Call It What You Will, Is the “Trump Class” the Right Way to Rebuild the US Navy?
Yesterday Trump announced his plans for a “Golden Fleet,” the centerpiece of which is the “Trump Class” “battleship,” with the USS Defiant as the lead vessel. I will ignore the typical Trumpian bluster, and the novelty of a class of ships with a different name than that of the one first launched, and focus on other issues.
At the very highest level, the most encouraging thing about the announcement is that Trump has prioritized rejuvenation of the United States Navy, and wants to build ships. Hear, hear. About time.
That said, there is the issue of what kinds of ships. Here the announcement raises issues.
One issue that people have dilated on is “ackshually it’s too small to be a battleship,” usually invoking the last US battleship class–the Iowas with their 58,000 ton displacement–to say that the 35,000 ton (guesstimated) displacement of the Defiant is too small to qualify as a true battleship. Well, most US battleships in WWII (the North Carolina and South Dakota classes) weighed in at mid-30000 tons standard displacement. (It is unclear whether the Trump’s advertised displacement is standard or full–if the former, the would be akin to the North Carolinas and South Dakotas, if the latter, about 25 percent lighter). They would be far larger than any cruiser the US has ever launched (even the post-war Bainbridge, Truxton, and Ticonderogas), and even if the stated displacement is full load, be about the same as the Alaska class battlecruisers.
Length-wise, the Trumps would be about halfway between the North Carolinas and Iowas, suggesting that any weight differential would be largely due to a difference in armor and guns–16″ pieces on WWII battlewagons and armor being very heavy. (A 16″ gun weighs about 130 tons, so 9 of them as on all US BBs post-1930 would be about 1100 tons. The armor on a North Carolina weighed around 15,000 tons. Armor is largely superfluous on modern warships. All meaning that any weight differential between Trumps and non-Iowa BBs is due to stuff a WWII battleship needed, but a modern warship doesn’t). The Trumps would be far longer (by about 50 percent) than any cruiser (the next largest ship category after battleship) that the US has ever built.
All meaning that it’s not a stretch to call them battleships, even though that is mainly an issue of semantics and Trumpian framing (similar to the renaming of DoD to the “Department of War”).
My bigger issue with the name is that “Defiant” is in the tradition of British ship names, whereas US names have been drawn from states and cities; famous battles (on land as well as sea); famous personages; or famous US ships from the age of sail.
Other issues are more substantive. Most importantly, regardless of what you call it, is a 35,000 ton surface ship what the Navy needs in the decades to come?
The US Navy definitely needs more non-aircraft carrier striking power. Is a handful or two of large surface combatants the best way to get it? The proposed design will be chock-full of vertical launch system cells, and have other missile launchers as well. Great. But is this the best way to get that? Would more hulls with smaller weapons loads be better? Are large surface combatants an adequate replacement for soon-to-be-retired Ohio Class SSGN subs that currently account for a large share of US conventional seaborne striking power? Are such big ships too vulnerable in today’s world?
Along these lines, the second class of ship announced–a new frigate based on a Coast Guard cutter design to replace the abortive Constellations–has no VLS capability. Is that a necessary compromise to get more ships in the water soon that can do better than 25 knots?
Trump boasted (of course) that the battleship design was in the works during his first administration. That could be more of a bug than a feature. Does this suggest the design is already obsolete (or at least obsolescing)? Or is it better to go with an older design that can be in the water sooner, or a newer design that would only come on-line years later?
One thing that jumped out at me even before reading of Trump’s boast was the inclusion of a rail-gun in the design. Given that the Navy stopped development of this weapon in 2021 due to rail wear and power need issues, I wonder if this indicates that the Department of the Navy just dusted off a shelved ship design. But the rail-gun project was terminated by the Biden administration, which is hardly an endorsement to Trump and his administration. Perhaps the progress by Japan and China in developing this weapon has convinced this administration to rejuvenate the program. That said, the inclusion of an immature (to say the least) system in the design runs contrary to the goal of expanding ship count over the medium term. Perhaps incorporating the capacity in terms of deck space and power supply to support the weapon but not installing it immediately is the way to split the baby.
In sum, like most things Trump, this “Golden Fleet” initiative raises as many questions as answers. And the most important question is not so much the concept or the specific design, as the ability of the United States to build it, in numbers, with speed. The greatest idea evah is worthless unless it is embodied in something that cuts the water, and soon. So the main issue is less with what was announced, than the ability and will of the United States government to make it a reality.
