“The boldest naval plan in decades has just been revealed, and it’s already polarizing the defense community. “The ‘Trump-class’ battleship, the largest non-carrier combatant since WWII, is unprecedented in firepower, though it’s likely to encounter an array of shipbuilding, high-tech, and strategic challenges,” according to an expert analysis by Defense News’ security expert, missile scientist, and shipbuilder, Dan Goure. “Some see Trump’s battleship vision as just another ‘moonshot’ while for others, it’s unaffordable in today’s ‘swarm’ environment.
According to its own factsheet, “it has hypersonic attack ability, nuclear-armed cruise missiles, rail guns, and directed-energy armament, making it the most lethal warship to ever be constructed.” However, history abounds with examples of grand shipbuilding plans derailed by delay, cost, and changes in policy. Now, pending activation in the early 2030s, the Trump-class will face not only perilous waters, but the unaccommodating tides of U.S. military procurement procedures as well.
“This is the agenda that started it all.” This list looks at the ten most important elements that could shape whether Trump-class ships change American seaborne power or simply go down in history as another “cautionary tale.”
1. size of monument and firepower ambitions
The planned length of the Trump-class is estimated to be between 840 to 880 feet, displacing more than 35,000 tons, and having a speed of more than 30 knots. It would be much larger than the current destroyers and cruisers. It would carry a combination of 12 hypersonic missiles, 128 Mk 41 VLS missiles, SLCM-Ns capable of carrying nuclear weapons, railguns, and laser weapons along with advanced radar systems. There would also be provision for an flight deck and hangar to carry V-22 Ospreys or FVLs to give it extended range. “The Aegis CSD will provide 80 times the strike power of our current destroyers and perform capital ship duties in high-intensity conflict environments.”
2. Hypersonic Strike Integration
At the heart of the plan is the Navy’s Conventional Prompt Strike program, based on the Common Hypersonic Glide Body shared with the Army’s LRHW program. These systems are designed to surpass Mach 5, maneuvering to evade defenses, and are planned to provide precision strikes against hardened or time-sensitive targets. The CPS and LRHW programs are presently seeing delays regarding testing, as well as a lack of data regarding operational effectiveness.
3. The Railgun Resurrection
“A 32-megajoule electromagnetic railgun is planned for installation in the bow, which will revive a Navy program that halted in 2021 after investing over $500 million, as the Trump class may finally provide the required megajoule level of energy for the project, but issues concerning material and barrel life are still left unanswered,” retired Capt. Bradley Martin wrote.
4. Directed Energy for Defense
There also will be the use of two high-energy lasers with power in the range of 300-600kW and four dazzlers in the ODIN design intended to dazzle the sensors of the approaching missiles or drones and thereby-blind them. However, the ability of the lasers to minimize the current laser-interceptor disparity in cost may be dependent on the power management and integration of the laser technology with the kinetic defense systems of the vessel.
5. Industrial Base Strain
“Only Bath Iron Works and Huntington Ingalls have experience with building ships of this size and complexity, and both are operating at full capacity.” The GAO analyses indicate that Navy shipbuilding projects experience constant overrun and schedule delays, with some projects being several years behind schedule and costing 50% to 100% more than originally planned. Activating shipyard facilities that are currently closed down and/or building new ones would be a requirement, and worker recruitment would also be needed on a national scale, but this has proven difficult before.
6. Risks of Escal
The cost of each Trump-class vessel has been estimated in the range of $5 billion-$15 billion. These are much pricier replacements for the Arleigh Burke-class DDGs, which cost about $2 billion. The Zumwalt-class destroyer experience, in which the original order of 32 was reduced drastically to 3 owing to cost concerns, serves as a caution against overambitious designs.
7. Vulnerability in the Missile Age
Long-range threats are also rising for large surface combatants from missiles such as the Chinese DF-26 “carrier killer” IRBM, with a 4,000 km strike capability. However, carrier strike groups have a defense-in-depth capability based upon SM-3, SM-6, ESSM, Aegis, and electronic warfare capabilities, though saturation attacks, hypersonic engagements, or undersea drones could possibly overpower them. Some critics feel that a distributed fleet of smaller more resilient ships could provide better survivability.
8. The Drone and Unmanned Threat
The war in Ukraine has demonstrated that smaller, cheaper unmanned surface and aerial vehicles can cripple or sink larger ships. Large underwater drones being used by China can layout mines and potentially blockade U.S. ports. The Trump class will feature two UXS protectors, but the rate of progress being made in unmanned technology requires that ship defenses evolve quickly in response to swarming, multi-domain attacks.
9. Programmatic Precedent and Follow
On the Navy side, they have had mixed success with next-gen surface vessels: Zumwalt-class destroyers reduced from nine to three, Littoral Combat Ships retired early, and Constellation-class frigates reduced in number. “Their management at NAVSEA has screwed up every surface warship program of this century,” warned analyst Carl Schuster of Navy Sea Management, so the Trump-class may not even see steel cut before they’re cancelled.
10. Strategic Fit in Future Naval Doctrine
“The Pentagon’s Pacific posture aims for ‘distributed, resilient, and mobile’ forces in response to China’s missile ‘overmatch.’ The idea of th
ese behemoths, however, concentrating so much firepower – and risk – on so few ships, has been questioned. Supporters view these battleships as C2 command ships, as well as arsenal ships used to compensate for VLS ‘cell’ losses due to retired cruisers and SSGNs.” The Trump-class idea is much more than a technical problem.
The Trump-class project faces so many challenges both politically and industrially that it would find it difficult to move forward. The Trump-class needs visionary firepower along with the reality of costs. If it is possible for the Navy to take a visionary idea along with a feasible strategy, it may be possible for the Navy to redefine surface warfare for a whole generation. Otherwise, it would be remembered more for what it promised than what it could deliver.
