Trump Class Battleship 2025

[Fessus]

Official from the USN

Golden Fleet

www.goldenfleet.navy.mil

View attachment 796099

After looking at the actual specs I'm a bit intrigued. The actual systems going onto this monster of a ship are pretty down to earth, especially the core ones. If we ignore the railgun and lasers, since I wouldn't consider those required for the core mission, all of these other systems are TRL 9. They're fully tested and require no additional development at all. They're also pretty constrained in terms of how many are getting crammed in.
Only 128 mk 41 vls.
Only 4 CPS tubes.
Only 37 RMA SPY-6 radar faces (same as Flight III)
Only 650-850 crew (about 2 Burkes worth for a ship with nearly 4X the displacement)
Systems are what drive warship procurement costs, not displacement. Steel is cheap, air is free. If they can avoid scope creep these might not be the massive budget monsters people are assuming.
This ship very much looks like the USN getting really fucking tired of dealing with Burke growth limitations and trying to design something that will never, ever run into the same constraints during its lifespan. Massive amounts of power, cooling, and free space for future upgrades, but relatively limited amounts of actual hardware going into the initial versions.
Essentially, "Give me ALL the SWaP-C!" the ship.

 

[DWG]

Official from the USN

Golden Fleet

www.goldenfleet.navy.mil

View attachment 796099

So the image says 28 Mk41 cells, the table says 128; the image says 2 x 300kW lasers, the table says 4 Odin lasers. And they don't even seem to be able to draw a straight barrel on the railgun. The whole thing gives the impression of being flung together at the last minute by people who had no idea this was coming. The Golden Shower jokes write themselves.

Table: >35kt displacement, 840-880x105-115ft
Trump: "Each one of these will be the largest battleships built in the history of our country.”
Iowas: 48kt std, 887x108ft

“We’ll be meeting with [primes] to discuss production schedules. The only way they’ll be able to do that is with new shipyards.” Trump.

Given the US is having trouble staffing its existing yards, this seems somewhat optimistic. (And eyewateringly expensive).

 

[Felocie]

OTOH the RN expects to have Dragonfire at sea on Type 45 by 2027. So some sort of DEW is certainly feasible.

Different class of DEW, the USN is betting big on megawatt class DEWs whereas i believe Dragonfire is still a KW system?

you could potentially squeeze supplemental diesel generators

I wonder how it would respond to power surge. Gas turbines could potentially provide a quicker power response.

The conversation on the podcast was for a platform that wasn't DDG(X), Bryan Clark discussed a larger vessel as part of his modelling work.

I understand what you’re saying but I find the financial aspect difficult to swallow

 

[Desertfox]

We can't even build 8k ton frigates...

 

[Sferrin]

So the image says 28 Mk41 cells, the table says 128; the image says 2 x 300kW lasers, the table says 4 Odin lasers. And they don't even seem to be able to draw a straight barrel on the railgun. The whole thing gives the impression of being flung together at the last minute by people who had no idea this was coming. The Golden Shower jokes right themselves.

Table: >35kt displacement, 840-880x105-115ft
Trump: "Each one of these will be the largest battleships built in the history of our country.”
Iowas: 48kt std, 887x108ft

“We’ll be meeting with [primes] to discuss production schedules. The only way they’ll be able to do that is with new shipyards.” Trump.

Given the US is having trouble staffing its existing yards, this seems somewhat optimistic. (And eyewateringly expensive).

At this point we have to go all the way back to building the tech schools (or updating existing, if they even exist) to turn out the shipyard workers. (And aerospace for that matter.) I get the impression that those holding the purse strings don't understand how thoroughly we've screwed ourselves over the last 30 years.

 

[Ozair]

I understand what you’re saying but I find the financial aspect difficult to swallow

Agree 100%, this battlecruiser is also potentially the death of the F/A-XX...

Given the US is having trouble staffing its existing yards, this seems somewhat optimistic. (And eyewateringly expensive).

Probably a time issue as much as anything else. A new shipyard is a 5 year minimum exercise just to build, let alone the planning permissions before that.

 

[DWG]

Different class of DEW, the USN is betting big on megawatt class DEWs whereas i believe Dragonfire is still a KW system?

The ones here are 300kW according to Goldenfleet.navy.mil (which would suggest HELCAP), but it also has them as ODIN lasers, and AN/SEQ-4 ODIN (Optical Dazzler Interdictor, Navy) is a low powered dazzler. Meanwhile Dragonfire may only be 50kW (and Iron Beam is 100kW).

Ultimately the exact power doesn't matter, as long as it's enough to punch out an incoming missile.

 

[Archdude]

Agree 100%, this battlecruiser is also potentially the death of the F/A-XX...

Probably a time issue as much as anything else. A new shipyard is a 5 year minimum exercise just to build, let alone the planning permissions before that.

Agree with your points!

 

[iverson]

So the image says 28 Mk41 cells, the table says 128; the image says 2 x 300kW lasers, the table says 4 Odin lasers. And they don't even seem to be able to draw a straight barrel on the railgun. The whole thing gives the impression of being flung together at the last minute by people who had no idea this was coming. The Golden Shower jokes write themselves.

Table: >35kt displacement, 840-880x105-115ft
Trump: "Each one of these will be the largest battleships built in the history of our country.”
Iowas: 48kt std, 887x108ft

“We’ll be meeting with [primes] to discuss production schedules. The only way they’ll be able to do that is with new shipyards.” Trump.

Given the US is having trouble staffing its existing yards, this seems somewhat optimistic. (And eyewateringly expensive).

This is what you get when militarism is more important than your military and patriotism (famously the last refuge of scoundrels) is more important than the patria itself.

I'm reminded of what a former employer of mine had to do when he discovered that a Microsoft exec had just acquired a yacht that was longer than the one he had fitting out. He had Lürssen [a] cut his boat in half and install enough extra hull to make his the longest in the world and
house a submarine in the new space. Unfortunately, some Russian oligarch had built an even bigger yacht in the interim, so he just sold the thing.

What would Freud say? Sometimes a big yacht or a really big "battleship" is not just a boat (especially when it is gold and has your cigar-wrapper-like picture on it).

 

[MrTopaz]

I agree with you and agree the Navy seems to need all the help it can get.

 

[drwells42]

Of the things I've read so far, the Naval Institute News article has the most useful data.

This design seems like a discussion starter to me. I'm withholding judgement so far.

Some critical questions:

What does it cost? $10-15 billion? That's CVN money.....

What is its mission? Power Projection, Offensive Strike, Integrated Air/Missile Defense? Need more details.

How are we going to build it? (more details than just "robots") Will we have the skilled labor?

How long will it take to build?

How will this rail gun be different from the one that was previously abandoned?

What sort of propulsion? How many gas turbines and what type? How many diesels and what type?

I'm anything but convinced as yet.

DRW

 

[Scott Kenny]

After looking at the actual specs I'm a bit intrigued. The actual systems going onto this monster of a ship are pretty down to earth, especially the core ones. If we ignore the railgun and lasers, since I wouldn't consider those required for the core mission, all of these other systems are TRL 9. They're fully tested and require no additional development at all. They're also pretty constrained in terms of how many are getting crammed in.
Only 128 mk 41 vls.
Only 4 CPS tubes.
Only 37 RMA SPY-6 radar faces (same as Flight III)
Only 650-850 crew (about 2 Burkes worth for a ship with nearly 4X the displacement)
Systems are what drive warship procurement costs, not displacement. Steel is cheap, air is free. If they can avoid scope creep these might not be the massive budget monsters people are assuming.
This ship very much looks like the USN getting really fucking tired of dealing with Burke growth limitations and trying to design something that will never, ever run into the same constraints during its lifespan. Massive amounts of power, cooling, and free space for future upgrades, but relatively limited amounts of actual hardware going into the initial versions.
Essentially, "Give me ALL the SWaP-C!" the ship.

Yeah, the specs seem to be a lot less "battleship" than "finally, a damned CG!"

Though I think the railgun is stupid, and the SPY6 needs to go up in size if you've got a ~35kton hull to work with. What's the ~28ft RMA count?

 

[Felocie]

potentially the death of the F/A-XX...

F/A-XX is confirmed dead, not speculation. Just look at the funding assigned

Ultimately the exact power doesn't matter, as long as it's enough to punch out an incoming missile.

Yeah, what they're talking about won't cut it for ASMD if I am correct in my understanding. It's gotta be a capability they'll fit down the line in place of RAM (same plan for DDG(X)

Yeah, the specs seem to be a lot less "battleship" than "finally, a damned CG!"

Though I think the railgun is stupid, and the SPY6 needs to go up in size if you've got a ~35kton hull to work with. What's the ~28ft RMA count?

I can't lie, the specs are nonsensical. For one the trend is to lessen overall cell count and to handoff cells to offboard magazines on USVs. You're entirely right about the SPY-6 too, if the predicted role of manned ships is sensor and shooter nodes for USVs then why on earth do they focus more on sheer weapons than sensors? This, in my eyes, is the biggest indication that the ship is not really what Navy wants

Also with regards to CGs, the navy has already integrated the key C2 functionalities onto Burkes and want to consolidate them into one class of Large Surface Combatants. That is another reason why this so called battleship is so stupid

 

[WatcherZero]

So looking at her dimensions, its like they just copied the Iowa class.
~ 28ft shorter, ~2ft wider, around 10,000 tons lighter and somehow about a third shallower draught (10feet shallower than existing US Destroyers/cruisers).

I mean the South Dakota class is the same beam and displacement but about 200ft shorter with a 10ft deeper draught, does an extra 200ft length provide enough buoyancy to reduce the draught that much?

Its all just nonsense figures.

 

[azelion]

...

 

[uguduwa]

Coming up next: steam catapults.

 

[Halcyon66]

Hanwha Ocean shares jump 10% after Trump says South Korean firm to build warships for U.S. Navy

Hanwha Ocean shares jump 10% after Trump says South Korean firm to build warships for U.S. Navy

Trump said that the frigates will be built at the Philadelphia shipyards, which Hanwha had invested $5 billion into.

www.cnbc.com

Pretty funny, as in the old finance saying "Buy the rumor, sell the fact"

Regards,

 

[Ozair]

Hanwha Ocean shares jump 10% after Trump says South Korean firm to build warships for U.S. Navy

Hanwha Ocean shares jump 10% after Trump says South Korean firm to build warships for U.S. Navy

Trump said that the frigates will be built at the Philadelphia shipyards, which Hanwha had invested $5 billion into.

www.cnbc.com

Would be a good decision to contract to the Philly Yard, Hanwha investments there will make it a very capable and productive yard.

 

[WatcherZero]

Would be a good decision to contract to the Philly Yard, Hanwha investments there will make it a very capable and productive yard.

Part of the compensation Fincanterri received for the cancellation of the Constellation class was being guaranteed the replacement frigate work as well as some landing craft work. Other yards already have a full work schedule. Leaves the only yard that could contribute to a new ship line being Philly which has done 600ft 50,000 ton LNG carriers in the past and has a couple of 1,100ft drydocks which built New Jersey class battleships during WW2.

 

[drwells42]

Also, If memory serves, wasn't the Kentucky (BB-66) designated BBG-1 when they were contemplating a missile version?

DRW

 

[Ozair]

Part of the compensation Hanwa received for the cancellation of the Constellation class was being guaranteed the replacement frigate work as well as some landing craft work.

FMM is not Hanwha.

 

[Nx4eu]

A WIP 3D model size comparison to 055. 128 Mk41 and 12CPS is a bit underwhelming eh?

 

[donnage99]

"In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, Phelan said that Trump had specifically asked for a "big, beautiful" battleship-type vessel as part of the fleet, which will also include dozens of support and transport vessels."

