@TitanVector Just made it, though that's more Christmas post by virtue of being high effort and including other people than actual Christmas theming.

@Graingy 😅

@TitanVector ok
this isn't my Christmas post but ok

@Graingy
Merry Christmas to you!

@Michiganstatepolicethe2nd There’s only so big you can make missiles until you’ve created an ICBM. That, or a cruise missile that’s piss easy to shoot down. At that point just use a submarine.
Also, many ships can be part of a network (including satellites).
No, larger ships can only be the exclusive carriers of weapons for which the power is sources from the ship itself. So, energy weapons or giant cannons. Things which just can’t fit in smaller hulls.

@Graingy well i have my own definition of a modern battleship that i now realize no one else really KNOWS, i just assumed a bigger boat=biggermissiles+radar+sonar=bigger missiles+radar+sonar=a greater distance of which the boat can strike from, but i also dont know much about boats sooooo what you said is probably true

TL;DR: when you’re not in a shooting match with another superpower, these modern battleship concepts are just more expensive destroyers in circumstances where their extra firepower matters little. They’re doctrinally confused.

mature enough to be super useful currently, meaning it all once more falls to missiles - an armament no different to destroyers.
A larger ship will be cheaper per tonne than a smaller ship, however it’s still more expensive still. With that in mind, it doesn’t suit the US to further concentrate firepower into individual ships when the current destroyers are already some of the most powerful surface combatants afloat. The US needs coverage and firepower, not maximum firepower. If there were a war ongoing (like a major one) and the lower cost-per-mount of a larger ship were needed, large ships would make sense. The US isn’t in such a war, however, so what you’ve ended up with is a costlier destroyer that does little better in the circumstances than its smaller cousins.

Did any of that make sense? I just woke up so idk

@Michiganstatepolicethe2nd Battleships fell out of use because planes could do their job - lobbing massive amounts of ordnance - more reliably.
Additionally, power weapons have made the value of armour… questionable. With precision weapons the thick armour doesn’t even need to be dealt with when there’s plenty of other parts (e.g. radar arrays) are very difficult to protect anyways.
Battleships remained tougher than anything else, but when they couldn’t very well do their job anyways?
That’s why battleships originally fell out of favour.
Nowadays countries need either coverage - necessitating many smaller ships - or reach - necessitating aircraft carriers - with little room for giant surface combatants. Another factor is that, well, look at it this way:
In the past a bigger ship would generally win because it was tougher. A first-rate could clobber a frigate because it could soak up more damage while dishing out even more. With the invention of the first modern battleships it became a question of range: small ships could hurt massive ships with torpedoes, but they had nowhere near the range to do so before the larger ships annihilated them with their gigantic guns (while in the past it was the number of guns more than gun size which distinguished bigger from smaller warships).
Nowadays, it’s largely gone back to the latter since missiles aren’t particularly large or heavy really. However, because of the range of modern surface combatant, battles aren’t (or rather wouldn’t be, for lack of large conflicts) between individual warships but rather entire fleets; a ship doesn’t have to attack the one in front of it, it can send its missile wherever there’s an opening. It’s about networks, not ship-to-ship top trumps. Additionally, one ship getting sunk doesn’t necessarily sink the others, while a single large ship needs to go into damage control mode. There’s more, but that’s the basics.
With that all said, a hegemonic empire like the US finds the most value in a large fleet of powerful - but not too expensive - destroyers which can cover a lot of area while still being more deadly than almost everything else.
Enter the modern day battleships.
There are two weapons which cannot be fitted to smaller ships: large railguns and large lasers. The power requirements can only be met by larger generators, so are directly tied to the design of the shop (like how battleships required massive magazines, barbettes, are recoil-absorbing structures). However, neither are

Very underpowered

Oh wait i took a look at it

@Graingy soooo whats wrong with producing battleships in "peacetime"

@OverlordPrime Yeah.

@Graingy I highly doubt if this thing will be built. He'll be either out of office or........you know.......expired before that

@OverlordPrime At that point, why bother?
It's almost like it's compensating for something...
Or just a distraction from the Black Pages, now that I think about it...

@Graingy yup
The biggest most lethal ship doesn't have enough weapons

@OverlordPrime Ironic, isn't it?

It's kinda lacks weapons. And conventional power. A ship of its size should probably be nuclear powered.

@Graingy oh sorry

@Hooha12 I agree, but mayyyybe try to keep the criticism more directed at the ship itself/popular reactions rather than directly at Mr. Cheeto himself, or else the Mods may smite us.

@Graingy I'm conflicted.
One one hand, battleships cool AF.
On the other hand, everything else.

what are you referring to...
...
oh, that's a thing now

@Graingy idk

@Mrcooldude Why do you want to know?