Trump Class Battleship 2025

Status
Not open for further replies.
Scott Kenny said:
The USN is going to need ~30 of them. 1 for each carrier group (~11), 1 for each ARG (~11), 1 for each numered Fleet as Fleet flagships, and a few extras to stash around
Click to expand...

I know they are claiming 20-25, but a more plausible approach is to treat them as SAG centerpieces, so maybe 4-6. (Or none, because there is zero chance they get to production before the Trump edifice comes crashing down.)
 
Why try to field railguns on this design if they've been shown to be costly and ineffective?
Trying to come to terms with railgun technology has already failed as shown with the Zumwalt-class destroyers which are being retrofitted with hypersonic missiles instead. Also, on the grounds of air defence it seems they're trusting the lone implementation of lasers without the supplementation of other gun-based systems such as the CIWS.
 
flyingcorsair said:
Why try to field railguns on this design if they've been shown to be costly and ineffective?
Click to expand...
Because Trump wanted big gun (so the proposal need to include this to get his enthusiastic support) + Japan demonstrated a viable naval railgun. From the Navy point of view, they lose nothing.
 
flyingcorsair said:
Why try to field railguns on this design if they've been shown to be costly and ineffective?
Trying to come to terms with railgun technology has already failed as shown with the Zumwalt-class destroyers which are being retrofitted with hypersonic missiles instead.
Click to expand...

Zumwalt was never intended to carry railguns, aside from SWAP-C margins for notional future developments. AGS was a relatively conventional gun using existing chemical propellants and rocket-assisted shells. The Railgun died because it's ammunition, the Hypervelocity Projectile, could be fired with sabota from existing 127mm and 155mm guns.

flyingcorsair said:
Also, on the grounds of air defence it seems they're trusting the lone implementation of lasers without the supplementation of other gun-based systems such as the CIWS.
Click to expand...

It carries a Burke Flight III/DDG(X)'s combat system, 128 VLS, plus a pair of RAM launchers, a quartet of Mk 38 Mod 4s.

There are reasonable criticisms of this thing, mostly on the basis that it carries a DDG's VLS numbers, combat system and radars on a hull twice the size for no or marginal benefit. I don't know how much armour this thing has, but it might be a useful exercise in demonstrating how much tonnage is necessary to give even very marginal protection to a modern volume-critical surface combatant.
 
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
There are reasonable criticisms of this thing, mostly on the basis that it carries a DDG's VLS numbers, combat system and radars on a hull twice the size for no or marginal benefit. I don't know how much armour this thing has, but it might be a useful exercise in demonstrating how much tonnage is necessary to give even very marginal protection to a modern volume-critical surface combatant.
Click to expand...
That's why I suspect that from the Navy side, the main goal is to loosen the tonnage limitation for future surface combatants. After the concept of bombastic superbattleship would shock the senators enough, the more "moderate and sensible" proposal of missile cruiser with same functionality but smaller displacement would not meet much objections.
 
flyingcorsair said:
Why try to field railguns on this design if they've been shown to be costly and ineffective?
Click to expand...

Because China and Japan have both shown off railguns, plus they needed a "big gun" to convince Trump this is a battleship and not just a jumped up destroyer on a cruiser hull.
 
Last edited:
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
It carries a Burke Flight III/DDG(X)'s combat system, 128 VLS, plus a pair of RAM launchers, a quartet of Mk 38 Mod 4s.

There are reasonable criticisms of this thing, mostly on the basis that it carries a DDG's VLS numbers, combat system and radars on a hull twice the size for no or marginal benefit. I don't know how much armour this thing has, but it might be a useful exercise in demonstrating how much tonnage is necessary to give even very marginal protection to a modern volume-critical surface combatant.
Click to expand...

Is there a possibility it's purpose is to serve as a flagships in a SAGs to replace the Ticonderoga-class cruisers that are being phased out or would the DDG(X) fulfil that role, and if it does essentially does have the same VLS capacity as current DDG's why is it being built when the DDG(X) program could do this at a smaller size. I thought that the idea of a modern ship had shifted from having to be exceptionally large in size (early 20th century) to having the advanced technology needed to combat asymmetric threats and bombard targets from a distance with guided missiles?

Dilandu said:
That's why I suspect that from the Navy side, the main goal is to loosen the tonnage limitation for future surface combatants. After the concept of bombastic superbattleship would shock the senators enough, the more "moderate and sensible" proposal of missile cruiser with same functionality but smaller displacement would not meet much objections.
Click to expand...

With all of this, I don't see the objective of loosening tonnage restrictions as destroyers such as the Arleigh Burke can work effectively with only a handful of other surface combatants without exceeding a tonnage of 40,000 tons. Unless this new class of combatants plan to work independently or to complement CSGs with another large combatant besides a carrier I can't fathom why this new class would even be required?
 
