BATTLESHIP

The U.S. Navy has confirmed to TWZ that construction of the first two Trump class “battleships” is not expected to start until the early 2030s. While cost estimates are still being firmed up, the service is moving now to award sole-source contracts to Bath Iron Works, Huntington Ingalls Industries, and Gibbs & Cox for initial design and other work related to these large surface combatants. Readers can first get up to speed on what is already known about the plans for these ships and the glaring questions surrounding them in our initial reporting here.

President Donald Trump officially rolled out the Trump class warship plan at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, last night. With displacements of at least around 35,000 tons, the vessels are set to be armed with an array of nuclear and conventional missiles, as well as electromagnetic railguns, traditional 5-inch naval guns, laser directed energy weapons, and more. Production is supposed to start with two ships, the first of which will be named USS Defiant, out of a planned initial batch of 10 hulls. Trump has said that the total fleet size might eventually grow to 20 to 25 examples.

“Design efforts are underway with start of construction planned for the early 2030s,” a U.S. Navy official told TWZ. “Design studies are ongoing to refine Navy cost estimates. These details will be available in the PB FY27 [President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2027] budget request.”

Another individual familiar with the program also told TWZ that work to build the first Trump class ships is not expected to begin until the early 2030s. They also told us that the new “battleship” plan is supplanting the Navy’s DDG(X) next-generation destroyer effort, and will leverage work already done on that design concept.

“We’re going to start almost immediately, and we’re probably talking about two and a half years,” Trump had said at yesterday’s rollout when asked to give a timeline for work on the first two Trump class ships. However, it is unclear what part of the process he might have been referring to. TWZ has reached out to the White House for more information.

As already noted, the Navy did put out two contracting notices regarding what is also referred to as the BBG(X) guided missile battleship program following the rollout last night.

“Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) intends to contract on a sole source basis with General Dynamics Bath Irons [sic] Works Corporation (BIW) and Huntington Ingalls Industries-Ingalls Shipbuilding (HII Ingalls) for BBG(X) guided missile battleship design, engineering, and design analysis requirements. This includes shipbuilder engineering and design analysis necessary to produce BBG(X) design products in support of Navy-led design for BBG(X), including Preliminary Design (PD) and Contract Design (CD),” one of the notices says. “BIW and HII Ingalls will assist the Government design team in maturing a total ship design through a rigorous systems engineering process, including, but not limited to, pre­planned reviews such as System Functional Review (SFR) and Preliminary Design Review (PDR). The estimated period of performance for these efforts is 72 months.”

In addition, NAVSEA “intends to contract on a sole source basis with Leidos Gibbs & Cox for surface combatant ship design engineering (SC SDE) efforts to support future Navy surface combatants. As part of these efforts, Leidos Gibbs & Cox will primarily execute design activity in support of Preliminary Design (PD), Contract Design (CD), and other design efforts needed to support the BBG(X) guided missile battleship program,” per the other notice. “As the SC SDE contractor, Leidos Gibbs & Cox will serve as an extension of the Government’s ship design team, delivering specialized expertise in early-stage design analysis and requirements definition. This early design phase support is crucial for ensuring the feasibility, affordability, and performance of the ship design prior to detail design and construction. The estimated period of performance for this contract is 72 months.”

For reference, 72 months is six years. If that timeline were to start next month, the period of performance would run into 2032. This aligns directly with the expected start of actual construction in the early 2030s.

“We are committed to continue our work with the Navy and our industry partners to expand the Navy’s Fleet,” an HII spokesperson told TWZ when asked for more information. “We maintain a full range of engineering and design capabilities and are looking forward to providing the benefit of their experience and expertise to this effort, building on the work done to date in support of the DDG(X). We respectfully defer to Navy on the selection criteria and any details on requirements.”

“We are proud to have built the Navy’s most technologically advanced surface combatants and our shipbuilders are committed to continuing that work in lock step with the Navy to expand their Fleet,” Chris Kastner, President and CEO of HII, had also told TWZ in a statement yesterday. “We understand the urgency and have taken a number of actions to increase the speed at which we can deliver. We have seen improvements in our labor and throughput and expect these to continue in 2026. These efforts combined with our distributed shipbuilding network are working, and more capacity is being created to meet these critical requirements.”

Bath Iron Works also deferred to the Navy when asked for more details.

“General Dynamics Bath Iron Works stands ready to fully support the Navy in the design and construction of this important new shipbuilding program,” Charles Krugh, President of Bath Iron Works, had separately said in a statement to USNI News yesterday.

