BBG(X) - NEWS ONLY

Forest Green

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
11 June 2019
Messages
14,600
Reaction score
31,716
View: https://x.com/__CJohnston__/status/2011204905424368088?s=20

Looks like a 12-cell CPS launcher.

View attachment 798458

SECNAV: Shipbuilders Need to Hire 250,000 Workers Over the Next Decade for ‘Golden Fleet’​

https://news.usni.org/2026/01/13/se...workers-over-the-next-decade-for-golden-fleet
President Donald Trump announced plans for the battleship last month at Mar-a-Lago, USNI News previously reported. The Trump-class ships will field the 128 MK-41 vertical launch system cells, AN/SPY-6 air search radar, 12 Conventional Prompt Strike long-range hypersonic missiles, an electromagnetic railgun and multiple five-inch guns.
 
On the serious side, Navy Lookout has an analysis up. Bonus higher quality renders too, including one of the DDG(X).

https://www.navylookout.com/the-str...il-of-trumps-battleship-plan-for-the-us-navy/
Cut 'n paste:

The proposal to equip BB(X) with the Sea-Launched Cruise Missile-Nuclear (SLCM-N) would reintroduce tactical nuclear weapons to the surface fleet. At present, the USN is in the early stages of this programme, focused on a submarine-launched weapon with a low-yield nuclear warhead launched via the Virginia Payload Module (VPM). Whether the value of naval tactical nuclear capability justifies the expense and effort involved in developing a new generation of weapons is highly controversial.

The railgun featured prominently on BB(X) is best understood less as a mature weapon choice and more as a symbol of unresolved debates within the US Navy about firepower, magazine depth and cost exchange.

The strategic context for the ship is fundamentally different for the Russians, having no operational aircraft carrier capability, meaning Nakhimov is now their primary capital ship. BB(X), by contrast, will operate in a navy dominated by supercarriers. While the Nakhimov is a Cold War relic being dragged well into the 21st century to maintain the illusion of blue-water parity, the Defiant is a clean-sheet design intended to reassert dominance. Nevertheless, the Russian experience serves as a cautionary tale, the complex integration of modern weapons into massive hulls is fraught with delay, a lesson the US Navy may relearn painfully.

For the last decade, Western naval planning has increasingly been dominated by the concept of ‘distributed lethality’, the idea that sensors and shooters should be separated as widely as possible across many smaller, networked platforms, increasing fleet survivability.

Consequently, the move toward a massive surface combatant has some logic beyond mere prestige; it is an acknowledgement that the USN’s ‘Distributed Maritime Operations’ (DMO) concept has a flaw: you cannot distribute large hypersonic missiles or megawatt-class lasers onto frigates.

Rear Admiral Trinque, director of the surface warfare division and a BB(X) enthusiast, said last week: “in order to keep an adequate number of MK 41 [on DDG(X)] we were going to have to make a choice between a gun weapon system and Conventional Prompt Strike… I don’t want to put those kinds of limits on the fleet”. He then admitted that “when national leaders announced that they were interested in building a battleship, this was a great opportunity for us.”

There is a robust debate regarding the survivability of such a large vessel that echoes the concern about aircraft carriers. Second only to the CVN, the BB(X) would be a priority target for the adversary. In a conflict, the Defiant could be a ‘too big to lose’ asset, potentially forcing commanders to operate it conservatively, well back from the fight, thereby negating the range advantage of its weapons.

The central unstated assumption in Trump’s ‘Golden Fleet’ initiative is that the US maritime industrial base is capable of constructing such behemoths.

By committing to such a capital-intensive program, the Navy risks over-reach, devouring the budget for the basics or the more effective deterrent provided by SSN/SSGNs. It would be sensible for the USN to quietly keep DDG(X) development alive. If industrial realities don’t halt the BB(X) project early on, then it’s quite likely future administrations will cancel, and a contingency plan is needed.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2026-01-27 at 12.59.25 PM.png
    Screenshot 2026-01-27 at 12.59.25 PM.png
    616.6 KB · Views: 265
  • Screenshot 2026-01-27 at 1.03.42 PM.png
    Screenshot 2026-01-27 at 1.03.42 PM.png
    1 MB · Views: 181
  • Screenshot 2026-01-27 at 1.04.02 PM.png
    Screenshot 2026-01-27 at 1.04.02 PM.png
    2.4 MB · Views: 148
  • Screenshot 2026-01-27 at 1.04.31 PM.png
    Screenshot 2026-01-27 at 1.04.31 PM.png
    3.6 MB · Views: 140
  • Screenshot 2026-01-27 at 1.03.16 PM.png
    Screenshot 2026-01-27 at 1.03.16 PM.png
    1.4 MB · Views: 145
  • Screenshot 2026-01-27 at 1.04.43 PM.png
    Screenshot 2026-01-27 at 1.04.43 PM.png
    3.2 MB · Views: 159
Defense Updates put out a video earlier today about the BBG*(X):


