The United States Navy has outlined plans for a new class of large surface combatants described as guided-missile battleships, a designation not used by the US since the retirement of the Iowa class.
The ships form part of the U.S. Navy’s wider Golden Fleet initiative, intended to expand fleet size, rebuild maritime industrial capacity and field heavier, more survivable surface combatants.
Size, propulsion and layout
The Trump class is projected to displace more than 35,000 tonnes, placing it well above current US destroyers and cruisers and closer in scale to Cold War capital ships. Length is expected to fall between 840 and 880 feet, with a beam of up to 115 feet and a draft of roughly 24 to 30 feet. Propulsion is shown as a combined gas turbine and diesel arrangement, delivering speeds in excess of 30 knots.
The design includes a flight deck and enclosed hangar sized to operate V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft and future vertical-lift platforms. This would give the ship long-range logistics, personnel transfer and command support capabilities not normally associated with surface combatants of this type.
Sensors, command role and electronic warfare
At the centre of the design is the SPY-6 AMDR radar, depicted with four fixed faces to provide continuous wide-area air and missile surveillance. This is paired with SEWIP Block III electronic warfare systems, also shown with four-face coverage, indicating an emphasis on detection, jamming and electronic attack.
The battleship is intended to operate as a command platform when required. The design explicitly shows space for an embarked commander with a full C4I suite, reinforcing Navy statements that the ship could lead a Surface Action Group, operate independently or integrate into a Carrier Strike Group.
Counter-unmanned capabilities are also prominent, with two Counter-UxS systems shown. This reflects recent operational experience where drones and unmanned surface vessels have become persistent threats to major warships.
Weapons and strike capability
The Trump class is designed around a heavy offensive weapons fit. The diagram shows 12 Conventional Prompt Strike hypersonic missile launchers, supported by vertical launch missile cells. While the labelled graphic indicates 28 Mk 41 VLS cells in one section of the ship, programme documentation suggests a much larger total missile capacity across the full hull.
In addition to hypersonic weapons, the class is expected to carry the SLCM-N nuclear-armed cruise missile, restoring a surface-based nuclear strike role that the US Navy has not fielded for decades.
Naval gunfire plays a significant role. The forward section mounts a 32-megajoule electromagnetic railgun designed to fire hypervelocity projectiles, backed by two 5-inch Mk 45 guns for surface engagement and air defence.
Defensive systems are a defining element of the design. The diagram shows two 300-kilowatt laser weapons, with programme material indicating the potential to scale these to 600-kilowatt class systems. These directed-energy weapons are intended to counter drones, missiles and small surface threats while reducing dependence on interceptor missiles.
Close-in defence is provided by Mk 38 30 mm guns positioned forward and aft, along with Rolling Airframe Missile launchers and optical systems such as ODIN. Together, these create a layered defensive envelope designed to withstand saturation attacks.
How many will be built?
Current planning indicates between 10 and 25 ships, although only an initial pair has been formally approved. The final number will depend on cost, shipyard capacity and sustained political support.
What remains uncertain is how quickly the Trump class can move from concept imagery to operational service, and how it will fit alongside aircraft carriers, submarines and next-generation destroyers within a constrained naval budget. What is clear is that the US Navy is signalling a renewed emphasis on large, heavily armed surface combatants intended to survive and fight in high-intensity conflict.
I did not know it would have rail guns too, this is like BAE and Lockheed Martin’s wildest fantasy about all the dirty things they can do with US tax payers money 😀
I’m not sure ifanyone has told the Orange one but ship classes are named after the first ship in the class so even if this thing gets built one day it will be the defiant class.
On a side note Defiant is a great name for a battle cruiser (which this is as it has no armour)
I checked to make sure it April 1st hadn’t been mived to December by Presidental decree or whether I had woken up to be part of one of those endless films/series based on video games. You can see how for the American people it has become impossible to distinguish between reality and utter madness. This really makes George’s annual Santa fantasies look decidedly rational BBC news broadcasts. Then it got even more fanciful, a fleet of 10 or is it 25 of these monsters which just shows you how they owe nothing to actual military need or planning but represent a total journey through the demented meanderings of Trump’s mind, fuelled by Pete Hegseth’s lust for World domination.
Out of interest has there been any attempt to restore the rail gun program? This sounds like a prequel to the Expanse Series, the way the in-technology of the moment is being simply thrown around to awe us (well the US public) and no detail around practicality, reality or financing it all. Of course in that series the Earth has become a bankrupt Hell hole for the ordinary masses oppressed and run by a privileged elite with democracy a mere front for the manipulations of powerful monied individuals, a residual and toothless UN and conspiring political-economic groupings, so that all sounds familiar.
This is purely a vanity project for Trump as part of the ‘US is Hot’ meme to make the plebs feel their Country has a future when all they see is decline and decaying infrastructure all around, except for the rich and technocrats of course. It really is a scary prelude to a 1984 dystopian future, but then that’s the only way Trump and his acolytes and hangers-on stay out of prison and MAGA doesn’t collapse, through already evident outbreaking civil war falling back into the Hell hole from which it emerged. Selling fantasies to the ordinary people is their only real hope for survival, they are already struggling to fool them with the fantasy economy illusion, so military or technological fantasies are the only real solution left to sell, be it stealing tankers to look tough, through super twin engined F-35s (yeah right) right up to imaginary projects of this Battleship nature, imaginary timelines for (safe) moon landings and futuristic and ridiculous ideas of Mars Cities. Whether it gets to be built isn’t the point, it’s the illusion of power, technological prowess and national/international influence, instilling the concept of ‘success’ and ‘Wealth for all’ into the minds of the manipulated little people that counts, and just long enough to get this administration to the point it cannot be overthrown by inconveniences like ‘democracy’ that matters.
Removes his name from the Epstein files, but wants to add it everywhere else.
Or they might buy the Japanese railgun…?
No, of course not. They’re not going to buy something foreign to equip the White Elephant Class battleship.
Shades of the Yamato and Bismarck.
You mean it’s going to be a overrated and overhyped waste of money?
Is this the navy’s idea or Trump’s?
I will put money on it is Trumps and the baby is only going along to placate him. They know he will be out of office long before the design is finished.
Further I thought the US had abandoned Rail Gun development or are they hoping the Japanese will sell them theirs. Perhaps in exchange for nuclear propulsion tech and although they could develop it on their own it will be faster to get help from uk or us. Although given the staunch “ No American “ rule for Tempest they may prefer to play with the UK
It’s Trumps wet dream, these se grandiose ideas develop on a whim in his increasingly demented mind that no one dares contradict, as demonstrated by the instantly dreamed up in the Oval Office fantasy twin engined F-35 based it seems purely on the notion from Lockheed contemplating a twin seat version of the aircraft in the future after being locked out of the F-47 project equally ‘named’ after the 47th President.
If you don’t go along with it you are pushed aside or sacked so yes they generally smile and play along, produce a few ‘sexy’ pics (he does like a doodle after all) hoping it will be replaced by the next big momentary fantasy project, or he is replaced by someone more sane. Let’s hope they are right on that last one but even my cynicism is struggling to match the reality of events.
I agree, Trump has no idea of the development timescales for new ships. The Navy will slow walk this and maybe screw more money out of Congress.
They can’t even develop a Frigate based on an existing design.
. . . also Prince of Wales and Repulse.
The KGV-class battleships were excellent for their time.
Repulse wasn’t, but then it was a relatively ancient WW1-era battlecruiser.
Also, these ships were built with the rest of the Royal Navy in mind.
Bismarck and Yamato stand out as the largest battleships of their time (and “ever”), and were built specifically to the strategic paradigm of being more powerful per-unit compared to their projected opponents, with the expectation of being outnumbered.
Repulse was revolutionary for her time it’s just her time was 1917.
The KGV were probably the very best treaty battleships and the only ones which actually complied.
For all the talk of Bismarck she ran away from a direct fight with PoW. Duke of York easily demolished Scharnhorst.
Well, it’s just my opinion but Repulse and Renown were mistakes, poorly-armoured throwbacks to pre-Jutland BCs and the Admiralty were ripping through the prayer beads every time they were deployed in WW2. The RN would have done better to have another Hood-class or two, in their place.
@Dern
Well, credit where it’s due. If I were to look at the negatives, Bismarck was not just a tad obese, she was also inefficient and roughly a match for the KGVs while being 20% heavier.
Hood? You mean the Battle cruiser that was woefully unfit for WW2, but was great for flying the flag of British supposed naval supremacy, and thus unlike her sisters had not even gone through the 30s upgrades to her armour protection?
There are battlecruisers and battlecruisers. Hood was better protected than Renown and Repulse even after their reconstruction. So if Hood was “woeful”, what are they?
To be fair her sisters were cancelled before they were built.
Hindsight: Britain should have politely declined the Washington treaty and just built the G3s. Best battlecruiser design ever. They would have been contemporary even 20 years later.
The irony of course is that Bismarck wasn’t that big and both the RN and USN would go on to build bigger ships (Vanguard and the Iowa’s respectively where both bigger than Bismarck). Even during her lifetime Bismarck was outsized by Tirpitz.
‘Treaty’ is the Important word isn’t it. They were the best that could be accomplished, the 4 gun turrets that caused problems were a direct result of trying to save weight. So yes they were to a degree compromised whereas the Germans simply ‘compromised’ the stats to get around the Treaty obligations until they simply didn’t bother at all disguising matters.
As in, quickly sunk?
Only one will be half built, no operating rail gun and 50Kw lasers if any. The US Navy will prevaricate until Trump leaves.
And the cost will be?? The US Navy has serious manning issues just like most other Navy’s. These fantasy ships will require a lot of manning. Another Trump day dream to distract from the mess he is causing in the states.
The USN could move much more towards lean manning if they wanted to. So far they have lacked the inclination, despite the recruitment challenges.
Painted White and given the name “Dumbo” ?
Most expencsve White Elephant ever. 🙄🐘🐘🐘
Won’t be built, will likely bankrupt the shipyard. Like everything else he touches.
The US shut down their railgun program years ago, are they starting it back up or knicking Japan’s technology?
Since Japan’s system works while their’s didn’t, I suspect the latter.
It was started up again.
That was announced a while back.
Full steam ahead, damn the haters!
Won’t it be brilliant, that just two of these monstrosities exists in the world? Never again will people be able to complain that we need bigger and heavily armoured ships, because there will be the perfect example of why it is a bad idea.
Besides, it’s really cool and now China is going to build 40 of something equivalent.
Are you not entertained?
A little more seriously, this is DDG(X), increased in size with a sprinkling of Zumwalt new tech (some of which is approaching usability), mixed in with a bit of arsenal ship. Kirov class redux.
The limiting factors will be the ability to successfully design and build it on time and cost. Or at all.
BTW, well done UK with two types of new frigate now floating, that actually have missile silos.
The great irony is that for all the procrastination UK ship design and building is now in a rather better place than USN.
Putting aside the T45 propulsion issues
– AAW – T45 – tick
– carrier – QEC – tick
– ASW – T26 – almost tick
– GP – T31 – maybe tick soon
All we need is really the GP element to allow a level of ASW capability and to up the numbers.. the most important thing is the UK now has the industrial capacity it needs.. the only real tick is security of orders, which is quite frankly the easier bit.
Just churn out T31 variants at one a year and a T26/T83 at one every two years and you have an RN at the right size ( 30 frigates and destroyers).. the problem with the US is they are utterly incapable of building to even keep up present fleet numbers.. let alone keep up with an enemy that has a shipbuilding industry hundreds of times larger than it.
HMS massive AKA Trump class is clearly a bizarre fantasy of flailing around..
I have to agree we now have two yards capable of building surface combatant hulls.
Let’s see how the fitout and snagging goes….given no combatants have been launched since T45 the skills fade on fitout will have been a real issue.
Indeed.. I’m not optimistic for the mid 2020s as I think the RN will slip until 2030.. but I think we now have the fundamental building blocks for a renaissance in the 2030s.. let’s just hope we don’t have a major war in the 2020s or Cameron will become know as the catastrophic.
Trumps small dick syndrome strikes again.
He has one?
I would venture to suggest that most commentators here are part of a broad based church that is populated by people of fairly similar minds. So some of what Trump does and says makes sense and sits OK with my slightly right of centre politics BUT, the man is a dangerous loose canon whose mind and opinions sway wildly from topic to topic and side to side! His love of the evil Putin, threats to Denmark and Canada, illogical upending of the world economic order, dangerous isolationism, blatant self aggrandizement and clumsy attacks on Democracy and the rule of Law make him the worst ever US President and the biggest danger to civilisation as we know it. USS Trump-heaven help us
ps did I leave anything out?
To be honest my worry is the men behind him.. because I think Trump is simply to self centred and off the wall to be a true dyed in the wool ideological fascist.. but I’m pretty sure then men now behind him are actually fascists and using him to attack the fabric of the republic.
Hi Jonathan. You could be right but he has shifted the respect for and decorum of the POTUS and its institutions. I have never been taken in by cant or condescending behaviour(love Monty Pythons robed and wigged judge with black stockings and suspenders below) but respect and reverence is out the window in Trumps administration, and you could never have an off the cuff discussion with the man that had some weight or resonance
Historically speaking, Trump is a typically American US President. He’s ‘America first’. What he is saying is nothing new. He echoes US history… the US tried to invade Canada and declared war on Britain in 1812. Back then, the British Empire actually supported the Native American Indians right to create their own nations… which is something the left fail to mention these days. And, as for Putin… the Russians don’t trust Trump… if he was a Putin stooge he would have immediately stopped all intelligence sharing with Ukraine and refused to sell weapons to NATO which NATO gifts to Ukraine. There’s more nuance to these things.
Hi TM. There may be more nuance but how could any President of the USA support Putin considering the circumstances?
I’m totally with you on that. Trump is a property developer, and not adverse to bending the rules, with ‘a bit’ of corruption! I think he wants to do business with Russia, and would probably see that relationship as being in the US national interest, rather than siding with Europe… which he views more-or-less as a competitor.
Trump is a dementia-riven grifter… its those that around him that worry me; JD Vance and Pete Hegseth (fascists) and Peter Thiel (apocalypse obsessive).
Indeed. Vance in particular is a sinister individual
Trump loves coal so much I’m quite surprised that it’s not a proper battleship with coal powered boilers like the good old days, and five inches ……
Maybe the USN realises that hypersonics and BM are potential carrier killers and they are going to have to get close in with those large silos to put enough on target to sink the Chinese carriers.
That render hasn’t come just as a result of a Trump whim, and it’s hardly a Boris T32 frigate made on the hoof.
If Burke plus designs or future replacement are going to cost multi billions of $ per ship, then the ship may as well be huge. Ballistic missiles silos are going to Dwarf strike length MK41 and that means big hulls.
Maybe we could dust off the Invincible hull drawings…
Why would you want the Invincible hull form for a battleship?
It is optimised so deck conditions are right for Harrier in a wide range of sea states.
I always wondered about the smaller British carrier hulls! They seem so ‘chubby’ but I figured it was either to withstand torpedo hits, or to provide a stable bow area so they don’t pitch too much for aircraft on takeoff.
Currently making up a hull of Hermes, from plans in CAD, it’s quite an unusual shape with much volume forward and a bluff bow shape.
You are right that bow stability is important for take off rotation to be safe from the ski jump.
Equally the deck can’t have movement rates about certain parameters for vertical landings. It is a lot harder matrix to crack than you might think! Which is why building aircraft carriers is not for the faint hearted.
And why so few nations actually build them.. and why the UK cracking out 2 in a decade for 6.6 billion was a pretty significant achievement all told.
And two large carriers that fundamentally work.
Let’s not get into the F35B/C argument or the 30mm debate……other than to say that two F35C carriers could not have been built with the budgets of that time. As it was they were cheese pared with the removal of SAMPON and lot of other bits and pieces.
Yep.. they are arguments about details.. fun to have but you can only have them after you actually have the ships.
Thank you for the replies SB. It’s little glimpses of the wisdom behind things like the carrier design that make this site magic.
There are some great videos on youtube like ‘Royal Navy Aviation in the 60 s’ and the Pathe films of Eagle in 1969 where you get to see the ships and their workings in beautiful colour. I always thought the bluff bows above the waterline might have been a design that was originally meant to sit higher in the water, but in reflection after what you mentioned, I reckon they are like that to push waves out of the way and keep the flight deck stable. Some of the footage of Illustrious passing Hermes at speed (showing the transom stern doing it’s thing) is really good too.
Nelson and Rodney had such beautiful hull forms too, very efficient for a battleship moving at relatively modest speed most of the time.
I was thinking the same thing. Aircraft carriers out, large missile ships in.
You think this thing is any more survivable? How is charging into the missile envelope a better idea
Yep in the end the whole point of a carrier is it can can send a strike 1000km away and stay out of detection and kill chains.
So can a guided missile CPS arsenal ship.
And a carrier has an air-wing to defend itself with, providing airborne warning and CAP.
Agreed but playing Devils Advocate here this ship has a flight deck to enable a future unmanned system to provide AEW. I think CAP is probably an outdated concept when looking at the likely threats such as hypersonic AShW missiles, drones etc.
I don’t know to be honest. Is anything survivable now in a peer war, with mass attack, long range missile strikes, drones even? In the Ukraine war, for example, many Russian aircraft are destroyed on the ground rather than in the air, and submarines destroyed in dock than out at sea. I’m guessing that spreading sensors, and weapons out within a larger ship makes it more survivable. Also, it will be armed with global strike missiles – ‘capable of striking anywhere on Earth within an hour’ and nuclear tipped cruise missiles. This feels to me like a Ticonderoga-class cruiser concept merged with a US Navy Arsenal ship concept from 1996 (but probably without the same impractically large missile depth). Let’s hope it works… and doesn’t turn out to be another Zumwalt Class disaster.
In that case America is admitting that they are no longer the dominant naval power. Carriers are the weapons of sea control used by whoever is foremost in a particular area, and they are how America has exerted control over most of the world since WW2. China is building them because they want sea control in their own backyard and also extending out across the Pacific and Indian oceans.
For America to give up and focus on attacking the opposing carriers indicates that the USN is planning to be on the defensive rather than imposing a successful outcome on China, if they were confident they would be focussing on offensive carrier air wings and defensive missiles like they have been for the last 60 years.
Why send a manned aircraft (capital cost, maintenance, crew training etc) to fire a stand off missile or drop a bomb when you can send a conventional ballistic or cruise missile? Seems sensible to me.
Because the missile is only useable after the war actually starts, and the way Russia and China are gearing up any war will begin with some sort of grey zone/false flag operation designed to provoke an excuse to start an all out war. If you have a suspicious airliner or rogue oil tanker then obliterating it from hundreds of miles away is not a good idea, but carrier-based jets can go and take a look before making the decision on whether to fire or not.
Additionally the magazines of a carrier and its supply ship can store hundreds upon hundreds of cruise missiles and keep up a solid bombardment for weeks while requiring smaller missiles for a given target range for even more capacity, while in a real war scenario the supply ships could be rotated to keep the carrier on station for even longer. An arsenal ship fires off its hundred missiles (or fewer with the longer ranged CPS types) and then goes home for a month to resupply with no practical method as yet of resupplying large cruise missiles at sea.
Exactly. Don’t risk a highly valuable pilot and aircraft, plus expensive logistics support base needed, to do what a long range missile or drone can achieve.
The USN seems confused. To counter China they want more hulls, aiming for a 350 ship navy. To do that it’s best to use a proven platform with predictable costs. Instead, the choice of a much larger, more complex surface combatant is likely to have the opposite effect, requiring vast resources to deliver at most psmall numbers.
Factor in the failure of recent programmes to deliver on ambitions- LCS, Zumwalt, Constellation- and there must be serious doubts this will ever get built.
Currently USN needs the Something-Effective-That-Gets-Built Class of ships rolling off the slipway at a fair old rate.
The trouble with The-Biggest-Most-Beautiful-Trump-Gold-Plate Class is that it will divert time effort and energy away from what is needed.
Although I have just realised that this is a very cunning USN plan to give The Tangerine Tinted One a box of gold coloured crayons to design The-Biggest-Most-Beautiful-Trump-Gold-Plate. This way The Tangerine Toddler’s tantrums are diverted away from navy programs that need to succeed.
The failure and cancellation of the US FREMM, the plan to replace a frigate program with an OPV and now the plan to try and reset the board with HMS massive.. shows a nation that is essentially desperate to my mind.
It does not know how to counter the maritime juggernaut that is China and is flailing around for answers..and it’s come up with resetting the board with HMS massive.
Now this can work.. but it really only works if you have a massive shipbuilding capacity.. France tried this in the 19century with Gloire and for a year created an invasion fear in the UK, until the UKs overwhelming ship building capability built warrior and many other all iron ships in answer.
Britain itself then decided to reset the board in the early 20c with dreadnought.. making all previous battleships redundant.. but it had the capability to outbuild everyone else.. even then it was a risk and Germany used the opportunity to close the gap..
The US naval industry has a history now of catastrophic failure.. and is tiny compared to China.. trying to create HMS massive is I fear a road to further failure..
What the US needs is a good solid 6000+ ton GP surface combatant with a bit of everything and low crewing that can be thrown out in very large numbers.. because over the next decade or so ontop of its planned Burke building programme it needs about 80+ of these frigates if it is to stay within touching distance of China.
If the rail gun gets too expensive/problematic, then swap it for the Mark 71 8″ gun (203mm). America was down to 4 of the old WW2 Battleships when Reagan reactivated them. I cannot see even the USN being able to afford more than 4 of this new Trump class.
Hmm, computer generated renders look cool, really cool, but they are a very long way from a engineering design that can be built. Four factors could scupper this program, five if you include money.
1) Industrial capacity. Given the difficulties that they had bringing the Constellation class to fruition do they have the design capability to tackle what is likely going to be a very complex design given the high tech specification suggested in the article? Not to mention the fact that the USN has just announced that the Constellation class is to be cut and a new frigate designed based on a Coast Guard cutter, plus it is increasingly likely that a new destroyer design is needed to replace the very successful but aging Arleigh Burke design.
2) Meddling. Will they be able to actually properly freeze the requirements and allow the design team time to get on and design the ship to a stable set of operational requirements or will politicians and admirals who will come and go during the design process insist on having their pet capability added to the design or perhaps force a redesign to reduce the inevitable cost overruns?
3) Time. Is there the time to design and build such a massive ship in sufficient numbers before the Chinese actually strike? Or is this going to be America’s Lion Class of battleships?
4) Fleet balance. Is this even the right strategy from a fleet balance perspective or would more frigates and destroyers be appropriate? This approach seems to be all eggs in one or too few baskets especially in the short term. I think many would agree that the USN needs mass, but is a few huge powerfully armed ships what they actually need or would a more numerous and flexible fleet of smaller frigates and destroyers, supported by autonomous vessels, that can be appropriately concentrated to meet different threats be of greater use and more achievable given the likely time available to the US? A ship can only be in one place at a time after all…
Just my initial thoughts.
On the plus side, at least the US is trying to respond to the Chinese threat, but as we are finding, it ain’t easy.
Cheers CR
Hi CR. Good comment. On the subject of size, does this necessarily make a ship more survivable or just easier to hit!!? 🙂