Forwarded from Praying Medic News
ChatGPT Prompt:
Given what is known about President Trump's just-announced plans to add a modern "Battleship," to the US Navy's arsenal, is there a case to be made that operationally, the new ship is more akin to a very large modern frigate?
ChatGPT Reply:
Yes — there is a case to be made that, operationally, the newly announced Trump-class “battleship” is more akin to a very large modern frigate/cruiser-type surface combatant than a traditional battleship as understood historically. Here’s how the details bear that out based on what is known about the plan:
🛳 1. What This “Battleship” Actually Is
According to official denoscriptions and reported design details, the proposed Trump-class ship is a guided-missile surface combatant with a focus on missiles and advanced systems — not the big-gun, heavily armored platform of old:
It is planned to mount a large vertical launch system (hundreds of VLS cells for Standard Missiles, Tomahawks, hypersonics, nuclear-armed cruise missiles, etc.).
It will include modern directed-energy weapons (lasers), potential railguns, and integrated sensors.
It’s expected to displace roughly 30,000–40,000 tons — larger than destroyers or cruisers, but far smaller than World War II battleships like the Iowa class (~45,000–58,000 tons) and lacking their characteristic heavy armor and huge naval guns.
Crew size will be on the order of 650–850 personnel.
Importantly, the battleship label here is political and symbolic — not one tied to traditional battleship design philosophy. Analysts point out that the name doesn’t match historical ship classifications and that the new design doesn’t have the armor, large caliber guns, or survivability features that defined battleships.
Forbes
⚙️ 2. Modern Surface Combatants Are About Missile Power, Not Big Guns
In today’s naval warfare, missile systems dominate. Modern warships like guided-missile destroyers and cruisers (e.g., U.S. Navy Arleigh Burke destroyers or Ticonderoga cruisers) rely on vertical launch systems for air, surface, and strike missiles rather than massive naval artillery.
Likewise:
The proposed Trump-class has extensive VLS capacity and missile strike focus, which operationally aligns with a missile-centric surface combatant rather than a gun-centric battleship.
Wikipedia
📊 3. Comparisons with Frigates / Cruisers / Large Combatants
While frigates are usually much smaller (e.g., 4,000–7,000 tons), the relevant conceptual analog in today’s naval lexicon isn’t the frigate but large surface combatants — vessels whose primary role is air/missile defense, strike, and command and control:
The Trump-class’s size and mission set exceed typical destroyers and cruisers, but functionally resemble what naval architects call a guided-missile battle cruiser or arsenal ship — a large platform optimized for long-range precision fires and multi-domain combat coordination.
The designation “guided-missile battleship” in sources corresponds to this missile-centric profile.
Wikipedia
🧠 4. Why Analysts Think the Name May Be Misleading
Experts and naval observers have already noted that:
Modern warship designations (destroyer, cruiser, frigate) reflect capabilities and roles more than just size.
A ship like this, despite its large tonnage, lacks the armored citadel and big guns of historical battleships and instead centers on missile-based strikes, situational awareness, and networked defense — traits aligned with modern surface combatants.
Forbes
🧭 5. Operational Implications
Operationally, a ship with these characteristics would likely function as:
A fleet air-defense and area-denial node with large VLS capacity.
A surface strike platform against land and sea targets via hypersonic and cruise missiles.
A command and control flagship capable of coordinating drones, other ships, and joint assets (as some reports suggest).
This role is far closer to what cruisers, guided-missile destroyers, or even flotilla flagships currently do — just scaled up — than what classic battleships did in battleship-to-battleship gun duels.
Given what is known about President Trump's just-announced plans to add a modern "Battleship," to the US Navy's arsenal, is there a case to be made that operationally, the new ship is more akin to a very large modern frigate?
ChatGPT Reply:
Yes — there is a case to be made that, operationally, the newly announced Trump-class “battleship” is more akin to a very large modern frigate/cruiser-type surface combatant than a traditional battleship as understood historically. Here’s how the details bear that out based on what is known about the plan:
🛳 1. What This “Battleship” Actually Is
According to official denoscriptions and reported design details, the proposed Trump-class ship is a guided-missile surface combatant with a focus on missiles and advanced systems — not the big-gun, heavily armored platform of old:
It is planned to mount a large vertical launch system (hundreds of VLS cells for Standard Missiles, Tomahawks, hypersonics, nuclear-armed cruise missiles, etc.).
It will include modern directed-energy weapons (lasers), potential railguns, and integrated sensors.
It’s expected to displace roughly 30,000–40,000 tons — larger than destroyers or cruisers, but far smaller than World War II battleships like the Iowa class (~45,000–58,000 tons) and lacking their characteristic heavy armor and huge naval guns.
Crew size will be on the order of 650–850 personnel.
Importantly, the battleship label here is political and symbolic — not one tied to traditional battleship design philosophy. Analysts point out that the name doesn’t match historical ship classifications and that the new design doesn’t have the armor, large caliber guns, or survivability features that defined battleships.
Forbes
⚙️ 2. Modern Surface Combatants Are About Missile Power, Not Big Guns
In today’s naval warfare, missile systems dominate. Modern warships like guided-missile destroyers and cruisers (e.g., U.S. Navy Arleigh Burke destroyers or Ticonderoga cruisers) rely on vertical launch systems for air, surface, and strike missiles rather than massive naval artillery.
Likewise:
The proposed Trump-class has extensive VLS capacity and missile strike focus, which operationally aligns with a missile-centric surface combatant rather than a gun-centric battleship.
Wikipedia
📊 3. Comparisons with Frigates / Cruisers / Large Combatants
While frigates are usually much smaller (e.g., 4,000–7,000 tons), the relevant conceptual analog in today’s naval lexicon isn’t the frigate but large surface combatants — vessels whose primary role is air/missile defense, strike, and command and control:
The Trump-class’s size and mission set exceed typical destroyers and cruisers, but functionally resemble what naval architects call a guided-missile battle cruiser or arsenal ship — a large platform optimized for long-range precision fires and multi-domain combat coordination.
The designation “guided-missile battleship” in sources corresponds to this missile-centric profile.
Wikipedia
🧠 4. Why Analysts Think the Name May Be Misleading
Experts and naval observers have already noted that:
Modern warship designations (destroyer, cruiser, frigate) reflect capabilities and roles more than just size.
A ship like this, despite its large tonnage, lacks the armored citadel and big guns of historical battleships and instead centers on missile-based strikes, situational awareness, and networked defense — traits aligned with modern surface combatants.
Forbes
🧭 5. Operational Implications
Operationally, a ship with these characteristics would likely function as:
A fleet air-defense and area-denial node with large VLS capacity.
A surface strike platform against land and sea targets via hypersonic and cruise missiles.
A command and control flagship capable of coordinating drones, other ships, and joint assets (as some reports suggest).
This role is far closer to what cruisers, guided-missile destroyers, or even flotilla flagships currently do — just scaled up — than what classic battleships did in battleship-to-battleship gun duels.
❤30🤷♂2