Hi, what are you looking for?
Synopsis: President Trump’s proposed Trump-class “guided-missile battleship” (BBG(X)) is designed to be a headline-grabbing symbol of revived naval power, but it collides with how modern maritime combat actually works.
-The concept is missile-centric—closer to an oversized destroyer than to a traditional armored battleship—and it would concentrate expensive capabilities into an obvious, high-priority target, making it vulnerable to submarines and missile salvos.
Trump-Class Battleship. Image Credit: Creative Commons/White House.
Trump-Class Battleship. Image Credit: Creative Commons/White House Photo.
-The plan also leans on still-maturing technologies like railguns and high-energy lasers.
-Just as significantly, U.S. shipbuilding capacity is already strained, making a new mega-surface combatant a likely budgetary and industrial distraction rather than a solution.
Why a “Trump-Class Battleship” Would Be a Sitting Duck in Modern War
President Trump announced, in a December 2025 press conference, the new Trump-class battleship, or BBG(X).
The program is a headline-grabber, indeed—the first US battleship proposal in several decades, which explicitly references reviving American naval power.
Yet while the announcement gestures at real strategic anxieties, the Trump-class concept is incoherent mainly historically regressive, and operationally misaligned with modern naval warfare.
Said another way: the idea is nonsense.
Historical Context
The US retired its last Iowa-class battleships in 1992, platforms that were half a century old and well past their prime.
The battleship had declined after World War II because aircraft carriers had eclipsed it in terms of range and flexibility, while the emergence of missile technology made large surface ships increasingly vulnerable.
The Iowa-class endured, being revived multiple times from decommissioning, for the sake of shore bombardment and symbolic presence. But even that role faded as precision strike replaced massed gunfire.
And since Iowa’s retirement, over thirty years ago, no serious naval planner has advocated for a new battleship.
An aerial bow view of the battleship USS IOWA (BB 61) with its 15 guns (nine 16-inch and six 5-inch) firing a salvo off the starboard side.
The Battleship Plan
Officially designated the BBG(X), the Trump-class is intended as a “guided-missile battleship,” outfitted with a variety of weaponry, including nuclear-capable cruise missiles (SLCM-N), hypersonic CPS missiles, a large VLS battery, a railgun, lasers, and conventional guns.
The BBG(X) would also feature aviation facilities for VTOL aircraft and drones.
And generally, the BBG(X) would not be a battleship in the traditional sense—there would be no heavy armor or large-caliber main battery serving as a primary weapon.
So the idea is not a pure throwback.
Traditional battleships were defined by their armor, their big guns, their ability to engage in, and survive, direct surface combat.
The proposed Trump-class, meanwhile, is missile-centric, resembling a battlecruiser or oversized destroyer. The closest analogs are the Russian Kirov-class, or a scaled-up DDG(X). Using the battleship designation appears to be about rhetoric and nostalgia, more political than doctrinal.
Fundamental Flaws
But the concept is operationally flawed. Missile-centric surface ships already exist (cruisers, destroyers).
Adding more missiles to a larger hull does not solve survivability problems and only increases the cost to build it, while also increasing the target’s value from adversary’s perspective.
Large surface ships are mismatched for modern naval combat, suffering from high visibility and high vulnerability to submarines, long-range missiles, and hypersonic weapons. Essentially, large surface vessels are sitting ducks.
An artist rendering of the Zumwalt class destroyer DDG 1000, a new class of multi-mission U.S. Navy surface combatant ship designed to operate as part of a joint maritime fleet, assisting Marine strike forces ashore as well as performing littoral, air and sub-surface warfare.
PACIFIC OCEAN (Dec. 8, 2016) The guided-missile destroyer USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000), left, the Navy’s most technologically advanced surface ship, is underway in formation with the littoral combat ship USS Independence (LCS 2) on the final leg of its three-month journey to its new homeport in San Diego. Upon arrival, Zumwalt will begin installation of its combat systems, testing and evaluation, and operation integration with the fleet. (U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Ace Rheaume/Released)161208-N-SI773-0401
And the railgun and high-energy lasers, which surface vessels have been proposed to deploy, remain developmental, intensively power-hungry, and consistently unreliable at sea.
Addressing China
Trump’s proposal does reflect real concerns, specifically, China’s massive shipbuilding spree, an overt attempt at naval assertion. China has already achieved numerical superiority in surface combatants.
But quantity isn’t everything; the US still retains a qualitative advantage. And US naval strength rests not on surface combatants, but on aircraft carriers, submarines, and networked warfare.
A new battleship would not address the real threats to US naval superiority, like China’s increasingly capable A2/AD network, or ISR saturation, or missile salvos. Basically, the Trump-class serves to address a political narrative problem (China’s naval rise) rather than a strategic one (operating against China’s A2/AD network).
Industrial Realities for the Trump-Class Battleship
Aside from the strategic irrelevance, the industrial reality is that US shipyards are already strained. Submarines are backlogged. Destroyers are backlogged. Skilled welders and engineers are scarce.
The World War II-style industrial mobilization that yielded so many battleships in such a short span no longer exists. Building a dozen or more new surface combatants would disrupt higher-priority programs, likely crowding out submarines and logistics ships with higher value.
An aerial port bow view of the battleship USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) launching an RGM-84 Harpoon missile on the Pacific Missile Test Center Range.
But the Trump-class doesn’t sound like a serious proposal, and is unlikely ever to enter production. For one, the naming itself suggests a lack of seriousness.
US battleships are historically named after states, whereas presidents’ names are reserved for carriers. Naming a class after a living president would be unprecedented, almost silly enough to suggest this is not a real procurement effort.
Regardless, Congressional skepticism is likely to be overwhelming. Cost overruns are almost guaranteed.
So expect the concept to be quietly shelved or folded into some other program. The probability that this Trump-class proposal is ever actually commissioned is exceptionally low—borderline zero.
The Trump-class is a nostalgia play, deployed for rhetorical effect. The proposal reflects a strategic misunderstanding about how modern naval warfare works, a throwback to a time that no longer exists.
About the Author: Harrison Kass
Harrison Kass is an attorney and journalist covering national security, technology, and politics. Previously, he was a political staffer and candidate, and a US Air Force pilot selectee. He holds a JD from the University of Oregon and a master’s in global journalism and international relations from NYU.
Comments
Post a Comment