36
"Y'all want sweet laser boats more than you want coral reefs, right?"
this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2026
36 points (100.0% liked)
Chapotraphouse
14235 readers
840 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah this will never be built. It will cost billions to not build it though
Damn, I should get into shipbuilding. I could figure out how to not build it for half that
does anybody in the world actually believe the US could build a new, functional weapon of war at even close to this scale? like, what rock do you have to live under to not know that our defense contractors can't make anything except profits for themselves?
I don't think you could find a single soul in Congress who would genuinely say "yes we can build this", it is just another way to funnel money into various defense contractors so said senators/congressional reps can get a nice payout after they leave office for helping Northrop Grumman get record profits for another year
We will get extremely aesthetic public domain photos of this thing incinerating floating pieces of wood
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)
Hey, that piece of wood could be Hamas OR a SeeSeePee spycraft!
i like how they just scaled up 'generic modern missile destroyer' design but it's supposed to be larger than HMS hood
Losing $500 trillion dollars to a guy ramming a biplane into it. (Initially got it confused with SS-SS Bismarck, which was biplane torpedo'ed. HMS Hood was shelled but I will lathe a funnier outcome than either.)
Didn't America stop railgun development?
Yes... yes it did.
diesel propulsion
to power lasers and a railgun? sure, why not. it's not going to get built anyway
no there will be a separate coal power plant just for the lasers
people think its the lasers and boom bang stuff that is the weapon, but really its just idling this belching disaster near our geopoltical rivals to fuck up the environment that is the real weapon.
Not to nerd out but the inclusion of a diesel powerplant along with a gas electric turbine is directly due to the lessons from the Ticonderoga class. The tico has very poor range because it only has a gas electric turbine and it drinks fuel. Including the diesel is for this new design to have a long endurance cruise and the turbine for all other times (sprinting, war maneuver, powering the lasers and other bullshit, etc).
I believe this also was an issue for the LCS, I think that too was turbine only. A ship designed for close in work on shores and littoral waters that drinks fuel. No ability to stay on station. Ridiculous.
It would make more sense to build them with the same nuclear reactors as the carriers with the theoretical far range they have with rail guns and silly flashlights they call lasers onboard. Like having it as a stand-off far-range sea artillery piece in that aspect would make some sort of sense.
What the fuck is this graphic, the command and conquer manual?
Fucking photo of a photo shit.
Gas turbine/diesel propulsion
Yeah... make this beast as loud as possible for easier acoustic targeting by subs and torpediorinos!
JUST 6 years over and 4x over-budget?
More target practice for Ansarallah, eh?
Pathetic, it doesn't even have big robot legs
This, the spider and the crab, are the coolest videogame units.
It's gonna get torn a new one by the Scarlett Dawn, and the USN is gonna find out why the meta is chunks of heavy armor propelled by an ungodly amount of custom jet engines.
Is this the one they were calling the "trump class" last month?