President Donald Trump outlined his vision for a next-generation class of battleships last year, positioning them as a core component of a proposed “Golden Fleet” of advanced naval platforms that the United States Navy intends to develop and deploy.In his keynote address at the Sea-Air-Space Symposium, Secretary of the Navy John Phelan emphasized the operational value of the future battleship concept, describing it as a highly versatile platform designed to provide commanders with a broad spectrum of both offensive and defensive capabilities.​
He said, “I’ve heard the critiques [that’s] too vulnerable, too expensive, too big. We’ve heard that before about carriers and about submarines, and yet, when it matters most, those are the platforms combatant commanders call for first,”​
The Trump administration aims to reinvigorate the United States’ shipbuilding industrial base in parallel with the development of the Trump-class battleship program.
In this video, Defense Updates analyzes how Trump class battleship is shaping up?
#defenseupdates #trumpclass #USSDefiant
Chapters:
0:00 TITLE00:11 INTRODUCTION01:18 SPONSORSHIP - NordVPN01:52 CONCEPT04:24 CAPABLITIES07:41 PRICE AND TIMELINE10:40 ANALYSIS

*BBG- Bloviating Blowhard Grifter class.
 
First, will BBG(X) receive congressional approval? And will it be approved during Trump's term? (Perhaps BBG(X) won't even have started construction by the time Trump leaves office.)

Furthermore, US Navy shipbuilding is indeed slow, and adding nuclear power to BBG(X) would be too expensive.


In the Navy's shipbuilding plan announced today, nearly $17 billion has been allocated for the construction of battleships (BBG(x)) in fiscal year 2028. This represents 29% of the Navy's shipbuilding budget for that year 20260513_043506.jpg
 
Last edited:
Hey, some actual news: https://breakingdefense.com/2026/05/house-pushes-navy-to-nail-down-battleship-design-details/

House pushes Navy to nail down battleship design details​

Multiple lawmakers have questioned the value of the battleship in recent weeks, often citing the expected cost of the vessel.
The House Armed Services Committee doesn’t want the Navy to sign off on a construction contract for the Trump-class battleship until the service provides Congress more details about the ship’s design, according to the chairman’s mark of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) released today.

The draft legislation includes a section that would prohibit the Navy from inking a contract or other agreement that “includes a scope of work for the construction” of the lead ship until after the Secretary of the Navy proves to lawmakers that the weapons systems the service plans to include on the vessel are “at a sufficiently mature technology readiness level.”
Multiple lawmakers have questioned the value of the battleship, frequently citing the projected cost associated with the vessel when voicing their concerns. The Navy is requesting approximately $1 billion in advance procurement and roughly $837 million in research and development funds for the battleship in fiscal year 2027, and is planning to request roughly $17 billion in procurement funding for the first ship in FY28, budget documents released in April show.

“That’s just an amount of money that really defies logic in terms of the fact that we just do not have anything close to design,” Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., said during a House Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee hearing last week.

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., expressed similar sentiments at that hearing, saying: “As I understand it, you don’t have a design, you don’t know what’s going to be on it, you’re counting on multiple unproven technologies, and you don’t know how you’re going to build it.”
Here's hoping that they don't pull a Constellation and start laying down steel before the design work is actually complete.
 
https://www.dvidshub.net/news/568454/carderock-team-applies-expertise-uss-defiant-model

The current round of enhancements for Defiant includes refining bridge windows, updating flight deck markings, a nameplate and adding intricate details like Vertical Launch System (VLS) cells, miniature helicopters and scale shipping containers.

The team also crafted a new wooden base for the model using salvaged material from USS New Jersey (BB 62) – the nation’s last commissioned battleship – linking the Navy’s storied past to its conceptual future.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5242.jpeg
    IMG_5242.jpeg
    1,011.3 KB · Views: 165
https://www.twz.com/sea/congress-pr...gram-guardrails-met-with-white-house-pushback
The White House has formally registered its opposition to a move by Congress to block work on the nuclear-powered Trump class battleship unless the U.S. Navy provides assurances that key weapon systems are “sufficiently mature.” The House Armed Services Committee has already demanded a report from the Secretary of the Navy outlining the steps the service is taking to ensure the battleship program won’t exacerbate existing construction delays on aircraft carriers and submarines.
When it comes to Section 131 of H.R. 8800, the provision is brief, but pointed. At the time of writing, it reads, in full:

“The Secretary of the Navy may not enter into a contract or other agreement that includes a scope of work for the construction of the lead ship of the Battleship program until the date on which the Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees that the weapon systems planned for inclusion in such lead ship are at a sufficiently mature technology readiness level.”
With this in mind, as noted, the House Armed Services Committee has separately asked for a report from the Secretary of the Navy, to be delivered no later than March 1, 2027, on the potential industrial impacts. A particular issue is the strain that work on the Trump class could have on America’s limited nuclear shipbuilding enterprise. Currently, there are only two U.S. shipyards qualified to build nuclear-powered vessels and only one supplier of naval reactors. Currently, the only nuclear-powered ships in the Navy are aircraft carriers and submarines. The service has not operated a nuclear-powered surface combatant in decades, and it has been even longer since one was built in the United States.
 
