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

 

[Leylon Sneed]

Battleship on the other hand, CAN defend the carrier from these threats

For a last line of defense maybe, but they still want smaller ships to screen. The integrated radar is a big part of that, being able to see things coming at distance, and put up defenses from several places on the way in.

 

[mindlessobserver]

For a last line of defense maybe, but they still want smaller ships to screen. The integrated radar is a big part of that, being able to see things coming at distance, and put up defenses from several places on the way in.

The big thing a Battleship Chassis can bring that a smaller ship cannot is the nuclear reactor. Both for its propulsion (It can keep up with the carrier if the carrier goes to combat speed) but also for the power output. It has more options in electronic warfare, and more esoteric weapons. More broadly, "as the last line of defense:" it could also bring an overwhelming level of fire on incoming threats at a level a cruiser or destroyer simply could not.


When people think of battleships, they think of a line of ships shooting at each other at range. In the modern context though, the Battleship isn't there to sink other ships, its to be a floating area denial weapon, preventing drones, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and aircraft from getting into terminal attack range of the carriers.

Right now, the US Navy doesn't have a true ship of the line to defend the carrier. Relying instead on the distributed network of destroyers and cruisers. But as has been pointed out that screen is increasingly vulnerable to new technologies.

 

[Cheese Squeeze]

You can't really blame the MIC here they saw an easy opportunity and they took it. They told trump that currently the biggest and most heavily armed warship in the world is russian, but if you give us 500 billion dollars or whatever we'll make an even BIGGER ship. a BATTLE SHIP. and we'll call it the TRUMP class. Eh? eh? Like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[Leylon Sneed]

The big thing a Battleship Chassis can bring that a smaller ship cannot is the nuclear reactor. Both for its propulsion (It can keep up with the carrier if the carrier goes to combat speed) but also for the power output. It has more options in electronic warfare, and more esoteric weapons. More broadly, "as the last line of defense:" it could also bring an overwhelming level of fire on incoming threats at a level a cruiser or destroyer simply could not.


When people think of battleships, they think of a line of ships shooting at each other at range. In the modern context though, the Battleship isn't there to sink other ships, its to be a floating area denial weapon, preventing drones, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and aircraft from getting into terminal attack range of the carriers.

Right now, the US Navy doesn't have a true ship of the line to defend the carrier. Relying instead on the distributed network of destroyers and cruisers. But as has been pointed out that screen is increasingly vulnerable to new technologies.

There's several things here, and I don't know how to clip them down to address. The speed is not just propulsion, but hull size. I'm out of the loop but I don't think the navy has a functional rail gun yet, I was surprised the Ford has magnetic catupults, I thought they were building it to power them once the tech had matured, but were going to use steam initially. I'm also pretty sure the only functional lasers are chemical lasers, which do draw a lot of power, but don't really have a great renge depending on atmospheric conditions, and still have the chemical part, so are not just a weapon with a potentially bottomless magazine.

 

[Hitman One]

The USS Zognald J. Drumpf will defend Israel at all costs.

 

[Disdainer of the Plebs]

I hope they have a specific thing they want to do with this class. Capital ships take years to build and their design can see them blown to pieces in seconds. Just ask Jackie Fisher and the very unfortunately named HMS Invincible.

 

[Übertroon]

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

They're in full bean counter mode.
All they're thinking off is how easily a little drone can sink a big boat and despairing.
Think how many somalians you can feed with those billions saved by building smaller vessels.
Yes, a destroyer is cheaper, and can today punch above its weigth, and perhaps its more comforting to have a 2,5 billion dollar vessel sunk by a 1 million dollar missile, rather than a 6 billion dollar vessel.
But that shit is loser talk, that's the mindset of a bureaucrat who only thinks about how many useless jobs can be created with those billions.
Wars is always won by having the bigger and more expensive stick.
If you're already going to spend billions on a ship, why start penny pinching when it comes to firepower?
I'd rather go to war with a big boat that costs twice as much but carries twice as many missiles and railguns.

 

[Cheese Squeeze]

The USS Zognald J. Drumpf will defend Israel at all costs.

You jest but I wonder if there's any truth in this. When israel got it's shit pushed in by iranian missiles earlier this year there were several US ships nearby ostensibly to help israel shoot them down. This complete failure might have led them to address some shortcomings of the current ship AD. How many interceptors are supposed to be on this new ship?

 

[Leylon Sneed]

twice as many missiles and railguns.

So I was just going off of my prior knowledge about the public rail gun program earlier, but I checked and the Navy shut down the rail gun program in 2021 because they couldn't get results. That funding was shifted to several laser programs with one having a testbed on at least one distroyer.

 

[Million Dollar Word]

The big thing a Battleship Chassis can bring that a smaller ship cannot is the nuclear reactor. Both for its propulsion (It can keep up with the carrier if the carrier goes to combat speed) but also for the power output. It has more options in electronic warfare, and more esoteric weapons. More broadly, "as the last line of defense:" it could also bring an overwhelming level of fire on incoming threats at a level a cruiser or destroyer simply could not.

Given the stated size of the vessel and amount of weapon systems and they intend to put on this floating abortion and the amount of personnel needed to operate such systems, it is highly unlikely that the reactor will be the equivalent of that found on a carrier. Since this thing currently doesn't exist, the only similar thing we can compare it to which exists today would be Russia's Kirov-class "Battlecruiser", which is clearly where inspiration and "need" for this thing came from in the minds of the delusional who the military industrial complex are happy to drive us further in to debt satiating. The Kirov-class can barely make it over 10 knots under its nuclear propulsion and requires conventional boiler generated steam propulsion to keep up with the rest of their fleet at 30+ knots, a technology and skill set which no longer exists in the modern US Navy. In the case of this thing, that would mean either enlarging the reactor or finding some other form of auxiliary propulsion to include, both of which would involve lightening the load by removing weapon and defense systems and therefore defeat the entire stated purpose of this thing.

