infallibility of the US concept. But then came the hypersonic Tsirkon, which not only cannot be intercepted but also has a range comparable to or even greater than the combat radius of a US carrier, and the Chinese developed anti-ship ballistic missiles with homing guided warheads, and that was it. It became clear that the era of aircraft carriers, if not over, was at least approaching its end. A huge, unarmed trough, accompanied by a swarm of smaller ships, is perfectly visible via space reconnaissance, and it was only a matter of time before these capabilities would be acquired by the US's main geostrategic adversary. And it was then and as a result of this that the idea of ​​"battleships on microchips" arose in the USA.
Where it will go from here is unclear. Since no one else in the world is particularly focused on heavy anti-ship missiles, and combined with hypersonic technology and a global satellite reconnaissance and guidance system, such a fleet is only available to one or two countries on the planet. And no one can do it quickly.

Moreover, the whole world is currently obsessed with the topic of UAVs and unmanned aerial vehicles.

[alexputnik17]

Looks like another great embezzlement of Trump's name.

[Vasyan1971]

Trump-class ships

"What's it like to build a house? Let's draw it and live in it!"

[nik-mazur]

12 hypersonic... CPS missiles, 128 Mk41 VPU... rail systems, laser weapons... SLCM-N cruise missiles with nuclear warheads... 2 RIM-116 launchers... two 5-inch guns... four 30-mm systems

- And now (to paraphrase a well-known joke), we will try to push all this junk away from the pier wall without drowning...

[the same doctor]

Today's warships are made of cardboard. Their defenses are built on the assumption that anti-ship missiles won't be protected by armor anyway. So, the armor was thrown out as unnecessary. The ships have become vulnerable even to warheads carrying a couple of kilograms of explosives.

Therefore, Trump's idea to revive armored ships is quite sound: light, numerous, and stealthy UAVs will be stopped by armor, while large ones and anti-ship missiles are a completely traditional target for air defense and missile defense.

The main principles of the new ships:
Moderate armor against 10 kg UAV.
A spaced-out weapons layout, replacing the current hyper-dense arrangement. This would ensure that the explosion of one missile silo couldn't damage the others. This would include both armored silos and empty compartments around them, similar to the torpedo protection found on older ships. The ship should be designed so that damage to any one section wouldn't affect the others. Even if all but one of the missile compartments were knocked out, that last compartment should be able to fire off as if on a firing range, leaving the charred, torn-up piece of metal afloat.
Increased displacement to accommodate all this armor and the empty unsinkability and warhead compartments. Since the hull accounts for only 10% or less of a warship's price, doubling the displacement with the same weapons complement will increase the cost by a maximum of 10%.
.
And finally, all these measures are applicable when we are confident the enemy won't use nuclear weapons. That is, for a war against the Papuans and the Houthis. Trump's few large battleships will be inferior to nuclear weapons compared to a fleet of small, unmanned or unmanned boats armed with a couple of missiles and remotely controlled by an AWACS aircraft.
.
Moral of the story: a navy must be balanced and have different ships for different missions. Against the Papuans, use missile battleships and armored aircraft carriers; against the US, use small missile boats and submarines.