BB(X) is now redesignated BBGN. This article looks at the industrial issues surrounding it.

https://www.navylookout.com/us-navy...-questions-for-carriers-submarines-and-aukus/

The US Navy has confirmed that its planned Trump-class guided-missile battleship, whose lead ship would be USS Defiant, will be nuclear-powered. The propulsion decision could have consequences extending beyond the BB(X) programme (now redesignated BBGN), placing additional pressure on US aircraft-carrier construction and the naval nuclear industrial base, with potential second-order implications for AUKUS and the submarine programmes of Australia and Britain.

Some new renders too, but as with the others, they're only provisional.
 

Attachments

  • BBGN-Trump-class-Battleship-1-1536x738.jpg
    BBGN-Trump-class-Battleship-1-1536x738.jpg
    436.7 KB · Views: 71
  • BBGN-Trump-class-Battleship-1536x738.jpg
    BBGN-Trump-class-Battleship-1536x738.jpg
    376.8 KB · Views: 84
  • Screenshot 2026-07-30 at 6.14.17 AM.png
    Screenshot 2026-07-30 at 6.14.17 AM.png
    474.7 KB · Views: 87
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/05/...e_code=1.3FA.KED_.p_k7ncZ_Awvt&smid=url-share

Cost of Trump’s Namesake Warships Likely to Rise by 50 Percent or More​

President Trump’s goal of building a “golden fleet” of 15 battleships could cost $275 billion, according to a government estimate.



A new class of warships that President Trump says will anchor a “golden fleet” for the Navy is expected to cost at least 50 percent more than estimated earlier, according to a government report released on Wednesday.

The first planned Trump-class battleship, the U.S.S. Defiant, is likely to cost $23.4 billion, $8 billion more than the Navy initially indicated.

The cost of each of the 14 additional vessels is expected to jump to slightly more than $18 billion from $10.2 billion, for a total cost of $275 billion for 15 ships.

The estimates were calculated by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which said that the first of the battleships might take eight years or longer to build.

...
 
https://www.defensenews.com/opinion...ts-cant-wait-for-the-us-navys-battleship-era/

An Aug. 21 article in China National Defense News [中国国防报] provides some initial insights into how America’s chief global rival is assessing this potentially major change in direction for the U.S. Navy surface fleet.

This article, published in an official paper of the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) does note that the ship could have the advantages that “large vessels can continue to execute certain combat missions even when communications are jammed, and their hulls offer superior damage resistance compared to small or medium-sized ships.” It notes that smaller, distributed platforms could overly “rely on stable data links.” In addition, it’s worth observing that this rendering does note that the planned U.S. battleship would have nuclear propulsion, and would possibly also carry nuclear-armed missiles.

For 15 Trump-class battleships built between 2028 and 2056, the costs would amount to $275 billion, with the lead class carrying the price tag of $23.4 billion. The report says that cost is 55% higher due to the change from conventional to nuclear propulsion and terms this price as “exorbitant.” Illustrating some familiarity with nuclear power issues, the analysis adds that “nuclear waste disposal and vessel dismantling following retirement are not included” in the $275 billion estimate.

“Unfinalized designs and insufficient technological maturity” are also flagged as potential major problem that may cause delays and cost overruns. Potentially carrying rail guns, hypersonic weapons, as well as lasers, this critique seems quite valid. As the PLA assessment states: “This ‘build the platform first, install equipment later’ approach could increase the risks.” The piece cites the examples of the both the Zumwalt-class destroyer and the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) as relevant examples of recent problematic programs.

The article observes: “This design differs from the Distributed Maritime Operations concept that the U.S. Navy has been advancing in recent years. The theory of distributed maritime operations emphasizes the dispersal of detection, command, and strike capabilities across multiple nodes … to mitigate the impact that damage to a few large vessels would have on the entire formation.”

In a closely related point, the PLA article also broaches the question of whether large surface combatants are simply too vulnerable to quiet submarines, hypersonic missiles, and “drone swarms.”

Apparently quite aware of major difficulties in U.S. shipbuilding, the Chinese military assessment adds that leading American shipyards “are currently facing average delays of five years, with the delivery cycle for a single ship extending from approximately five years in the early 2000’s to about eleven years today.”

Noting that the new battleship program could have cascading results for other high priority U.S. Navy programs, the article concludes: “Assembly of nuclear-powered battleships … could further slow the construction of aircraft carriers and submarines.” These Chinese strategists are no doubt aware such a delay would further impact the Asia-Pacific naval balance.
 
Back
Top Bottom