Trump Class Battleship 2025

Status
Not open for further replies.
From having insight into one of these "Golden Specials" (TBD in the future...), someone found an interesting design, spruced it up, and made it look cool for the poster. The presented one has no bearing on any actual designs that may be built to these specs
 
Looking at the renders, it looks like the arrays have 37 RMAs, in other SPY-6(V)1, if you're going to build a 30,000 ton cruiser, at least use that tonnage for larger arrays. Does look like the 5"guns are there to get Trump interested, then again it just looks like a stretched DDG(X) render.
 

Attachments

  • 20251223_002618.jpg
    20251223_002618.jpg
    250 KB · Views: 104
  • 20251223_003017.jpg
    20251223_003017.jpg
    259.8 KB · Views: 98
  • 20251223_003115.jpg
    20251223_003115.jpg
    251.9 KB · Views: 92
Fighting the urge to make jokes about the Trump class and vapourware soooo hard.... (You may have to be British for that one)

Is there actually room for decent sized 5" magazines between the forward VLS (Advanced Payload Modules?) and the conventional VLS forward of the bridge? In fact there's so much crammed in there you have to wonder if they remembered to leave room for the crew?

Things that do appear to be missing are Harpoon or NSM launchers, plus RAM or Phalanx. If the intention is to rely on some sort of laser CIWS, and those are the mounts between the two superstructure blocks, then there appear to be major arcs fore and aft where coverage is wooded by the superstructure. Meanwhile are we presuming a transition to some vertically launched ASM?
 
NMaude said:
I'm surprised that they didn't have a turret sporting twin 16" cannons, Trump sure loves his big guns;):D.
Click to expand...
I'd be awful interested to know where they will derive that railgun from given the USN scrapped their railgun program in favor of directed energy weapons as they viewed railguns as a fairly dead end in the short term
 
DWG said:
Things that do appear to be missing are Harpoon or NSM launchers, plus RAM or Phalanx.
Click to expand...
I'm partly wrong, there are RAM mountings amidships, but again they have no fore or aft arcs.

Of the three starboard midships mountings in the 'action' image, RAM is the forward mounting, there's some kind of DEW aft, but what's the middle mount, some kind of decoy launcher? The aft port mounting is partly visible, and looks more like RAM than the DEW mount, so it's possible the ordering is reversed between port and starboard.
 
DWG said:
Fighting the urge to make jokes about the Trump class and vapourware soooo hard.... (You may have to be British for that one)

Is there actually room for decent sized 5" magazines between the forward VLS (Advanced Payload Modules?) and the conventional VLS forward of the bridge? In fact there's so much crammed in there you have to wonder if they remembered to leave room for the crew?

Things that do appear to be missing are Harpoon or NSM launchers, plus RAM or Phalanx. If the intention is to rely on some sort of laser CIWS, and those are the mounts between the two superstructure blocks, then there appear to be major arcs fore and aft where coverage is wooded by the superstructure. Meanwhile are we presuming a transition to some vertically launched ASM?
Click to expand...
There may be RAM and NSM amidship... hard to tell. But what can you expect from the intern tasked with producing these images in probably a week's time.
 
DWG said:
Is there actually room for decent sized 5" magazines between the forward VLS (Advanced Payload Modules?) and the conventional VLS forward of the bridge? In fact there's so much crammed in there you have to wonder if they remembered to leave room for the crew?
Click to expand...
I would guess this is a case of "look at this cool thing now make it work NavArchs" (poor NavArchs).
DWG said:
Things that do appear to be missing are Harpoon or NSM launchers, plus RAM or Phalanx.
Click to expand...
There are a pair of Mk114s midships but the arcs are terrible. I assume they will mount them higher on the superstructure if this goes ahead.
DWG said:
If the intention is to rely on some sort of laser CIWS, and those are the mounts between the two superstructure blocks, then there appear to be major arcs fore and aft where coverage is wooded by the superstructure.
Click to expand...
We can safely assume that, if they go for laser CIWS, there will be about 4 of them, two looking across the beam, one facing forward and another aft. I base this off what the navy had released pertaining to DDG(X). Interestingly the biggest problem for these systems is sheer power and I do genuinely wonder if a single A1B will even be able to solve this.
DWG said:
Meanwhile are we presuming a transition to some vertically launched ASM?
Click to expand...
I would suspect these will be derived from the Destroyer Payload Modules planned for DDG(X). I suspect it will have banks of G-VLS to account for larger strike weapons.

Now here's something to ponder: we know how energy intensive future DEWs will be because they are too energy intensive to fit to current DDGs. It has been claimed that just EMALS has an intense draw on Ford's powerplant. How does Navy propose to cool the ship's systems, provide power for the railgun, provide power to the DEWs, and power to the sensors from a single A1B. The stored energy systems would be gargantuan.

All this for a ship which can essentially only be built at NNS. As we know NNS can only build one and a third carriers at once. This means that a carrier will have to be pushed back 5+ years to build this BBGN, further shrinking the stressed carrier fleet. The 2.5 year timeframe does not just seem "ambitious", it seems downright suicidal. I for one eagerly await the day within the next 5 months where this is quietly swept under the rug and forgotten about.
 
Sferrin said:
Goddamn it. I hope this came from the Navy and Trump is just announcing it. I like Trump (voted for him 3 times) but I don't want him actually micromanaging. Tell the Navy what the national goals are and let them come up with how to carry it out.
Click to expand...
On a recent CAVASShips podcast episode they discussed wargaming and how a very large surface combatant actually makes a significant difference to outcomes. I expect the USN want it and just have to hold their nose and say yes to Trump class silliness.

I do find naming the first ship Defiant but the class being Trump is a bit unusual. Thought usually the first of class was also the class name...
 
