War New ‘Trump-Class’ Navy Warships Named After President: What to Know

President Donald Trump announced plans Monday for a new class of large Navy warships bearing his name.

The so-called “Trump-class” ships would be described as battleships, though officials say they would be next-generation surface combatants built on technology derived from the Navy’s existing Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. Retired Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery, now a senior director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told the Associated Press the announcement is expected to include a new, large surface combatant class of ship and up to 50 support vessels.

The White House is framing the move as a centerpiece of Trump's vision for a revamped “Golden Fleet."

...
The president was joined Monday at Mar-a-Lago by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Navy Secretary John Phelan for what the White House called a “major announcement.”

The announcement follows renewed White House pressure to expand U.S. shipbuilding after the Navy recently scrapped plans for a smaller warship amid cost overruns and delays.

The plan is being unveiled at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort as he vacations in Florida and as U.S. forces conduct operations in the Caribbean that the administration says are aimed at disrupting drug trafficking and increasing pressure on Venezuela’s government. Retired Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery said he supports expanding the fleet with additional support ships but questioned the need for a new battleship-like vessel.

Historically, the term battleship has referred to large, heavily armored ships armed with massive guns, a class that peaked in prominence during World War II. The role of such ships declined rapidly after the war as aircraft carriers and long-range missiles became dominant, and the Navy decommissioned its last Iowa-class battleships in the 1990s after briefly modernizing them in the 1980s.

Trump has long expressed strong views about the Navy’s fleet, at times favoring older technologies. During his first term, he unsuccessfully pushed to return to steam-powered catapults on aircraft carriers and has repeatedly criticized the appearance of Navy ships, including complaints about rust.

Navy Secretary John Phelan has told senators that Trump has frequently texted him late at night about ship maintenance and design, and Trump has previously said he personally intervened to alter the design of a now-canceled frigate, calling the original version “a terrible-looking ship.”


...
This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.

This article includes reporting by the Associated Press.

https://ghostarchive.org/archive/C45kn

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-battleships-us-navy-pete-hegseth-11256267

 

[WelperHelper99]

This isn't an arsenal ship, it's a retard ship. An arsenal ship would at least fill a role by carrying a fuck ton of missiles. This abortion in waiting wastes space and tonnage on fucking railguns. If you want an "arsenal ship," just take a container ship and put a billion VLS cells on it. That would make more sense than this.

You are just mad it's named after Trump. The railgun has been in testing by the Japanese for a while, long after we dropped the program. With the advent of drones, this is a cheap way to hit targets AND bombard targets 100 miles away.

It's that big? The pictures make it hard to tell, should have placed it next to an Arleigh Burke for scale.

That makes me wonder if it packs enough firepower and defense to warrant being that size. A bigger ship is naturally less nimble than smaller ship, and in the age of missile combat a Destroyer can pack as much punch, with less overall ammunition. It makes more sense to have a swarm of Destroyers because the bigger ship just becomes a massive target.

It is that big. The idea is to hit shit thousands of miles away, and air targets hundreds of miles away. You do not need to be a speed boat when you have a missile bubble.

 

[Robbyretard]

Never has one dude needed so much to have so many things named for him. It's like that dog who has to piss on every single bush, and it's odd.

Don't think you have read much history.

 

[SmokelessFire]

One of my central beliefs is that it is extremely tacky to name things after, build monuments etc for people who are still alive. I feel the same way about Democratic politicians getting busts installed in San Fransico city hall while they are trying to run for president.

 

[The greater a'tuin]

Never has one dude needed so much to have so many things named for him. It's like that dog who has to piss on every single bush, and it's odd.

It's not so weird to want a legacy.

 

[A Cardboard Box]

It makes more sense to have a swarm of Destroyers because the bigger ship just becomes a massive target.

Exactly. Naval warfare is moving towards large numbers of missile equipped small vessels. Frankly, I think the US needs to get away from supercarriers as well, and instead replace them with a larger number of smaller carrier vessels. We should probably think about what comes after the current generation of submarines, too. It's virtually guaranteed that in the next 30-50 years we're looking at a "transparent ocean" scenario.

 

[Sexual Chocolate]

You will never be a real battleship. You have no 16" guns, you have no turrets, you have no Mk 1 electromechanical analog fire control computers. You are a guided missile cruiser twisted by CGI and Marco Rubio into a crude mockery of nature’s perfection.

 

[OrionBalls]

It's not so weird to want a legacy.

Legacy is what you build, not what you stamp your name on. If he truly has an effect on the people around him, he will be remembered without a single monument.

 

[A Cardboard Box]

You are just mad it's named after Trump. The railgun has been in testing by the Japanese for a while, long after we dropped the program. With the advent of drones, this is a cheap way to hit targets AND bombard targets 100 miles away.

Nigger what? Why the fuck would you use railguns on drones? That's the role of DEW SHORAD, hence the lasers. Additionally, why the fuck would you have a ship within a hundred miles of a coastline? I do not think you fundamentally understand modern naval doctrine.

It is that big. The idea is to hit shit thousands of miles away, and air targets hundreds of miles away. You do not need to be a speed boat when you have a missile bubble.

The reason you have a larger number of smaller ships is so your entire throw weight doesn't get got when one of fifty DF-21s make it through your net.

 

[Preacher ✝]

The idea is to hit shit thousands of miles away, and air targets hundreds of miles away. You do not need to be a speed boat when you have a missile bubble.

Is it accomplishing that goal in a way that a smaller ship cannot? If the only advantage that it's size brings is that it holds more missiles than it would be better to just have two smaller ships instead. They can spread out and make an even bigger bubble, and if one gets hit you still have the other.

Exactly. Naval warfare is moving towards large numbers of missile equipped small vessels.

Indeed, a big ship is cool, I get that. Part of me would love to see the Iowa-class sail again dishing out full broadsides, but its not tactically relevant. Even in terms of Naval Gunnery a WWII Destroyer would have more relevance than a WWII Battleship on todays seas. In theory something like a Fletcher-class could still go out there and sink drug boats with its 5in/38s more effectively than an Iowa could with its big guns. The main argument is that it would be cheaper than firing missiles.

Frankly, I think the US needs to get away from supercarriers as well, and instead replace them with a larger number of smaller carrier vessels.

I agree, big ships are becoming big targets.

We should probably think about what comes after the current generation of submarines, too. It's virtually guaranteed that in the next 30-50 years we're looking at a "transparent ocean" scenario.

A Submarine is only good if it's stealthy. As it stands, the modern Nuclear Submarine can remain submerged indefinitely, only limited by its food supply. Add some hydroponics and the ability to do underwater fishing and we might see a true forever sub that only needs to surface when some of the crew retires. If we reach a transparent ocean scenario than submarines are basically worthless.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Legacy is what you build

Shit nigga, i guess that's why he's building these ships

 

[Daddy's Little Kitten]

All ████ the USS ███████!

 

[WelperHelper99]

Nigger what? Why the fuck would you use railguns on drones? That's the role of DEW SHORAD, hence the lasers. Additionally, why the fuck would you have a ship within a hundred miles of a coastline? I do not think you fundamentally understand modern naval doctrine.

I think you're a Democrat retard that just wants to be mad at Orange man doing something awesome and based. You would use a rail gun because all guns can be used for anti air.

The reason you have a larger number of smaller ships is so your entire throw weight doesn't get got when one of fifty DF-21s make it through your net.

Then you make fucking sure they don't get through.

Is it accomplishing that goal in a way that a smaller ship cannot? If the only advantage that it's size brings is that it holds more missiles than it would be better to just have two smaller ships instead. They can spread out and make an even bigger bubble, and if one gets hit you still have the other.

Command facilities for one. The burkes really aren't equiped for that. Also they can do the job of 10 burkes in one platform, i don't see why not. As for manufacturing, it will revitalize our shipyards and teach them how to build big shit again.

 

[Kether]

So retarded. If trump was smart the new trump class warship would be some weird drone carrier thingy. imagine a ship where you can carry tens of thousands of drones to swarm the enemy. a submarine would be even better.

 

[Blewberry Nausea]

It looks like something I sunk in a Genesis submarine game or something. I am sure it will be cancelled by some future administration because it takes two or three from announcements to actually deploy the fucking thing.

 

[Sexual Chocolate]

Naval warfare is moving towards large numbers of missile equipped small vessels.

Is it now? China didn't get the memo, they're building the biggest carriers they can. The Type 004 is over 110,000 tons.

Bigger is better in warfare. An 80,000 ton vessel is a lot harder to sink than 10,000 tons, carries a lot more missiles, planes, helicopters and other war materials, and can sustain itself at sea for a lot longer before needing replenishment. If you want laser weapons or railguns in future, the bigger ship has more room for reactors, generators and capacitor banks.

You don't necessarily save money with smaller ships either. All the US Navy's attempts at building frigate sized combatants have been expensive disasters. From the dawn of naval warfare in the era of galleys and carracks, through to WW2 battleships and carriers, the bigger ships have always posed a bigger threat. That could change, but it probably won't. Because war... war never changes.

 

[A Cardboard Box]

Then you make fucking sure they don't get through.

Is Trump also going to equip it with a 100% success rate missile defense suite? If so then fuck it, let's build it twelve times the size with twenty times the railguns!

 

[WelperHelper99]

Is it now? China didn't get the memo, they're building the biggest carriers they can. The Type 004 is over 110,000 tons.

Bigger is better in warfare. An 80,000 ton vessel is a lot harder to sink than 10,000 tons, carries a lot more missiles, planes, helicopters and other war materials, and can sustain itself at sea for a lot longer before needing replenishment. If you want laser weapons or railguns in future, the bigger ship has more room for reactors, generators and capacitor banks.

You don't necessarily save money with smaller ships either. All the US Navy's attempts at building frigate sized combatants have been expensive disasters. From the dawn of naval warfare in the era of galleys and carracks, through to WW2 battleships and carriers, the bigger ships have always posed a bigger threat. That could change, but it probably won't. Because war... war never changes.
View attachment 8319988

Big ships win out in the end because they can absorb more damage. Small nations cope by building frigates. The US doesn't have to. We are, they announced a new class at the conference that the Trump class got announced, but we are already strong with our destroyers.

 

[Fount of BadSpeak]

This is cool and all, but the Navy sucks ass at designing and building new ships, and we have shut down almost all of our ship manufacturing because we let robber barons ship all of our industry overseas. Are there also plans to rebuild our ship production capabilities? What about plans to hold the Navy accountable when it wastes billions on not designing or building ships again? This is a neat idea and all, but I have absolutely no faith in them being able to follow through on this given what's happened in the past.

This is some funny shit. I hope its not cringe at the end of it, and a waste of tax payer money.

I wouldn't hold my breath on these ever reaching fruition.

 

[Breadbassket]

Even if plans to build the ship sputter out, at least we got some nice renders to look at.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Is Trump also going to equip it with a 100% success rate missile defense suite? If so then fuck it, let's build it twelve times the size with twenty times the railguns!

When you got specs like these:


I think you're going to be fine. Also nuclear armed. So get fucked China