The first of the US Navy’s proposed guided missile battleships would carry a procurement cost of between $17.6 billion and $18.9 billion if bought in FY2030, with subsequent ships estimated at $12.2 billion to $13.1 billion each, a paper prepared for Members of Congress states.

The figures come from the Congressional Budget Office and are quoted in Congressional Research Service paper IF13142, updated on 20 January 2026 and written by naval affairs specialist Ronald O’Rourke. Both estimates are expressed in FY2025 dollars and assume a displacement of 35,000 tons.

The cost of the lead ship includes the nonrecurring detailed design costs for the whole class, reflecting the traditional Navy practice of loading all or most of that expense onto the first hull. Costs for later ships would depend on the rate at which they are procured and on other factors.

Set against existing programmes, the numbers are substantial. A DDG-51 destroyer currently costs around $2.7 billion when procured at a rate of two per year. CVN-81, an aircraft carrier procured in FY2019, carries an estimated procurement cost of about $15.2 billion in the Navy’s FY2026 budget submission, which is less than the estimate for the first BBG(X).

The Navy’s Distributed Maritime Operations concept calls for spreading sensors and weapons across a wider array of ships and aircraft, and the paper poses the question of whether concentrating so much capability in individual hulls sits comfortably with an approach designed to avoid “putting too many eggs into one basket”.

Budgetary displacement is a third issue, as legislators may examine what effect designing and procuring the ships would have on funding available for other Navy priorities, and what the net impact on future capabilities and funding requirements would be of acquiring BBG(X)s instead of DDG(X)s. The DDG(X), estimated at about 14,500 tons and once envisaged for procurement in the early 2030s, is reportedly to be suspended as a consequence of the battleship programme starting.

Technical maturity forms the fourth, indeed, the paper asks how much programme-execution risk, meaning risk of cost growth, schedule delay or technical difficulty, the effort would carry, and whether new technologies the Navy says are to be incorporated into the design will be ready in time. Two are named specifically, an electromagnetic railgun and higher-power lasers, both of which require further development and would need to be mature enough by the early 2030s to go into the ships.

The U.S. Navy envisages a class of 15 to 25 ships forming part of the Golden Fleet plan, a forthcoming force-structure plan that is to replace the current 381-ship plan. Notices of two intended contract awards for design work were posted on 22 December 2025 with estimated periods of performance of six years, and because each ship could take several years to build, a first vessel procured in the early 2030s might not enter service until the late 2030s or around 2040.

The lead ship is intended to be named Defiant, with the class known either as the Defiant class or the Trump class.

Craig Langford
Trained as a mechanical engineer, Craig took an unconventional route into journalism, bringing with him a rare technical precision and analytical depth that continues to set his reporting apart.

16 COMMENTS

  1. Call me a cynic but they’ll never be built. But in the mean time the MIC will make many of those sweet sweet dollars as fast as they can before the new administration comes in.

  2. Even that picture looks like something Trump did with his new crayon set one wet Sunday afternoon. The concept is as unhinged as the Emperor and will never be built if adults take over the country again. If the children remain in power with a new Emperor after the next election then I could see one being built and exposed as useless in 2030s world of lasers drone swarms and hypersonic missiles not to mention sub-sea drones and blocked bogs.

  3. Doubt they will be built to be honest and I’m not convinced that class of ship is warranted.
    Get that feeling once Trump has left office this program will be cancelled at the first given opportunity.
    At least the US Government is committed to building a strong navy unlike our pathetic Government.

    • Well going through the process of building ships like this will almost certainly mean anything but a strong navy in the future, so I would say even more pathetic. At a time when the US economy is under serious threat, borrowing and debt going through the roof, the dollar losing its status and profit making hegemony on World trade, such horrendously expensive ships, even if the weaponry is finally made usable, is going to result in a a small number of big ships (and targets) that will spend most of their time trying to keep out of danger while as a result the dwindling number of destroyers and frigates that do the real work will be even more hard pressed to operate in various hot spots, especially where China is involved. Even more amusing, pumpkin head has decided that even though magnetic technology is useless for aircraft carriers an even more complex and problematical form of it in rail guns, is the way to go for his golden battleships. No logic, and decisions often based on what previous Presidents didn’t want he simply does want unless it’s Reagan in which case he just wants it bigger. Worse still that as the top man his opinion is far superior to that of actual experts in the field… I guess an idea he got from Musk perhaps. How does a failed Casino operator think he knows how many engines a jet fighter should have, I guess it’s all a big beautiful gamble for him, especially when as the ultimate boss he controls the cards. He just doesn’t control the results of course.

  4. The pollsters say that the Democrats are very likely to retake the House in the mid-terms, and are even quite likely to retake the Senate. If this happens, Congress is very very unlikely to fund these new battleships. So why are people so interested in them ?

    • It doesn’t even need that, the current bridging agreement the House has passed has already stripped funding for the “project”, it’s already DOA.

  5. The numbers are barely fathomable. Surely this is just a cover project for monies to be directed into more secretive capabilities?
    Maybe these will cost a few $bn each, and the balance is being spent on things not in the public domain.

    • Well of course his family is investing heavily in defence companies and the Govt is even investing in some (how very socialist of them)… usually those just prior to being given Govt contracts. The voters naively thought they were draining the swamp, the only thing they have drained is the swampy reflection pool and then unsurprisingly saw it refilled time and again in deeper shades of green.

  6. Traitor Trump is probably deliberately wasting USN funds by imposing these insane behemoths on them, when what they need is more frigates & destroyers.
    I hope & pray he’s removed very soon & we can get back to the USA being a reliable ally rather than a likely foe.

  7. Just imagining the ship names now…

    USS Jeffrey Epstein
    USS TACO
    USS Cheeto
    USS Orange Shitgibbon
    USS Mango Mussolini
    USS Tangerine Toddler

  8. It is hard to see how 15 to 25 Battleships could be built when the USN only has 11 aircraft carriers. Also the USN only had 4 battleships reactivated in the 1980s. I cannot see how more than 4 new battleships could be afforded or manned. A modern cruiser in the spirit of the Ticonderogas would make more sense & be more affordable. Instead of spending R&D billions on the rail gun, I would bring back the 8″ 55 cal Mark 71 gun.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here