The sheer amount of [three incredibly self-evident things I don’t trust the mods not to somehow blame me for and then ban me over] aside, who’s gonna be the first one to make a replica of the concept image?
The sheer amount of [three incredibly self-evident things I don’t trust the mods not to somehow blame me for and then ban me over] aside, who’s gonna be the first one to make a replica of the concept image?
Just getting this out of the way:
Do not argue about the political backdrop of this thing. That would end well for nobody.
It’s stupid. It’s all stupid. End of story, nothing more to be said.
@HuskyDynamics01 defiant class sound way better for those ships ngl.
I am... curious to see what (if anything) it will actually pan out to be. The concept art makes it look less like a traditional battleship and more like a scaled-up missile cruiser, with some extra armament here and there. I mean... sure, I guess? The railgun would be neat, I suppose, though the Navy's program was cancelled in 2021 for a variety of reasons. Calling it a "battleship" feels wrong, but naval parlance is so subjective at this point (see: "frigate") that it doesn't really matter all that much in the end.
Also of note is that the lead ship of the class will not be named after the class. Maybe they're leaving the door open for redesignating it as the Defiant-class?
@Graingy True, but it’s kind of a show of power in a way. Not saying it’s the best decision (or that it’s even a good one), but yeah.
@TheLoadingGorilla Thing is, the only case where this type of ship would be effective is full-on, Capital-W Warfare.
Everything else, destroyers would be better. Cover more area.
So unless there's a plan to go out and pick a fight with China, kiiinda pointless.
That’s the only defense I have for him. Naming it after himself though… that’s a bit arrogant.
@Graingy "To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace." - George Washington
@Boeing727200F or just give it a flight deck and make it Soviet-style. Missile launchers can go under flight decks.
Aviation handling in useful quantities can’t be done as an afterthought.
@Graingy just reconfigure the rear of the ship to hold aircraft and call it an aircraft carrier lmao
@Boeing727200F BBs are supposed to be named after states. Carriers are presidents.
It’s entirely improper.
Truth is it just makes no sense for peacetime. It’s pointless.
i mean, i dont see anybody complaining about US military vehicles being named off of some people. so i dont think its much of a problem to worry about. but the thing is, they are named off of HIM.
ok wow these ships go HARD.
looks at name
ofc it has to be named after HIM
im kinda concerned that if somebody does try to make the class, they need to change the class name to something else as if they dont... the comments will be chaotic.
As cool as it may look, it’s for when you need a lot of firepower on the cheap, not for when you need to preserve a hegemony.
@TheLoadingGorilla Battleships are warships.
WARships.
They make zero sense whatsoever for peacetime.
@Graingy Oh. Yeah. Prime example of [REDACTED] if you ask me…
@TheLoadingGorilla The Orange announced plans to construct a class of missile battleships. In 2025.
Of course, they’re named after himself.
I feel like I’m walking on glass here. “No politics” and all but come ON. surely I’m allowed to call this what it is, right?!
I live in a hole and so I’m afraid I don’t understand any of this.