Last edited:
Ozair said:
On a recent CAVASShips podcast episode they discussed wargaming and how a very large surface combatant actually makes a significant difference to outcomes. I expect the USN want it and just have to hold their nose and say yes to Trump class silliness.

I do find naming the firs ship defiant but the class being Trump is a bit unusual. Thought usually the first of class was also the class name...
Click to expand...
That’s the point of DDG(X), but Navy is already worried DDG(X) is too expensive to buy in bulk so why would they want a more expensive and more complex ship?
 
  • Like
Reactions: H_K
Felocie said:
I would guess this is a case of "look at this cool thing now make it work NavArchs" (poor NavArchs).
Click to expand...
I'd imagine pretty much every naval architect worldwide just participated in a global facepalm
Felocie said:
There are a pair of Mk114s midships but the arcs are terrible. I assume they will mount them higher on the superstructure if this goes ahead.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I spotted them just after I posted, but no one with a clue would put them there, so it's really not a good omen.
Felocie said:
Now here's something to ponder: we know how energy intensive future DEWs will be because they are too energy intensive to fit to current DDGs.
Click to expand...
OTOH the RN expects to have Dragonfire at sea on Type 45 by 2027. So some sort of DEW is certainly feasible.

I don't disagree that there's potentially a need for stored power to cover the combat load, but you could potentially squeeze supplemental diesel generators in somewhere to supplement the reactor during combat, which we wouldn't necessarily see on an image like these.
 
Ozair said:
On a recent CAVASShips podcast episode they discussed wargaming and how a very large surface combatant actually makes a significant difference to outcomes. I expect the USN want it and just have to hold their nose and say yes to Trump class silliness.

I do find naming the firs ship defiant but the class being Trump is a bit unusual. Thought usually the first of class was also the class name...
Click to expand...
In the USN the class is generally named after the first ship, sometimes it ends up as the first ship ordered rather than first ship delivered. The Coast Guard in the 2000s adopted the approach of separating class name from ship names with the "Legend Class" and "Sentinel Class." Seems their plan here is to do the same with the Golden Shower Fleet. It's a silly, vain violation of tradition, but naming the class after himself is already a silly, vain violation of tradition.
 
isayyo2 said:
Official from the USN

Golden Fleet

www.goldenfleet.navy.mil www.goldenfleet.navy.mil

View attachment 796099
Click to expand...
NOT a nuke, despite none of their art including uptakes or exhaust. Powering the radar, lasers, SEWIP, comms, cooling, hotel load, and rail gun all at once is going to take a really robust integrated power system. Diesels may be pretty pointless, the running load on one of these is going to be plenty high to justify turbines.
 
How much progress is this likely to make in three years?

I'm too lazy to look it up to confirm but I seem to recall that Albert Speer related that a certain Chaplin-esque individual would declare that a new superweapon would be built and then generals or admirals would engage in vicarious dick-measuring competitions to make it bigger and bigger. Mr Not-Chaplin would then order him to build it, he'd agree and pretend to get to work. In his capacity as Minister for War Production and Armaments, he knew that the latest monster would be impossible to build, bankrupt the country, and be militarily useless, so he'd wait a while and then quietly cancel or starve the project. Rinse and repeat.

Some people 'credit' Speer with prolonging the war by at least a year because he happened to be very good at his job.
 
Sferrin said:
Goddamn it. I hope this came from the Navy and Trump is just announcing it. I like Trump (voted for him 3 times) but I don't want him actually micromanaging. Tell the Navy what the national goals are and let them come up with how to carry it out.
Click to expand...
He's already claiming co-designer credits.
bsky.app

Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com)

Trump: "The US Navy will lead the design of these ships along with me, because I'm a very aesthetic person"
bsky.app bsky.app
Far from the first time he would have his hands on something he shouldn't.
 
Congratulations Trump, you gave the rest of the world a very Merry Christmas! I cant stop laughing at the thing.

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.
 
Last edited:
Felocie said:
I'd be awful interested to know where they will derive that railgun from given the USN scrapped their railgun program in favor of directed energy weapons as they viewed railguns as a fairly dead end in the short term
Click to expand...
Railguns and DEWs aren't really competing. DEWs are line-of-sight (unless, as Dean Inge suggests in The Future of Flight, you relay the beam through a flying mirror thingy) and best suited to defence when mounted on a surface vessel. Railguns are well-suited to over-the-horizon offence.
 
DWG said:
I'd imagine pretty much every naval architect worldwide just participated in a global facepalm
Click to expand...
Anyone who actually believes this will ever happen probably also believes the Koreans are going to start building submarines in Philadelphia. It's just noise.
 
FFS this is starting to piss me off. I'm glad that he's pro-military, and I shudder to think where Kamala Harris would have us, but damn, stop micromanaging. I'm not one of these "Trump is Hitler" dumbfucks, but he also thought he knew better where the military should put it's resources. It didn't work out so well. You tell them what you want to accomplish and let the experts figure out the how. (Then again, when it comes to shipbuilding, does the USN even have any "experts" anymore?)
 
Kamala would have done the same things Biden this, which is just more of the same boring US military acquisition process, while keeping the focus on China instead of a made-up threat in Venezuela. The worst president for the US military in recent history has been Bush 2.0 by blowing up the budgets on a couple of unnecessary wars.
 
Sferrin said:
FFS this is starting to piss me off. I'm glad that he's pro-military, and I shudder to think where Kamala Harris would have us, but damn, stop micromanaging. I'm not one of these "Trump is Hitler" dumbfucks, but he also thought he knew better where the military should put it's resources. It didn't work out so well. You tell them what you want to accomplish and let the experts figure out the how. (Then again, when it comes to shipbuilding, does the USN even have any "experts" anymore?)
Click to expand...
I agree with you and agree the Navy seems to need all the help it can get.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom