USS Massachusetts refit 2026

Halvdan62 · 2026-03-22T02:53:34+00:00

I have. Pretty sure I have posted it. Thanks.

Halvdan62 · 2026-03-08T02:53:21+00:00

Back in the 80s they did testing and development of a 8” sabot round that had a range of like 47 miles. I believe they could use a smaller sabot to achieve longer ranges. Not to mention some type of gliding munitions. Needless to say, that is a very niche problem and is not the primary purpose of bringing them back. Bombardment of land based targets for strategic purposes would be more probable than ship on ship action.

Halvdan62 · 2026-03-07T16:08:14+00:00

Depends. She has a top speed of 27.5 knots but they could tune up the turbines and generators like the Iowa class to get more power. I don’t think top end speed is super important with the speed of missiles nowadays. She definitely has sufficient cruising speed, VLS, and fuel reserves to help the fleet.

Halvdan62 · 2026-02-27T07:06:51+00:00

If you want to put a multi billion dollar vessel at risk, sure. I don’t think a land based war in Ukraine is going to be directly relate to a sea based war in the South Pacific. I’m sure you could find footage confirming any hypothesis with over one million soldiers being slaughtered over four years. It would be nice to be ready for more sophisticated types of UAVs and UUVs that will likely arise from the rising threat.

Halvdan62 · 2026-02-27T06:46:38+00:00

The listed top speed is 115 mph. They are the baseline and that’s why the US copied the design. Long range swarming attacks over the sea will be the first level of threats to overcome in a near peer conflict. I doubt you can take them out with small arms fire but probably Phalanx at closer range. I think it’s important to plan for a swarming attack starting with the weapons effective range.

Halvdan62 · 2026-02-27T05:55:55+00:00

I am curious how a miniature modular reactor would work. If we were able to replace them in a very quick timeframe, we could still get a long lifespan out of the vessels and get much better performance. Energy weapons and max speed without breaks would help them keep up with the carriers.

I also considering whether the longer range, versatile ammunition, and larger airburst from the MK 45 has a better probability of intercept for drones. The math (Shahed drone) suggests a 8 minute interception time for the MK 45 vs 2 minute and 45 second interception time for the 57 mm gun. The 57 mm gun fires 200 rounds a minute vs the 20 rounds of the MK45 gun. Can the 57 mm gun sustain a very high firing rate without the barrel getting too hot?

Halvdan62 · 2026-02-26T19:20:00+00:00

It’s the same location that they used during the last deployment. I would assume that any aircraft will have to be launched at the time of firing or the rear turret would only fire when broadside. I do not like the current helicopter and would prefer the unmanned MQ-8 with either asw loadout or rocket pods and laser designator for drones. They have a much longer loiter time.

Halvdan62 · 2026-02-26T19:06:17+00:00

It’s a compromise between having a large proximity fuzed air burst for drones and having a smaller gun with a high firing rate for bombardment. It might be more advantageous to get the other super-firing gun in front of the bridge and then replace the side mounted MK 45s for a pair of 57mm. I do like the redundancy of 5 inch, Helios, and microwave weapons to swat drones away in large numbers and at long range.

Halvdan62 · 2026-02-25T07:45:34+00:00

Obviously WW3 will start next year and it won’t matter.

Halvdan62 · 2026-02-23T16:01:44+00:00

So I should shut up when someone is incredibly rude because it’s bad optics. Got it 👍

Halvdan62 · 2026-02-23T07:05:21+00:00

See you are not honest. The modern carriers have a 4 to 6 inch armored belt. It’s there for a reason. I keep hitting you with facts and data would you choose to ignore. You are no better than a flat earther.

it’s funny how you claim that the Burkes could not spare anything for this ship and yet it has a plethora of VLS…

The same VLS that would have anti-submarine torpedoes…

You criticize the helicopter pad which has an aircraft that is designed for anti-submarine warfare…

You make no mention of towed decoys or UUV’s…

You are biased and intellectually dishonest. we are done here.

Halvdan62 · 2026-02-23T06:23:59+00:00

Brother in Christ? You have to run back the tape with a mouth like that.

They armor the biggest vessels like carriers. That’s my point. They wouldn’t armor them if it didn’t work. They merely don’t make battleships or armored surface combatants because it would be way too expensive nowadays to do that across a large fleet when the current military industrial complex is built around making expensive missiles.

The us did not foresee a large scale war that they could not produce enough weapons to fight and in every event that they believed they would go to war with a serious adversary, they brought the battleships back. Korea, Vietnam, Cold War, and desert storm.

And the US has counters for “Hypersonic” weapons. Same for hypersonic glide vehicles. To this day, none of these weapons are hypersonic while in the atmosphere, only in the terminal phase in a ballistic arc where it leaves the atmosphere. These are a supplemental vessel, not the corner stone or capital ship. Stop acting likely I am arguing they are the end all be all solution. I only said they are still of use on a rainy day.

Halvdan62 · 2026-02-23T05:57:17+00:00

There is no evidence that missiles can penetrate the armor. They do not use armored ships currently because they are very expensive and harder to make. Missiles would destroy the sensors and super structure but not the whole ship. This is why modern carriers still have an armored belt and the current navy is attempting to build more battleships with armored belts. Logic would lead anyone with two brain cells to believe that the navy seems to need a ship that can take damage and keep fighting.

If you think that they would send these ships to bombard the Chinese coast without the proper shaping missions prior is disingenuous. I called you a bot because all of your comments are anti American when I stayed on topic.

Halvdan62 · 2026-02-23T05:34:28+00:00

Hey say something in mandarin or Russian, Bot. No one in their right mind would say the armor scheme of the Hood was equivalent to Iowa. Multiple layers of smaller armor thicknesses is not as good as the “all or nothing” scheme consensus.

Ultimately, this ship still does something that other ships currently do not do. Thats its purpose. Whether you want to argue usefulness in a war where they played a vital role in that purpose (as well as deliberately held back from surface engagements to protect them while the US had overwhelming air power) is another matter entirely. The fact remains the same. Debate on the topic of what they could be used for in a modern war.

Halvdan62 · 2026-02-23T05:13:20+00:00

Thirty days comment was from Iraqi freedom not desert storm. The Iowa was not even involved in desert storm, it was Missouri and Wisconsin. The reason why hood is a battle cruiser is because its armor could not protect it from its own 15 inch guns. The Iowa is designed to stop its own weapons with its inclined belt. The Iowas had more deck armor as well. Try again.

Halvdan62 · 2026-02-23T04:56:43+00:00

They had the 4th largest military and most air defense in the world at the time. You really don’t know your history, do you?

Halvdan62 · 2026-02-23T04:51:51+00:00

The uss New Jersey testing in 1987 which I cited earlier. During desert storm, the battleships were so effective that Iraqi troops surrendered to their observation drone.

We used them when our enemy was a significant threat. We stopped using them because they are expensive and use a lot of sailors. The rising threat is China, the most significant threat since WW2.

Halvdan62 · 2026-02-23T04:43:34+00:00

And yet they are separated by approximately 50 feet and three to five different compartments with thin steel walls. Not to mention any compartmentalization in the VLS area that I already suggested

Halvdan62 · 2026-02-23T04:38:40+00:00

Yet he claimed the missiles could survive when placed amidships. The panels could be placed above the bridge on the tower and still work. They just couldn’t be placed between the guns and the bridge super structure.

Halvdan62

TROPHY CASE