Aukus

[Valmy]

We will just make sergeant AI chatbots to do the job.

[Threviel]

I think it's more to do with allowing the defence industry to effctively run-down in the context of wider de-industrialisation. There is not the pool of industrial, engineering etc experience and know-how to rapidly ramp up.

But also in Europe at least we're talking about thirty years of underinvestment - that is always going to be difficult to quickly compensate for with a sugar rush of new spending.

Yeah, there not much use to getting 1000 privates if there are no sergeants to train them.

That's why I'm not much impressed with things like the carrier Fujian (even before it turned out to be horribly designed); efficient flight deck operations only come when you've got that 20-year-veteran Master Chief Aviation Boatswain's Mate able to train up the sailors and orchestrate the flight deck.

I would love to hear more insights into Fujian if you wouldn't mind sharing? What makes it so horribly designed?

[Sheilbh]

Yeah, there not much use to getting 1000 privates if there are no sergeants to train them.

That's why I'm not much impressed with things like the carrier Fujian (even before it turned out to be horribly designed); efficient flight deck operations only come when you've got that 20-year-veteran Master Chief Aviation Boatswain's Mate able to train up the sailors and orchestrate the flight deck.

Yeah and I think this is also the strategic bind Europe is in with China, the US and Russia.

My view is that it is easier to rebuild your defence industries if you have an existing significant industrial base (which is partly why I think Germany and Poland are so important). Which is why China is a challenge because the de-industrialisation of Europe is not because of Trump or the US or tariffs; it is because of China and whether it's a stated objective, or simply an inevitable product of the dual circulation strategy, it is not incidental to but intrinsic in the policy of the Chinese state.

But this then comes to the question of what Europe's strategic weakness is. Because if you think the conditions are there for Europe to exercise power in its own neighbourhood then it is primarily a case of political will and money. If you think the conditions aren't there because of material weaknesses in Europe's industrial base and defence industries then China is just going to smother them even more.

As I say I lean more to the latter view and I also think this is not a time to be thinking about "partnership" or "alliances" or anything long-term. We need to be thinking like Lord Palmerston - no permanent friends, only permanent interests. Europe needs to be opportunistic and take advantages with both US and China as and when it can - bank what it can but don't bank on it and be ready to be reactive and nimble in pursuit of those interests. I think Turkiye and Japan both, in different ways, already have this approach.

[The Minsky Moment]

I would love to hear more insights into Fujian if you wouldn't mind sharing? What makes it so horribly designed?

All I heard is that they were having even more issues with EMALS then we were.

[mongers]

I would love to hear more insights into Fujian if you wouldn't mind sharing? What makes it so horribly designed?

All I heard is that they were having even more issues with EMALS then we were.

It's due to the missing eyes; no wonder trump relies on twitter/x/shitposting.

[grumbler]

I would love to hear more insights into Fujian if you wouldn't mind sharing? What makes it so horribly designed?

The flight deck is poorly designed - when landing aircraft, only the left-most forward catapult can be used to launch aircraft. The power plant cannot generate enough electricity for propulsion, electronics, and full-load EMALS at the same time (it can launch its fighters if the fighters are restricted to 1/2 normal fuel and 1/2 normal weapons, or nearly full fuel load if unarmed). It was rushed into service to meet an arbitrary deadline and the EMALS system takes forever to recharge.

It's back at the builder's yard once again and apparently decommissioned, probably for some sort of rebuild. 

[Threviel]

Thanks guys, very interesting.

Weird that they made such avoidable mistakes, they have after all studied western carriers and have old Soviet ones.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

From what I've read, Fujian was originally designed to use steam catapults.  Sometime just before the construction (after the design was complete), someone decided it had to have EMALS instead (presumably because the Ford class have them and the Chinese were in a hurry to claim they had them as well).  That's why the ship has the two critical flaws grumbler mentioned.

The steam cats required for the ship would have been shorter than the EMALS.  With steam cats fitted, #2 cat would not impede the landing area.  Also, #1 cat impedes the operation of the forward elevator for the same reason.  Also, being driven by steam, they wouldn't put the significant electrical load on the generators that the EMALS do.

There are also some issues with the deck layout independent of the aircraft launch system.  The angled landing zone is narrower and less angled than US designs, and pushed the island further forward than it ideally would be.  This is a contributor to the forward elevator issue above.

Of course, this is all just a Western narrative to cope with the fact the PLAN can now go toe-to-toe with the USN and keep them out of the First Island Chain.

[Threviel]

Interesting and makes sense. I would imagine that the US still has the edge at sea and with the new Trump class battleships entering service I expect that to change. Sane procurement strategy and an efficient ship building industry will make a huge dent in US superiority.

[Jacob]

Are the "Trump Class" battleships a real thing?

[Threviel]

I thought so, they're dumb enough to be US policy, but who knows what the fickle bastards are up to.

[Zanza]

Are the "Trump Class" battleships a real thing?

At the moment it's just AI slop. Trump does not seem to have sufficient attention span to actually have a ship constructed.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

I don't think it's "AI slop", I think it's the bones of a cruiser concept the Navy actually wants, with extra bullshit tacked on and the "battleship" label applied to placate Trump.  If this actually goes anywhere, they'll remove the bullshit "for cost savings" and hopefully end up with the ship they actually wanted.  The USN has been trying for a couple decades to get a Ticonderoga replacement done, and they're now looking at a situation where, in a few years, the USN won't have any cruisers for the first time in over 150 years.  The USN also needs something bigger, because they have already crammed too much into the Burke hull in the Flight III mod, and they've gotten nowhere on replacing that 30+ year old base design.  The frigate fiasco does not instill confidence in the Navy's ship acquisition skills, though, so it will probably still be a shitshow.

[The Minsky Moment]

Are the "Trump Class" battleships a real thing?

It's a hypothetical concept for a guided missile cruiser.  They are calling it a "battleship" to amuse the Idiot.

It's not a real thing. They hasn't been any funding for it. There isn't a design.  The current plan is to select a design by 2028.  I doubt even that will happen, and if it does, it won't get built.

It does matter though, because it means the Navy will spend a good part of the next 2 years farting around with a fantasy ship instead of working on designs that might actually matter for a 2030+ era fleet.

[Sheilbh]

It does matter though, because it means the Navy will spend a good part of the next 2 years farting around with a fantasy ship instead of working on designs that might actually matter for a 2030+ era fleet.

Things may be different in the US, but from a UK perspective, that just sounds like most defence procurement projects...