Deino said:
It‘s none of this it is just a HUGE distraction from releasing the Epstein-files.
Click to expand...
Scott Adams had an interesting take on the Epstein fiasco. He basically said it wouldn't matter who said they wanted the entire thing released, without a single word redacted. The Deep State / Bureaucracy (CIA and such) want to keep their leverage/blackmail, so we'll never get it. They'll just keep slow rolling it until the end of time.
 
flyingcorsair said:
Is there a possibility it's purpose is to serve as a flagships in a SAGs to replace the Ticonderoga-class cruisers that are being phased out or would the DDG(X) fulfil that role, and if it does essentially does have the same VLS capacity as current DDG's why is it being built when the DDG(X) program could do this at a smaller size. I thought that the idea of a modern ship had shifted from having to be exceptionally large in size (early 20th century) to having the advanced technology needed to combat asymmetric threats and bombard targets from a distance with guided missiles?



With all of this, I don't see the objective of loosening tonnage restrictions as destroyers such as the Arleigh Burke can work effectively with only a handful of other surface combatants without exceeding a tonnage of 40,000 tons. Unless this new class of combatants plan to work independently or to complement CSGs with another large combatant besides a carrier I can't fathom why this new class would even be required?
Click to expand...

You have already put more thought into this than the Navy leadership has.

They asked for a battleship bigger than any other (post-war) combatant, and this is what came back. It's not based on a rigorous analysis of requirements, a detailed mission needs statement, or a multi-variate COEA. It's big and looks "fighty," and that's all Trump and Phelan care about.

In terms of combat capability, this is almost exactly the same as the DDG(X) stretched with the Destroyer Mission Module, plus the non-existent railgun.
 
flyingcorsair said:
Is there a possibility it's purpose is to serve as a flagships in a SAGs to replace the Ticonderoga-class cruisers that are being phased out or would the DDG(X) fulfil that role, and if it does essentially does have the same VLS capacity as current DDG's why is it being built when the DDG(X) program could do this at a smaller size.
Click to expand...

DDG(X) would likely have carried the necessary flag facilities.

flyingcorsair said:
I thought that the idea of a modern ship had shifted from having to be exceptionally large in size (early 20th century) to having the advanced technology needed to combat asymmetric threats and bombard targets from a distance with guided missiles?
Click to expand...

This doesn't carry much in the way of advanced technology (Railgun aside) that wasn't already planned for existing ships.

The US has considered relatively large ships before, some CG(X) studies were on the order of 23-25,000 tons, but the main driver of size for those ships were AMDR-S radar (which later became SPY-6) arrays with diameters in excess of 30-ft for BMD (and presumably improved performance against air-breathing LO targets). The Defiant has the same 14-foot diameter 37-RMA SPY-6(V)1s as Burke Flight III and what were supposed to be the initial flight(s) of DDG(X) (there were plans for the latter to have SWAP-C margins for a larger 18-foot diameter 57-RMA SPY-6 variant).
 
Last edited:

What We Know About The Trump Class “Battleship”​

www.twz.com

What We Know About The Trump Class "Battleship"

The USS Defiant would be the first Trump class battleship, but major questions remain about affordability and logic of such a massive design.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

Trump announces new Trump-class ‘battleship’ as part of ‘Golden Fleet’​

breakingdefense.com

Trump announces new Trump-class 'battleship' as part of 'Golden Fleet' - Breaking Defense

The new vessel, coming in around 30,000 tons, will be capable of carrying surface-launched nuclear missiles, creating what Navy Secretary John Phelan called a new nuclear deterrent.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:

What We Know About The Trump Class “Battleship”​

www.twz.com

What We Know About The Trump Class "Battleship"

The USS Defiant would be the first Trump class battleship, but major questions remain about affordability and logic of such a massive design.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
Click to expand...

“We’re going to make battle groups great again,” Secretary Phelan added. “The USS Defiant battleship will inspire awe and reverence for the American flag whenever it pulls into a foreign port. It will be a source of pride for every American.”
- Trump

Possibly, Trump is hinting at utilizing these in CSGs rather than SAG?
 
stealthflanker said:
So based on that specs.. I'm trying to calculate how much it costs.. based on empirical equations given here :

View attachment 796126

The equations are as follows :

View attachment 796127

Using that website, and setting some limits e.g 40K tons and 40 knots. and buy of 25 ships with assuming 95% learning curve (complex build). Basically initial cost of the USS Defiant is about 18.6 B USD FY-2025, with subsequent batch hopefully down to 14.2 B USD FY-2025 per copy.

View attachment 796128

To compare that with Burke.. well, for every Defiant. 6-7 Burkes can be build. But for the capability and much expanded weapons, guess that's worth it ?
Click to expand...