TWZ has also reached out to Gibbs & Cox for more details.

It’s also interesting to note here that 2032 was when the Navy originally hoped to see construction of new DDG(X) destroyers begin. As of January of this year, that timeline had been pushed back to 2034 at the earliest.

With BBG(X) still in the very early design phase, the U.S. Navy official also told TWZ that there is currently no timeline for when the future USS Defiant will actually be launched. It would then take some amount of time after that to complete the vessel’s construction, conduct initial sea trials, and then commission it into service.

In the meantime, NAVSEA has shared some additional details about the expected capabilities of the Trump class warships. As it stands now, the vessels are set to be between 840 and 880 feet long, have a beam (the widest point in the hull) between 105 and 115 feet, displace at least 35,000 tons, and be able to reach a top speed greater than 30 knots.

For comparison, the Navy’s newest Flight III Arleigh Burke class destroyers and its Ticonderoga class cruisers have stated displacements of 10,864 tons and 10,752 tons, respectively, with full combat loads. Both of those ships are also hundreds of feet shorter and dozens of feet narrower than the planned BBG(X).

The Navy’s last true battleships, the four members of the Iowa class that were built during World War II and served for decades afterwards, had full combat displacements of around 57,540 tons and were nearly 888 feet long. Those ships were also extremely heavily armored and at times had as many as 2,700 personnel on board.

The Trump class ships will have a flight deck and hangar at the stern large enough to accommodate a V-22 Osprey tiltrotor, as well as any aircraft developed in response to the Navy’s Future Vertical Lift (FVL) requirements. Renderings already released have also depicted a Seahawk helicopter embarked on the ship.

The BBG(X) design will feature 128 Mk 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) cells spread across two separate arrays, one at the bow and another at the stern. Nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missiles, or SLCM-Ns, will be among the munitions loaded into those cells. The total number of Mk 41 cells is notably low for a ship of this size. As additional points of comparison, the Navy’s Flight IIA and Flight III Arleigh Burke class destroyers both have 96 Mk 41 VLS cells, while there are 122 on its Ticonderoga class cruisers.

There will also be a separate 12-cell VLS at the bow for Intermediate-Range Conventional Prompt Strike (IRCPS) hypersonic missiles. This is the same number of IRCPS missiles the Navy’s Zumwalt class stealth destroyers are set to carry in the future.

The ship’s main gun armament will consist of a 32-megajoule electromagnetic railgun along with two 5-inch naval guns. How the Navy will source the railgun is unclear. The service halted its most recent work on naval railguns, at least publicly, in the early 2020s.

The vessels will have four Mk 38 weapon systems armed with 30mm automatic cannons and two launchers for RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missiles (RAM) for close-in defense. Two unspecified dedicated counter-drone systems will be part of the armament package on the ships, as well.

The BBG(X) plans call for two laser directed energy weapons in the 300 to 600 kilowatt power range, as well as four lower-powered AN/SEQ-4 Optical Dazzling Interdictors (ODIN). As its name indicates, ODIN is a laser ‘dazzler’ designed primarily to blind adversarial optics, including optical seekers on incoming missiles or drones, rather than cause any kind of physical damage.

In terms of other systems, NAVSEA says the BBG(X)s will feature an AN/SPY-6(V)1 Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR), an AN/SLQ-32(V)7 Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) Block III electronic warfare suite, and an extensive array of command and control capabilities. Between 650 and 850 personnel are expected to be necessary to crew the BBG(X)s, far more than the standard complement found on any existing Navy destroyers or cruisers.

“Like the initial DDG(X) concept, Defiant would use gas turbines and diesels to drive an electrical grid that would supply power to the ship’s weapon systems and sensors, according to the Navy data,” USNI News has reported. As TWZ has previously reported, work already done on the planned Integrated Power System (IPS) for DDG(X) has leveraged technology developed to meet the extensive power generation demands of the Navy’s Zumwalt class.

As TWZ highlighted yesterday, there are major questions about the Trump class warship plan, including how much the ships might cost to produce, as well as operate and maintain. Though the Navy has yet to share an official figure, there have been reports already offering a very wide range of estimates for basic unit costs from $5 to $15 billion. The future DDG(X) destroyers had been expected to cost the service between $3.3 and $4.4 billion. As another point of reference, the price tag of each of the Navy’s Zumwalt class destroyers has ballooned to more than $10 billion, which factors in research and development costs, per the Government Accountability Office (GAO). It is also worth noting that the Zumwalt program’s cost growth is in large part due to the decision to slash purchases of those ships from 32 down to three.

