The New Trump-Class Battleship Is Just Dumb
Why It Matters
Because it could reshape Navy spending toward an outdated, weapon‑heavy platform, the Trump‑class threatens to divert funds from proven, future‑focused systems and alter strategic naval doctrine.
Key Takeaways
- •Trump proposes new 35,000‑ton battleship named after himself.
- •Design packs nuclear cruise missiles, hypersonic missiles, and 128 VLS cells.
- •Rail gun and laser weapons add unproven, inefficient secondary armament.
- •VLS‑to‑displacement ratio far worse than existing cruiser classes.
- •Critics argue the ship is costly, inefficient, and strategically obsolete.
Summary
In a surprise briefing, former President Donald Trump unveiled plans for a new class of U.S. Navy battleship, the “Trump‑class,” with the lead vessel dubbed USS Defiant. The proposal would revive a warship type retired since the Vietnam era, positioning a 35,000‑ton, 850‑foot hull alongside existing amphibious carriers.
The design calls for a mixed primary battery: a surface‑launched nuclear cruise missile (SLCMN), a 12‑cell hypersonic prompt‑strike system, and 128 vertical launch system cells capable of firing everything from anti‑ship missiles to anti‑submarine rockets. Secondary systems would include a 32‑megajoule rail gun, dual 5‑inch guns and experimental laser emitters, while the ship would also carry F‑35B and MV‑22 aircraft.
Trump emphasized aesthetics, insisting “an ugly ship is not necessary to say you’re stealth,” and cited Russian and Italian vessels as visual benchmarks. Analysts note the VLS‑to‑displacement ratio—one missile per 273 tons—lags far behind the Typhon‑Rogue cruiser’s one per 80 tons, suggesting inefficient use of space. The rail gun, still experimental, suffers from overheating, low rate of fire and limited 110‑nautical‑mile range, raising doubts about its combat value.
If funded, the Trump‑class would divert resources from more mature programs such as the Columbia‑class submarine and next‑generation surface combatants, potentially inflating the Navy’s budget without delivering proportional capability. Its reliance on unproven weapons and a fossil‑fuel power plant also clashes with the service’s push toward modular, network‑centric platforms, making the proposal a contentious flashpoint in defense procurement debates.
Comments
Want to join the conversation?
Loading comments...