Matrix Games Forums

As a practical, technical and mission-relevant matter, what do people think of this? Unclear if these will ever get built, but the stated goal is two of them by 2028. Are we entering a new golden age for the battleship? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump-class_battleship

elxaime wrote: Wed Apr 29, 2026 2:44 pm As a practical, technical and mission-relevant matter, what do people think of this? Unclear if these will ever get built, but the stated goal is two of them by 2028. Are we entering a new golden age for the battleship? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump-class_battleship

I don’t believe ship will ever be built. Currently no money has been allocated by the US Congress. If my information is correct the Navy will request $17 billion for the first unit; probably in hope of getting the $10 to $15 billion they need.

Before the keel can be laid down current construction and maintenance backlog at US shipyards will need to be adjusted to squeeze in construction of this ship somewhere.

So currently no money and the shipyard yet to be determined. Plus the ship still needs to be designed. All we’ve seen are concept drawings. It now takes four to six years to build and commission an Arleigh Burke DDG. It took 12 years to build and commission USS Gerald R. Ford and she had some growing pains. I suspect a Trump class battleship as conceived would take four to eight years to build and commission. I just don’t see it happening.

I'm of a similar option as Ryan from Battleship New Jersey. The USN has been looking for a true successor to Long Beach as a large surface cimbatsnt since the 70s with the Strike Cruiser, then Cruiser Baseline, CG21, CGX...

I think the brass beefed up the concept, added some equipment thst would grab POTUS' attention, and likewise called it a Battleship since he likes that sort of big strength imagery to get White House backing.

I would expect that if any ultimately get built they will get downsized and become the "add your buzzword" cruisers like the Global Strike Cruiser or the Lethality Warfighting Cruiser.

Aside from that fact that I hate the concept, I'd be very surprised if this actually gets built:

-The time needed to secure funding, prepare the shipyard and complete the design, means it would likely bleed into the next administration, who will almost certainly cancel this monstrosity.

-Even IF it doesn't get cancelled in relatively short order, the US is apparently incapable of building a simple frigate-equivalent without overinflating everything and then giving up. I have no confidence in something close to a battleship actually being completed.

The modern USN is actually better at building large combat ship than small ones. The Navy loves a ship that is a swiss army knife. Every frigate-sized hull gets turned into a floating display case for every type mission. You can pack all that into a BB-sized hull's structure and budget. Less risk with mission creep.

HalfLifeExpert wrote: Wed Apr 29, 2026 6:42 pm Aside from that fact that I hate the concept, I'd be very surprised if this actually gets built:

-The time needed to secure funding, prepare the shipyard and complete the design, means it would likely bleed into the next administration, who will almost certainly cancel this monstrosity.

-Even IF it doesn't get cancelled in relatively short order, the US is apparently incapable of building a simple frigate-equivalent without overinflating everything and then giving up. I have no confidence in something close to a battleship actually being completed.

I would refer you to Dr Alex Clarke's comments on how any new surface combatants are compared to the Burkes, with their mature and extensive production and development, and Congress is agast why something new that needs R&D, new tooling, etc. costs more.

Maybe just bring back Cruiser Baseline which is generally similar visually to a Burke but bigger, upgrade the design to current systems, and call it the Super Burke. A la the Super Hornets or all those Cold War types like the F-86/FJ variants which weren't all that mechanically similar but looked enough alike on the outside to get Congress to fund the "upgraded model."

I like the idea.

The US Navy is hamstrung by VLS capacity. Sure, more ships with fewer VLS each gives flexibility...but, then you are assuming that a GROUP of ships will be in the right place at the right time.

One ship with 128 VLS can provide more capabilities than 4 ships with 32 VLS each. (You don't have to devote 4x self-defense cells for the one ship. Figure out what self-defense a single ship needs, add 50%, and you still have more VLS devoted to offensive purpose.) Of course, if one ship with 128 gets sunk...you've lost them all.

Size matters. Refueling needs, cruise speed, etc. Make a ship large enough and you can stuff a nuclear reactor in it. Now you've got an propulsion system that shrinks the Pacific Ocean.

Yes, a cruiser can (and has) done this. But the US Navy is (has?) ridding itself of the last of its cruisers.

Some traditional guns are always useful. You don't always want to launch one of your limited VLS weapons at a target. Intel trawler hanging around? Bang. Add some CIWS/Lasers, and you can defend against swarms.

Now, none of that means I think the Trump Class, as shown, is the right ship. But, there is a critical need for nuclear propulsion large-hulls with 100+ VLS cells.

My .02.

You'll have availability issues too. Even if the navy ends up miraculously getting 10-15 ships built, a lot of those will be sitting in port being prepped for the next deployment, or undergoing routine maintenance, or deep maintenance. So I would definitely go for many smaller ships that are actually availability when you get into trouble rather than fewer large vessels. With automation the old problem of having to crew a lot of smaller vessels compared to fewer larger ones, is less than in the past.

Updated info.


https://www.twz.com/sea/congress-moves- ... are-mature