What’s it for? If it is for fighting on the Asian continental shelf off China it is doomed: land-based missiles will win.
If it’s for deep sea battle: which other nation would be foolish enough to try to fight there, out of range of supporting missiles from land and exposed to US submarines and aircraft carriers?
If the plan is for there to be a “naval race” does anyone think that the US can outbuild China?
If I were Prez (happily I am disqualified) I might throw the b bulk of my shipbuilding capacity at submarines. I might also build some minesweepers, or whatever they would be called today, because at the moment it looks absurdly easy for Chines mine-laying subs to lock almost the whole US fleet in port. Wouldn’t that be a hoot?
Comment by dearieme — December 23, 2025 @ 5:51 pm
I think that a class of this size is justified in that it will have the size to be able to carry the hardest hitting and longest range weapon systems available. Hypersonic missiles. Energy beam weapons. Dare anyone say a “rail gun”. I would find it interesting to perhaps put a gun system larger than 6 inches (155 mm) on a modern US ship. Multiple SeaRam systems and a huge battery of VLS systems.
It could be a force multiplier equal to 10+ other hulls.
Lastly, I have heard that the new frigate would have a VLS system… and heard it will not. I think you need to build each class of warships around a gun and VLS system.
Comment by MARK — December 23, 2025 @ 7:40 pm
@deari Of course Hitler had a penchant for building big, impressive looking ships – they were great for photo-opps and impressing visiting dignatories and the population at fleet reviews, not so great in combat when they were found to be vulnerable to a determined attack. He eventually pivoted to what he considered to be the cowardly U-boats. As Craig pointed out these vessels are in part intended to replace the outgoing Ohio subs so my question is, given these have performed their role without any great issues over the years, why not just replace them? Nope, they’ve just gotta turn the Trumpometer up to 11.
Also, it’s almost as though the US wilfully ignores recent events with regard to its military procurement (wouldn’t want to derail that ol’ gravy train, would they?). I predict in a few short years most western ‘capital’ warships will have a flotilla escort of Chinese USVs whenever they leave port, keeping tabs on them and ready to strike if things escalate. There’s nothing in INCSEA which would not allow this.
As for rail guns, would these things really get that close to a target? I get gunnery for close-in defence, but for anything else, just plink it from range with a missile.
@MARK Hypersonics are by necessity biiig. No chance fitting many of those on even this vessel. As for beam weapons, well good luck using those for over-the-horizon stuff.
Comment by David Mercer — December 24, 2025 @ 2:28 am
The right way to look at this is giving the shipyards something to do. The cost overrun on a destroyer is only a billion dollars or so, which makes it hardly worthwhile building.
Comment by Michael van der Riet — December 25, 2025 @ 5:24 pm
@dearieme, wouldn’t it be easier and cheaper to build submersible minesweeping drones? They would need no defensive capability. Mines don’t usually fight back.
Comment by Michael van der Riet — December 25, 2025 @ 5:30 pm
Meanwhile the latest products of the Chan’s Great Continent are submarine-sized XXLUUVs, and container ships armed and equipped like frigates.
‘Whom the gods would destroy, …’
Comment by Ex-Global Super-Regulator on Lunch Break — December 25, 2025 @ 6:50 pm
“submersible minesweeping drones”: well worth looking at that, I’d think. But how much employment for admirals would they provide?
I learnt the other day why Britain lost no ships to mines at Dunkirk. The Royal Navy had anticipated German improvements to magnetic mines and had counter-measures ready before the Germans had even deployed them.
Comment by dearieme — December 26, 2025 @ 4:42 am
So, Trump saw the news about the Russians getting one of their old nuke-powered battlecruisers (“Admiral Nahimov” for those curious enough to check) out of mothball and putting it to sea trials, and decided we should also have a cool-looking toy – with hypersonics, railguns, space lasers, oh my! And everyone around, knowing Trump too well, are happily dancing around eager to oblige. Because this thing will not happen before 2029 at any rate. (“In twenty years, either the Shah will be dead, or the donkey will be dead, or I will be dead”)
If anyone believes there was much strategic, technical and logistic thinking behind this announcement other than described – boy, do I have a bridge for sale for you.
Comment by LL — December 26, 2025 @ 5:49 pm