This post reminded me of a movie :
en.wikipedia.org

The Great War of Archimedes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Dilandu said:
Yeah, but Ingalls seems to have big enough facilities. They could also reopen the former Avondale shipyard, which have facilities for at least 290 meters long ships.
Click to expand...
Avondale has been parted out. If we needed to build these and needed 2 yards to do it, Bath would only need a larger drydock. Their yard has one lane that can accommodate something this long and the assembly halls can build LPD-size blocks.
 
EmoBirb said:
Maybe it's because I'm foreigner, but I don't think it sounds half bad. Could be understood in the relation of the verb for people who are not into the person, as in to trump/surpass something.
Click to expand...

Well, it is a bit like the distinction in Roman history between deifying the emperor after his death and deifying the emperor while he is alive... and of course, democracies need not deify their leaders.
 
I can't understand the desire to centralise so many weapons on a single platform. An arsenal ship with cheap weapons creates a target an enemy can't ignore - so you can use it as bait to lure in enemy anti-ship assets (and lure them away from carriers)... but to do so you need to keep costs down.

I also don't really understand mixing nuclear and non-nuclear weapons (it basically forces your opponent to go after nuclear assets, which then increases the likelihood of escalation).
 
Well seems the whole thing is like the F-55 "twin engine F-35" siliness of a few weeks ago. Trump ranting... the military saying "ah sure brilliant idea !" then wait for Trump to forget it. Which doesn't take very long. Mercifully !

That, and USN can't properly build nor afford a freakkin' FFGX so imagine such monsters . .. Staline's battleships and battlecruisers come to mind.
 
Why the Zummwalt cruiser was a failure ?
Impossible to modify it without for exemple the 155mm canons so as to reduce the complexity ?
Why developping now a new design with this one already matured ?
 
See my post just above you. It's like Stalin battlecruisers.
 
Avimimus said:
I also don't really understand mixing nuclear and non-nuclear weapons (it basically forces your opponent to go after nuclear assets, which then increases the likelihood of escalation).
Click to expand...

This was very Cold War logic. If everything is a potential nuke platform, you can't focus solely on the high-value targets.
 
galgot said:
For this to work, the thing shouldn't make foes and allies laugh.
Click to expand...
Why would it? The core of the project is based on existing USN studies and is sufficiently feasible, give or take a couple of systems. There is nothing funny about it, and neither Chinese nor Japanese naval planning staff have the leisure to take it as a joke even if there was.
 
Martes said:
Why would it? The core of the project is based on existing USN studies and is sufficiently feasible, give or take a couple of systems. There is nothing funny about it, and neither Chinese nor Japanese naval planning have the leisure to take it as a joke.
Click to expand...
I don't know, the project actively contradicts long-standing US posture on naval operations, there's no need for a 260-270m ship to perform what a destroyer could do?
 
flyingcorsair said:
I don't know, the project actively contradicts long-standing US posture on naval operations, there's no need for a 260-270m ship to perform what a destroyer could do?
Click to expand...

It's been around since 80's.

And you do forget the Kirov-style large SSM launchers that are to be incorporated here in addition to standard VLS sets, which the Burkes don't have. Granted, somebody has to make those SSMs, but it's not totally impossible.

But the point is that however crazy this project may be (which it isn't), foreign naval planning will have to scramble, analyze the technical possibility of those ships being built, and present their governments options of dealing with them in a range of scenarios, whether they want it or not. Because that's their job.
 
Last edited:
Martes said:
Why would it? The core of the project is based on existing USN studies and is sufficiently feasible, give or take a couple of systems. There is nothing funny about it, and neither Chinese nor Japanese naval planning staff have the leisure to take it as a joke even if there was.
Click to expand...
Are you German by any chance ?
 
Martes said:
Why would it? The core of the project is based on existing USN studies and is sufficiently feasible, give or take a couple of systems. There is nothing funny about it, and neither Chinese nor Japanese naval planning staff have the leisure to take it as a joke even if there was.
Click to expand...

From the same chaps who gave the world those bigly, tremendous, humongous sucesses like the LCS, the Ford, the Zumwalt and the Constellation... Lo and behold...

A 30k ton "Battleship"... Called the "Trump Class"... Of the "Golden Fleet"... With a bigly gun on it.

"Funny" doesnt describe it.
Hell, this is Monty Pyton level of comedy!
The first ship will be called "USS Reasonable", the second "USS Compensation" and the third "USS Bootlicking".

This is silly on so many levels.
 
Last edited:
Sintra said:
This is silly on so many levels.
Click to expand...
That's all chaff, smoke and mirrors.

Drop this, and you get a relatively workable (OK, drop the railgun as well, it would have to bought in Japan or replaced with additional VLS cluster) missile cruiser. I do have my doubts about the industrial capability in the US to actually start building it, but I assume that with some pressure it can be forced, and I suspect the Navy (don't mix USN interests and US Government policy) is quite interested in the ship.

Then being a foreign naval general staff, you have to try and consider the implications, because, again, it's not your job to laugh and wave things off. We can joke around here, they don't have that luxury.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom