Battleships have been obsolete for nearly a century.
Next this fool is going to order catapults for his bungled attack on the Persians.
this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2026
216 points (100.0% liked)
politics
30293 readers
2278 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
They represent some of the biggest, most heavy firepower single pieces of equipment out there. Useless as they might be in the modern agility and precision based wars it's pretty on brand for someone who wants to present themselves as some kind of macho strongman.
They represent some of the biggest, most heavy firepower single pieces of equipment out there.
Bruh still hasn't heard of the trebuchet..
The naval equivalent of a useless fatass is also pretty on brand.
Well, he's also a big fan of walls, so it kinda tracks.
About a century ago was WWI. Idk about that.
They were obsolete after WWI when the first aircraft carriers were introduced.
Come WWII they were food for torpedo bombers.
They were always vulnerable to torpedoes hell that's one of the reasons why the old dreadnaught class was phased out. Regardless they still served their purpose during WW2 as a way to imperfectly fill the hole that modern destroyers now fill, also they were damned useful artillery platforms in the Pacific and during Korea.
They did have a use, but they were obsolete. Obsolete doesn't mean useless. It means there are better options. You use what you've got, but you don't make more of things that are obsolete.
My point is they weren't obsolete by WW2, they were in a bit of a weird doctrinal area by the end of the war for sure but at the start of the war they were certainly still in their prime. Remember carriers were still being figured out during the inter-war period and weren't exactly all that great, hell the first major use of a carrier during the war was during Pearl harbor and even then that only worked so well because of how small the harbor is which restricted movements and thus the reaction (Didn't stop the Nevada from beaching itself and becoming a point defense platform) which was frankly luck for the Japanese.
Now by the end of the war they were showing their age especially with the modernized carriers that were being pumped out nearly as fast as battleships and with the improved destroyer and escort designs that could compensate for the relative lack of defenses on carriers. Frankly speaking carriers by themselves are kinda shit, they need an escort fleet to even function lest they be even more exposed than a battleship, hell there's a reason why everyone kept trying to make carrier battleships for awhile.
I think, especially now in the age of drones, carriers are about obsolete too, yeah. They require the massive support fleets, are a huge, slow, expensive target, and nearly their entire job can be replaced with a much smaller drone carrier. It'll be an interesting time for naval innovation, but it's not going to be massive ships.
My money is that shits going to evolve into something like those weird Japanese carrier destroyers or someone is going to dig up the concept for carrier submarines to adapt to drones. Pretty hard to guess since there's always the possibility that something is found that can hard counter drones kinda like how close air support broke the artillery doctrines post WW1.
Edit: ignore the previous comment lemmy freaked the fuck out.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Everyone else is buying drones from the current market leader: Ukraine.
Trump doesn’t like their leader.
So we don’t get drones.
Trump doesn’t like their leader.
Trump chose a side. It's not Ukraine. Nothing to do with the leader. He just hates Zelenskyy because he keeps fighting back.
"Trump-class."
Trump has no class. They'll be oil tankers with fake gold paint.
Why tf we need drones? We need billionaires to pay taxes and basic necessities to be funded from that.
Yes, but in terms of national defense it makes more sense for us to work on inexpensive quickly deployable drones as opposed to a "battleship". Taking the "we could spend this on something other than the military" factor out of the equation.
Why are the Democracts giving Trump ideas on how not to fuck up his military spending? They really shouldn't be doing that, because they are on the long list of potential targets of that US military as soon as Trump decides he has enough of pretending to care about that whole constitution thing.
After spending 2025 sending sternly worded letters, the Dems appear to be spending 2026 doing everything they can to help the GOP in the midterms. Cancelling the gas tax to keep gas prices down so the illegal, immoral Assault on Iran's impact are lessened was really the cherry on top for me.
Nono, keep wasting billions.
Regards
The rest of the world
A Trump class battleship would have no class whatsoever.
Like school on a saturday
Instead of those ugly gray ones, imagine beautiful shiny gold
But would it have a ballroom?
LOL, "trump class"
Is that something that is plated in fake gold and utterly tacky, gross, outdated and generally useless?
Essentially...yes
This is big "Thrawn recommends fighters and Star Destroyers while the Emperor wants to build a Death Star" energy for those who know ball
The empire would have been more stable if they pushed Arquitens cruisers over star destroyers.
But then, the empire wasn’t meant to be stable or effective, either.
The U.S. needs universal healthcare, not battleships or drones prone to balloon military spending further.
Trump chose "battleship" because he thinks it sounds impressive to the average midwesterner (he's usually right about these things), there's no chance they'll ever be built, and they know that. But now they get to complain that the Dems are stopping his big strong battleships which isn't the image they need to be cultivating right now... unless it's tied to the economy which is the only message.
Republicans keep demonstrating they're good at wasting taxpayer money.
They've always been so good at this.
No no no, the US desperately NEEDS a golden statue of Trump, bigger than the statues of Kim Il Sung and Kim Yong Il. It should replace the old outdated statue of liberty, as the new statue of pedophilia.
And please, they really need battleships. Because the US is a major threat to the safety of the rest of the world, with their insane military budget. So if they would build all their firepower on one platform it will be a lot easier for us to neutralize their firepower, like with a single torpedo, instead of when it's spread out onto many small remote controlled platforms.
So please, build those rediculously useless things.
No we don't need either massive demilitarization is needed.
I wonder if a drone “carrier” would be a reasonable idea. It would certainly make a good movie.
Think of a big expensive reusable drone like a Reaper, able to fly in from hundreds of miles away, then loiter all day just out of range. When it sees a target, instead of launching an expensive missile, launch drones to targets. This lets you carry more and cheaper weapons, while also taking advantage of high quality reconnaissance and all day loitering
Actually, the US already has those. They are sailing logistic hubs which are converted merchant ships. It can support multiple helicopters landed at the same time and it can transport fuel and other goods. But more importantly, it can carry and control several shipping containers full of drones from a safe distance behind their warships in action. They are completely different to previous military logistic ships, they are considered asymmetric hybrid logistic combat platforms, or special ops mpyherships. And because they used to be merchant ships, they are extremily cheap compared to actual military ships.
The only official one known is the MV Ocean Trader. They are support ships so not official military commissioned ships.
The US, Russia and China (and maybe other countries) are experimenting with civilian ships carrying military gear in shipping containers. Like radar systems and missile systems, but also drone launchers and jammers. Russia is already known for their asymmetric warfare, with their seperstist armies fighting in Ukraine before they invaded, their shadow fleets and their mercenary armies in Africa. But China and the US are also operating in a similar way, finding a gray area between civil and military operations.
Why, you may ask? Well, during a conflict a military target is a valid target. But a civilian target is not. So why not equip a civilian target with military gear? That's also why the invasion in Ukraine was labeled by Russia as a "special military operation" instead of a war. Same as what the US did when they kidnapped Maduro and when they illegally attacked Iran. "Let's call it differently so we can get away with it."
Very informative, thanks!
But I wasnt thinking carrier like a ship, but a flying carrier, a mother ship . A drone that can loiter all day above a battlefield, then release dozens of cheap drones when needed could make a real impact. At the same time you could put money into the drone that gets there, recons, loiters, and returns,, while using the advantages of cheap short range suicide drones as your expendable “ammunition”.
Why not both? A cheap disposable drone will never have much range, loitering, reconnaissance, so needs help getting to the battlefield (unless it’s your own town as in Ukraine). But even an expensive long range drone can only go so far. Think of the logistics hub as the military base only a couple hundred miles from Target, wherever there is an ocean. The loitering drone be battlefield over site and response, then cheap suicide drones as the ammunition
There is also the concept of a cargo plane which can drop drone swarms. A few drones are for jamming, some have radar, some have missiles to take out anti air systems and the rest are duds (to saturate defenses) or carry a payload for kamikaze to hit the actual target. The plane loiters outside enemy range while dropping 100 to 500 drones. Thing is, drones don't need a large platform. You can even easily convert a small attack submarine to a subsurface drone carrier if you like.
But a civilian target is not. So why not equip a civilian target with military gear?
Because it's against Geneva conventions and reduces your military's legitimacy, and opens up your civilian logistics to attacks because the enemy wouldn't have a way of knowing if a merchant ship is military or not, so you can't complain if the enemy starts bombing civilian infrastructure.
Yes, but the confusion with the enemy whether the target is legit or not gives you a little extra time, which can be critical. And it gives you plausible deniability. It's making war less black and white and more a massive complex confusing gray zone, especially for your enemy.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Honestly the place my brain went is weirdly the old blimp carrier concept from the inter-war period. Like I wonder if it could be adapted to work with drones, maybe with modern materials and tech it could solve the core issues of it being weirdly uncontrollable and the planes breaking themselves and the blimp when trying to "land".
Exactly! I actually started with sci fy, alien motherships releasing clouds of fighter as my inspiration. Then quickly headed to those weird blimp concepts.
Not only can modern technology solve the problems but suicide drones can be folded to pack more in and you don’t have to worry about them coming back, unlike manned fighters. Treat them more like ammunition, smart and slow ammunition
load more comments
(11 replies)
Don't give him ideas. He's just going to use the military against US citizen, and not even the right ones.
view more: next ›