I'm curious as to what threats you are speaking of that this thing could possibly counter better than an equivalent to the F-14 and AIM-54 system, which was done away with due to "being overly costly and unnecessary" in the post cold war world. I can't possibly see how a technologically advanced fighter jet capable of providing defenses to a carrier strike group in excess of 100+ NM is the inferior and more costly option considering that the biggest weaknesses of the modern US military today are the falling quality of its personnel (less White men, more non-whites and women) and failing industrial base, all of which an entire new class of oversized ship requires more of in comparison.

 

[deleuzeon]

Given the stated size of the vessel and amount of weapon systems and they intend to put on this floating abortion and the amount of personnel needed to operate such systems, it is highly unlikely that the reactor will be the equivalent of that found on a carrier.

I actually ran it by my analysts and they totally disagree.

 

[Übertroon]

So I was just going off of my prior knowledge about the public rail gun program earlier, but I checked and the Navy shut down the rail gun program in 2021 because they couldn't get results. That funding was shifted to several laser programs with one having a testbed on at least one distroyer.

Loser talk.
China and Japan are equipping railguns, so we should too.

 

[Cheese Squeeze]

The Kirov-class can barely make it over 10 knots under its nuclear propulsion

Maybe you mis-typed 20 knots there. And that's in the 1980s configuration, it's possible the speed is increased with it's new 2020's reactors and machinery.

 

[Cheese Squeeze]

Loser talk.
China and Japan are equipping railguns, so we should too.

It makes sense for china to do it since their defense industry is largely govt owned but in the US the railgun program was an excuse for contractors to rape the american taxpayer. Weren't the railgun projectiles for the US NAVY several MILLION dollars each?

 

[Leylon Sneed]

Loser talk.
China and Japan are equipping railguns, so we should too.

Well China makes shit up. I took a look at Japan's rail gun and that's nowhere near operational. I think it's funny the articles mentioned how successful the US program was, it was cancelled because they couldn't hit velocity and had no accuracy at the intended range.
The lasers, for all their drawbacks are probably the best bang for the buck.

 

[HX-2]

Actually no. It's in the 30-40,000 ton range. That is a battleship by naval definition. It looks different, but the definition still stands.

That's not a battleship, it could be a cruiser, a carrier (heli or jet, pick your poison), a container ship of some kind, a barge, the list goes on. The size doesn't really matter in most cases but the role and armament certainly does.

Its why the Kirov is a battle cruiser, its weight.

It's not a battlecruiser. It's just a really heavy cruiser that happens to also be nuclear powered.

 

[Übertroon]

It makes sense for china to do it since their defense industry is largely govt owned but in the US the railgun program was an excuse for contractors to rape the american taxpayer. Weren't the railgun projectiles for the US NAVY several MILLION dollars each?

Give it to someone that has an ego in the project. The problem is that the usual government contracters are all corrupt.
It's why space exploration became the domain of big ego billionaires and not NASA

 

[BlackDragoons]

Sci fi bullshit promoted by hostile enemy nations to weaken America. We need ALL TYPES of ships. Don't get lost in the sauce

Quick! Spot the reformist.

 

[Million Dollar Word]

They're in full bean counter mode.
All they're thinking off is how easily a little drone can sink a big boat and despairing.
Think how many somalians you can feed with those billions saved by building smaller vessels.
Yes, a destroyer is cheaper, and can today punch above its weigth, and perhaps its more comforting to have a 2,5 billion dollar vessel sunk by a 1 million dollar missile, rather than a 6 billion dollar vessel.
But that shit is loser talk, that's the mindset of a bureaucrat who only thinks about how many useless jobs can be created with those billions.
Wars is always won by having the bigger and more expensive stick.
If you're already going to spend billions on a ship, why start penny pinching when it comes to firepower?
I'd rather go to war with a big boat that costs twice as much but carries twice as many missiles and railguns.

I think one mistake many people here are making is conflating size with survivability. This isn't a "battleship" in the sense of the those of the 20th century, the weight and size of this thing has nothing to do with an armored hull, offensive weapons have progressed far past the point where the thickness of a steel hull can stop them. As with any ship in the era of modern naval warfare, whether or not the ship can sustain itself after taking damage has entirely to do with the actions of the crew, which as I mentioned in my previous post has been falling in quality over the years in the case of the US Navy and the rest of the US military. In my own opinion, this is one of the reasons I believe the Navy attempted the failed LCS (Littoral Combat Ship) program. They basically tried to apply the model the rest of the military has gone to, being a smaller, more specialized force of competent individuals (aka White men) doing all of the heavy lifting wielding vastly superior firepower in asymmetrical engagements to minimize potential losses. Unfortunately, there is really no naval equivalent of specialized light infantry, and even a relatively small ship requires a massive skilled support and logistical base to be maintained and operate effectively.

You jest but I wonder if there's any truth in this. When israel got it's shit pushed in by iranian missiles earlier this year there were several US ships nearby ostensibly to help israel shoot them down. This complete failure might have led them to address some shortcomings of the current ship AD. How many interceptors are supposed to be on this new ship?

This is probably the most likely reality of what something like this is intended for. A useless floating air defense launch platform costing billions of dollars which ZOG can park outside Israel and shoot down hundred thousand dollar ballistic missiles with multi-million dollar air defense missiles. A perfectly reasonable use of our tax dollars of course, anything for "greatest ally".

 

[HX-2]

It makes sense for china to do it since their defense industry is largely govt owned but in the US the (insert any post-cold war project name here) program was an excuse for contractors to rape the american taxpayer.

FTFY