The operational relevance of a ship like the BBG(X), especially if the total fleet size ends up being relatively small, is quickly becoming a topic of heated debate. As TWZ wrote previously:

“At the same time, what capabilities the Trump class might truly be able to bring to bear will be dependent on a host of factors, especially if they are only ever fielded in relatively smaller numbers. And regardless of how capable any warship is, it can only ever be in one place at one time, which is more often than not in port.”

“This all comes at a time when the Navy is stressing its glaring need for more surface warships, overall, not super capable ones built in small quantities.”

“On the other hand, there are concerning VLS cell gaps that are fast approaching on the horizon. The service is set to retire the last of its Ticonderoga class cruisers, each one of which has 122 VLS cells, at the end of the decade. The Navy will also need to make up for the impending loss of the huge missile launch capacity offered by its four Ohio class nuclear guided missile submarines, which are also set to be decommissioned before 2030. The Trump class will clearly feature a massive set of VLS arrays that could help offset some of this deficit.”

The capacity of America’s shipbuilding industrial base to support the Trump class plans in addition to its current demands, something that has become increasingly concerning from a national security perspective in recent years, is another open question. The expected sole-source contracts to Bath Iron Works and HII underscore that those are the only two companies in the United States with any real experience producing large-displacement surface warships of any kind.

Given the timeline laid out now, the Trump class will have to survive multiple presidential administrations and congresses, too. The program could well see significant changes, or even be canceled, even before a single piece of steel is laid down, but still after billions are spent in development costs.

By its own admission, the Navy is still very much in the early stages of work on the Trump class. With the construction of the future USS Defiant not expected to even begin until the early 2030s, the planned fleet of these warships looks to be very far out on the horizon.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

WASHINGTON — President Trump has announced a bold plan for the Navy to build a new, large warship that he is calling a “battleship” as part of a larger vision to create a “Golden Fleet.”

“They’ll be the fastest, the biggest, and by far 100 times more powerful than any battleship ever built,” Trump claimed during the announcement at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

According to Trump, the ship, the first of which will be named the USS Defiant, will be longer and larger than the World War II-era Iowa-class battleships and will be armed with hypersonic missiles, nuclear cruise missiles, rail guns, and high-powered lasers — all technologies that are in various stages of development by the Navy.

The announcement comes just a month after the Navy scrapped its plans to build a new, small warship, citing growing delays and cost overruns, deciding instead to go with a modified version of a Coast Guard cutter that was being produced until recently. The sea service has also failed to build its other newly designed ships, like the new Ford-class aircraft carrier and Columbia-class submarines, on time and on budget.

Meanwhile, the Navy has struggled to field some of the technologies Trump says will be aboard the new ship.

The Navy spent hundreds of millions of dollars and more than 15 years trying to field a railgun aboard a ship before finally abandoning the effort in 2021.

Laser technology has seen more success in making its way onto Navy ships in recent years, but its employment is still limited. One system that is designed to blind or disable drone sensors is now aboard eight destroyers after spending eight years in development.

Developing nuclear cruise missile capabilities or deploying them on ships may also violate non-proliferation treaties that the U.S. has signed with Russia.

A U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing plans, told the Associated Press that design efforts are now underway for the new ship and construction is planned to begin in the early 2030s.

Both Trump and Navy Secretary John Phelan spoke about the new Trump-class warship as a spiritual successor to the battleships of the 20th century, but historically that term has referred to a very specific type of ship — a large, heavily armored vessel armed with massive guns designed to bombard other ships or targets ashore.

This type of ship was at the height of prominence during World War II, and the largest of the U.S. battleships, the Iowa-class, were roughly 60,000 tons. But after World War II, the battleship’s role in modern fleets diminished rapidly in favor of aircraft carriers and long-range missiles. The U.S. Navy did modernize four Iowa-class battleships in the 1980s by adding cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles, along with modern radars, but by the 1990s all four were decommissioned.

According to a newly created website for the “Golden Fleet,” this new “guided missile battleship” is set to be roughly the same size as Iowa-class battleships but only weigh about half as much, around 35,000 tons, and have far smaller crews — between 650 and 850 sailors.

Its primary weapons will also be missiles, not large naval guns.

Trump has long held strong opinions on specific aspects of the Navy’s fleet, sometimes with a view toward keeping older technology instead of modernizing.

During his first term, he unsuccessfully called for the return to steam-powered catapults to launch jets from the Navy’s newest aircraft carriers instead of the more modern electromagnetic system.

He has also complained to Phelan about the look of the Navy’s destroyers and decried Navy ships being covered in rust.

Phelan told senators at his confirmation hearing that Trump “has texted me numerous times very late at night, sometimes after one (o’clock) in the morning” about “rusty ships or ships in a yard, asking me what am I doing about it.”

On a visit to a shipyard that was working on the now-canceled Constellation-class frigate in 2020, Trump said he personally changed the design of the ship.

“I looked at it, I said, ‘That’s a terrible-looking ship, let’s make it beautiful,’” Trump said at the time.

He said Monday he will have a direct role in designing this new warship as well.

“The U.S. Navy will lead the design of these ships along with me, because I’m a very aesthetic person,” Trump said.

Phelan said the new USS Defiant “will inspire awe and reverence for the American flag whenever it pulls into a foreign port.”

Toropin and Madhani write for the Associated Press.

President Donald Trump has rolled out plans for new Trump class large surface combatants for the U.S. Navy. These are to be armed with a wide array of missiles, including nuclear-armed and hypersonic types, as well as electromagnetic railguns, laser directed energy weapons, and more. Trump says the goal now is to build at least two of these vessels, the first of which will be named USS Defiant, but that the fleet size could grow to 10 hulls or more. The 30,000-to-40,000-ton displacement ships are the centerpiece of a larger naval shipbuilding initiative called the Golden Fleet.

Trump, flanked by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State and acting National Security Advisor Marco Rubio, and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, unveiled the Trump class at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida. The vessels are currently being referred to as “battleships,” a term historically applied to large warships with gun-centric armament and heavily armored hulls. The Navy decommissioned its last true battleships, the World War II-era Iowa class USS Missouri and USS Wisconsin, between 1990 and 1992. By which time they had been heavily upgraded. TWZ had highlighted the possibility of the Navy pursuing a warship in the general vein of the design shown today after the president had first teased this plan back in September.

“From [President] Theodore Roosevelt, [and] the Great White Fleet … to the legendary [Iowa class] USS Missouri, whose massive guns helped win World War II, America’s battleships have always been unmistakable symbols of national power,” Trump said. The Trump class “will be the flagships of the American naval fleet, and there has never been anything built like them.”

“American strength is back on the world stage, and the announcement of the Golden Fleet, anchored by new battleships, the biggest and most lethal ever, … marks a generational commitment to American sea power across the entire department,” Secretary Hegseth said. “New and better ships will provide that deterrent today and for generations to come.”

“We’re going to make battle groups great again,” Secretary Phelan added. “The USS Defiant battleship will inspire awe and reverence for the American flag whenever it pulls into a foreign port. It will be a source of pride for every American.”

“As we forge the future of our Navy’s Fleet, we need a larger surface combatant and the Trump class Battleships meet that requirement,” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle also said in a separate Navy press release. “We will ensure continuous improvement, intellectually honest assessments about the requirement to effectively deter and win in the 2030s and beyond, and disciplined execution resulting in a Fleet unparalleled in lethality, adaptability and strength.”

If all goes to plan, “when a conflict arises, you [the president] are going to ask not one, but two questions, where are the carriers and where are the battleships,” Phelan said today.

Otherwise, the salient details about the Trump class shared today at Mar-a-Lago, as well as in the Navy’s release, are as follows:

• 30,000 to 40,000 displacement (the Iowa class battleships had displacements of around 57,540 tons with a full load).
• Roughly three times the size of an Arleigh Burke class destroyer, the current workhorse of the Navy’s surface fleets, according to the service (this appears to be based at least in part on the stated displacement of the newest Flight III Arleigh Burke subvariant).
• Intermediate-Range Conventional Prompt Strike (IRCPS) hypersonic missiles, electromagnetic railguns, and laser directed energy weapons will be part of the ship’s armament package.
• The Trump class ships will also be armed with a new nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile, or SLCM-N, now in development.
• Renderings displayed at the event at Mar-a-Lago show a design with three large Vertical Launch System (VLS) arrays, two at the bow end and one at the stern.
• One of the renderings, seen below, depicts the ship firing what looks to be an IRCPS missile, a Tomahawk cruise missile, and a member of the Standard Missile family.

• They also show what look to be multiple turreted 5-inch naval guns and other conventional guns.
• In addition to their extensive armament, Trump class ships will also be command and control platforms, overseeing crewed and uncrewed platforms.
• Unspecified artificial intelligence-driven capabilities will be part of the design, according to Trump.
• The Trump class will be part of a high-low naval force mixture that also includes the future FF(X) frigates and new fleets of uncrewed vessels.
• Focus first on the construction of two ships out of an expected initial batch of 10.
• The Trump class could eventually grow to 20 to 25 hulls.
• Trump said that the ships will be built in shipyards in the United States.
• The president also alluded to the possible involvement of foreign-owned, but U.S.-based yards.
• Secretary Phelan specifically highlighted the expected role of “new, non-traditional defense partners,” as well.
• Overall, the Navy will leverage a base of “1,000 suppliers in nearly every state in America” to build the ships.
• The Navy, in cooperation with industry, will lead the design of the ships.
• Trump will also be directly involved in the design process, “because I’m a very aesthetic person.”

To the last point here, it is worth pointing out that Trump’s interest in naval shipbuilding, especially from an aesthetic perspective, is well established at this point. He has claimed to have personally made key design decisions in the past. Trump has also been outspoken for years in his desire to see battleship-type vessels, specifically, return to the Navy’s fleets.

This appears to be the first time a class of Navy ships has been named after a sitting U.S. president. The Navy has often drawn criticism in the past for naming ships after living individuals, in general. It is unusual for the lead ship in a class of U.S. Navy vessels not to bear the name of that class (USS Defiant here instead of something like USS Trump or USS Donald J. Trump), as well.

Major questions about the plans for the Trump class do remain, including when the USS Defiant might be launched, let alone enter service. What these ships might cost to produce, as well as operate and maintain, is another important open question.

Despite the comments at Mar-a-Lago today, the unveiling of the Trump class is still likely to prompt much new analysis and general discussion about the expected utility of these ships, including from TWZ. We already did a deep dive into the feasibility, as well as the operational relevance, of Trump’s “battleship” proposal after his remarks in September. As we noted at the time, a concept along the lines of what was shown today offers a compromise of sorts that could help justify its complexity and cost. Similar ‘arsenal ship’ concepts for the Navy have been put forward on several occasions over the past few decades. This includes a proposal from Huntington Ingalls Industries in the early 2010s for a derivative of the San Antonio class amphibious warfare ship with 288 VLS cells and otherwise optimized for the ballistic missile defense mission.

At the same time, what capabilities the Trump class might truly be able to bring to bear will be dependent on a host of factors, especially if they are only ever fielded in relatively smaller numbers. And regardless of how capable any warship is, it can only ever be in one place at one time, which is more often than not in port.

This all comes at a time when the Navy is stressing its glaring need for more surface warships, overall, not super capable ones built in small quantities.

On the other hand, there are concerning VLS cell gaps that are fast approaching on the horizon. The service is set to retire the last of its Ticonderoga class cruisers, each one of which has 122 VLS cells, at the end of the decade. The Navy will also need to make up for the impending loss of the huge missile launch capacity offered by its four Ohio class nuclear guided missile submarines, which are also set to be decommissioned before 2030. The Trump class will clearly feature a massive set of VLS arrays that could help offset some of this deficit.

The general length of time it takes to design and produce large warships creates additional uncertainty for any naval shipbuilding endeavor, as well. Since the end of the Cold War, the Navy has seen a number of major warship programs be severely truncated, or outright cancelled, for a variety of reasons. As one prime example, the service originally planned to acquire 32 Zumwalt class stealth destroyers before slashing that number to just three and drastically watering-down their capabilities. The Trump administration also just recently axed the Constellation class frigate program, which had turned into a major boondoggle, as you can read more about here.

The Trump class “battleship” announcement notably comes on the same day the Navy confirmed to TWZ that the first of its future FF(X) frigates will be delivered with the glaring omission of a VLS and are clearly meant to be produced as cheaply and quickly as possible. At least the first ships will have the same armament of the much-derided Littoral Combat Ship.

The Navy insists it is taking steps to avoid past pitfalls going forward, and to help revitalize America’s shipbuilding industry in the process, but there continue to be challenges on the horizon.

All this will prompt major debate about how the Navy is using its pool of resources that it constantly says is too small to meet its future obligations. Investing so much in a small number of hulls while stripping out capabilities of those ships that will be built in larger numbers will surely be a hot topic on Capitol Hill in the months to come.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com