Not neccesitated out of war studies, industrial base studies, budgetary studies, logistics studies....

Donald Trump unveils new class of battleships named after himself

The US president has vowed to revive American shipbuilding after lagging behind China in naval capacity.

www.bbc.com

 

[Reddington777]

I really hope this isn't a political decision and it instead really did come from the navy themselves.

Or else in 3 years time, the next admin is gonna cancel this and we are back to square one.

At this point I cannot give a flying f--- about what the navy is building, or what it's specs are. I just want the USG to make a goddamn decision and see it through to completion.

 

[Martes]

A WIP 3D model size comparison to 055.

Flight ops would be nightmare in any kind of ocean weather.

 

[Dilandu]

IMHO, it seems to be an attempt to make a radical "high-end/low-end" distinction. The Trump-class (next administration would likely rename them...) BBG would represent a "high-end", FF(X) would represent "low-end". With Arleigh Burke's and DDG(X) serving as intermediates, escorts for first, flagships for second.
From industrial point of view, it seems to be an attempt to fight quantity (of PLAN) with quality (of USN). I.e. USN acknowleged, that it just can't have anything like numerical parity with PLAN in future, and decided instead to turn for larger, heavier units (which US shipyards have less problems constructing).
P.S. But why it isn't nuclear?

 

[Dilandu]

Its got no idea what it wants to be, its covered in small guns like its meant to be anti-air but carries only 28 VLS cells in the diagram, a third of what the destroyers carry and yet the blurb claims it has 128 VLS cells (must be a variant that omits 12 the strike cells or its just a typo with an extra 1). Its got two 5" guns like its expecting to be doing naval bombardment except they cant perform broadside as they block each others firing arcs meaning it has to face its target bow on.

Looking on render - the ship have two VLS, one mid-hull, one on rear between hangars. The rear one have eight Mk-41 modules, i.e. 64 VLC. Assuming that central one have the same number, we got 128 VLS.

 

[Desertfox]

And we will end up with 20 Burkes Flt IV instead...

 

[isayyo2]

Apparently this IS the DDG(X) now...

https://news.usni.org/2025/12/22/trump-unveils-new-battleship-class-proposed-uss-defiant-will-be-largest-u-s-surface-combatant-since-wwii

 

[Reddington777]

Okay instead of doing lazy commenting, I went and re-read the USNI article:

The new ships will replace the Navy’s next-generation DDG(X) program, which was projected to be about half the size of this proposed battleship. Construction is slated to begin in the early 2030s with the Navy serving as the lead design agent for the effort, USNI News understands

Like the initial DDG(X) concept, Defiant would use gas turbines and diesels to drive an electrical grid that would supply power to the ship’s weapon systems and sensors, according to the Navy data. The ship would be capable of speeds in excess of 30 knots. The flight deck and hangar will be capable of fielding V-22 Osprey tilt-rotors and the next future vertical lift aircraft.

The battleship will be capable of operating independently, as part of a Carrier Strike Group, or commanding its own Surface Action Group depending on the mission and threat environment,” reads the Navy data sheet for Defiant. “With the ability to provide forward command and control for both manned and unmanned platforms, [the] battleship will be a critical component in executing the Navy Warfighting Concept.

"like the initial DDG(X) concept" - maybe I'm reading too much into the grammar, but was this something born out of DDG(X) and this is what DDG(X) has evolved into? The super structure actually looks similar to the DDG(X) render from before.

And what kind of fleet would this ship be commanding? This ship seems much too large to field in quantities that would allow for some replacement of Burkes, yet this ship is also replacing the DDG(X) program, which means DDG(X) is basically going to be axed or merged in soon assuming this wasn't derivative of DDG(X)

So what is going to provide the capable combat mass? Don't tell me it's the NSC derivative frigates....

 

[Maro.Kyo]

Systems are what drive warship procurement costs, not displacement. Steel is cheap, air is free.

Not if you are building ships in the US!

 

[Maro.Kyo]

FMM is not Hanwha.

That's exactly what he means. FMM will be busy building something else so Philly would be one of the few free yards.

 

[Ainen]

IMHO, it seems to be an attempt to make a radical "high-end/low-end" distinction. The Trump-class (next administration would likely rename them...) BBG would represent a "high-end", FF(X) would represent "low-end". With Arleigh Burke's and DDG(X) serving as intermediates, escorts for first, flagships for second.
From industrial point of view, it seems to be an attempt to fight quantity (of PLAN) with quality (of USN). I.e. USN acknowleged, that it just can't have anything like numerical parity with PLAN in future, and decided instead to turn for larger, heavier units (which US shipyards have less problems constructing).
P.S. But why it isn't nuclear?

They're too far apart.

Also, looking at it, it appears this is either a "DDGX leader", or straight up where evolution took it. Basic weapon/sensor suits are same(BBGX adds 1 bank), difference is ~trippled secondary fit.

As for nuclear - it really appears that range of dimensions is for both. Smaller numbers (and table) are gas, higher numbers(and graphics) are nuclear.

 

[Big_Zukini]

This clearly is a CG, not a DDG. So if that's the direction then shouldn't the Constellation project resume to produce a DDG replacement for Burkes?

 

[Dilandu]

Also, looking at it, it appears this is either a "DDGX leader", or straight up where evolution took it. Basic weapon/sensor suits are same(BBGX adds 1 bank), difference is ~trippled secondary fit.

Interesting to note, that - barring railgun - all other equipment is rather conservative.

This clearly is a CG, not a DDG. So if that's the direction then shouldn't the Constellation project resume to produce a DDG replacement for Burkes?

Looks like it's an attempt to mate DDG(X) electronic & weapons with cruiser-grade hull, capable of supporting large number of hypersonic missiles.

 

[Big_Zukini]

Looks like it's an attempt to mate DDG(X) electronic & weapons with cruiser-grade hull, capable of supporting large number of hypersonic missiles.

That sounds like a logical conclusion. I do believe the intent is to replace Ticonderogas, which increases the navy's capacity. Something will have to be done about that crew size though. 850 is excessive, even if deemed necessary for such size.

If it's a Burke replacement then that's a net capacity reduction.

 

[Felocie]

a bit underwhelming eh

Frankly, not really unless you view it through the same lens as the president (moar weapons and displacement=moar better). There are practical considerations that warrant hulls that are very large and the weapons on said hull are not a good metric for measuring efficacy. Steel is cheap after all

 

[Dilandu]

That sounds like a logical conclusion. I do believe the intent is to replace Ticonderogas, which increases the navy's capacity. Something will have to be done about that crew size though. 850 is excessive, even if deemed necessary for such size.

I have a strong suspicion, that Navy at some point realized, that they just won't be able to fit all DDG(X) features into destroyer-size hull. Switching to the larger hull would be a big headache in Congress. So they basically used Trump love of bombastic ideas to initiate works on "battleship", that would eventually got reduced into 20.000-ton cruiser.

 

[Ainen]

Looks like it's an attempt to mate DDG(X) electronic & weapons with cruiser-grade hull, capable of supporting large number of hypersonic missiles.

even lower end (30k displacement - which one, btw) is already above Kirov - and Kirov, as we know, has quite a lot of armor.
40k is way over that(1.5 Kirovs). 40'000t d(st?fl?) is Kiev (1143) size.

I don't know whether BBG or CG designation makes sense(this is most certainly not a ship for any cruiser role, cruiser warship is cancellation) , but most certainly this is not 'cruiser' hull anymore.

Btw, another way to interpret it is Burke fl.iii trauma - when design team asked how much growth space you want, the answer was "yes". Add in Trump, and you get a lot of ship.

 

[Ozair]

That's exactly what he means. FMM will be busy building something else so Philly would be one of the few free yards.

No he just made a mistake and changed his text after I quoted him to FFM instead of originally hanwha..