Trump-Class: The Navy Brings Battleships Back to Life — 60 Days to Design the Impossible

The Chinese Threat in the South China Sea

If the Navy is seriously considering bringing back battleships, it’s because the strategic landscape has changed. China is building up its navy at a terrifying pace—aircraft carriers, destroyers, submarines. The South China Sea has become a major flashpoint, with artificial islands, territorial claims, and constant military maneuvers. And in this context, some military strategists believe that battleships could have a role to play.

Why? Because a battleship is an indisputable symbol of power. It’s a massive physical presence. When a battleship arrives off your coast, you see it. You feel it. It’s pure intimidation. And in a conflict where deterrence is crucial, this psychological dimension matters. Furthermore, with the right modern technologies, a battleship could serve as a launch platform for missiles and a base for drones, while retaining a conventional coastal bombardment capability.

The Vulnerability of Aircraft Carriers

U.S. aircraft carriers are the crown jewels of the Navy. But they have a problem: they’ve become prime targets. China and Russia have developed anti-ship missiles specifically designed to destroy them—hypersonic missiles that can strike an aircraft carrier before it can even react. And a sinking aircraft carrier is catastrophic—not just militarily, but psychologically as well. It’s a devastating blow to national morale.

A battleship, on the other hand, is designed to take a beating. Its thick armor can withstand impacts that would sink most modern ships. Of course, with today’s weapons, no armor is foolproof. But the idea is resilience. A battleship can take hits and keep fighting. And in a war where every ship counts, that survivability could make all the difference. That’s the argument, anyway. It remains to be seen whether it holds up in the face of technical realities.

I understand the logic. I really do. In a world where hypersonic missiles threaten our aircraft carriers, having ships capable of withstanding attacks seems like a smart move. But I still have my doubts. Major doubts. Because a battleship, even an armored one, remains a huge target. Slow. Predictable. And in modern naval warfare, speed and stealth matter more than ever. So yes, maybe the Trump-class ships will revolutionize naval strategy. Or maybe they’ll become giant, floating targets that cost billions. We’ll see. In a few years. When it’s too late to change our minds.

Building What No Longer Exists

Designing a battleship in 2026 is like trying to reconstruct a dinosaur from fossilized bones. The blueprints exist. The technologies of the era are well documented. But no one really knows how to build these behemoths anymore. The shipyards that built the battleships have closed or shifted to other industries. The workers who knew how to weld 40-centimeter-thick armor plates have either passed away or retired. The supply chains for specialized materials no longer exist.

The Navy will have to recreate everything from scratch. Train new teams. Develop new processes. Adapt modern technologies to an old design. It’s a titanic undertaking. And it’s going to cost a fortune. Estimates put the cost at several billion dollars per ship. Maybe more. Much more. And that’s assuming everything goes smoothly. That deadlines are met. That the technologies work as planned. In the defense industry, that rarely happens.

The Guns of the Future… or the Past?

One of the major challenges is the guns. Traditional battleships used 16-inch guns—monsters capable of firing explosive shells tens of kilometers away. But these guns no longer exist. They’re no longer manufactured. Neither is the ammunition. So what to do? Replicate the old system? Or develop something new?

Some are talking about electromagnetic cannons—railguns that use electricity to propel projectiles at hypersonic speeds. The technology exists in prototype form. But implementing it on an operational warship is another story. It requires massive electrical power. Complex cooling systems. And above all, absolute reliability. Because a gun that breaks down in the middle of a battle is useless. So engineers will have to choose: go back to basics or bet on the future? And that choice will determine the success or failure of the Trump-class ships.

I look at these technical challenges and find myself torn between fascination and dread. Fascination because if it works, it will be a breathtaking feat of engineering—a blend of retro and futuristic technology that could redefine naval warfare. But dread because if it fails, it will be a monstrous financial black hole. Billions invested in ships that don’t work. And meanwhile, China keeps moving forward. So, do we bet on bold innovation or on strategic caution? Apparently, Trump has made his choice—for better or for worse.

Supporters: “It’s genius”

Some military analysts applaud the decision. They see the Trump-class as a logical evolution—a response to new threats. They point out that naval warfare is constantly evolving and that, at times, returning to older concepts with modern technology can create unexpected strategic advantages. They cite the example of diesel-electric submarines—considered obsolete, yet proving extremely effective in certain contexts.

For them, a modern battleship could be a game-changer. A versatile platform capable of conducting coastal bombardments, launching cruise missiles, and serving as a base for amphibious operations—all while withstanding attacks that would sink other ships. They envision the Trump-class as floating fortresses that project American power in a visible and intimidating manner. And in a world where deterrence is once again central, that visibility matters.

The Skeptics: “It’s madness”

But many experts are skeptical—or even outright opposed. They argue that battleships are obsolete for good reasons: too slow, too expensive, and too vulnerable to modern weapons. Hypersonic anti-ship missiles, guided torpedoes, smart mines—all of these can destroy a battleship, regardless of its armor. And even if the ship survives, the human and material cost of such an attack could be catastrophic.

They also highlight the opportunity cost. Every dollar invested in the Trump-class battleships is a dollar not going toward nuclear submarines, combat drones, cyber systems, or space technologies—all areas where the Navy desperately needs investment. Building battleships, they argue, is a waste of limited resources on a romantic concept that no longer aligns with the realities of modern warfare. It is, they say, militarized nostalgia.

Both sides are right. That’s what drives me crazy. The advocates are right to say that innovation sometimes comes from where you least expect it. That taking risks is necessary. The skeptics are right to say that resources are limited and we can’t afford to waste them. So who should we listen to? Those who dream big or those who calculate coldly? Trump has made his decision. He’s betting on boldness. On the unexpected. And here I am, watching this gamble unfold in real time, not knowing whether to applaud or worry. Probably both.

Mind-boggling estimates

Building a modern battleship is going to cost a fortune. The most optimistic estimates put the cost at $5 to $7 billion per ship. The most pessimistic go as high as $10 billion. By comparison, a Ford-class aircraft carrier costs about $13 billion. But at least with an aircraft carrier, we know it works. We know how to build it. We know how to use it. The Trump-class is a complete unknown.

And it’s not just the construction cost. It’s also maintenance. Personnel. Ammunition. The bases to house them. A battleship requires a crew of more than 1,500 sailors. It consumes astronomical amounts of fuel—or energy, if it’s nuclear-powered. Specialized shipyards are needed for its maintenance. It all adds up. And quickly, the total cost of a battleship program could exceed 100 billion dollars over a decade. At a minimum.

Will Congress approve it?

Building the Trump-class battleships requires congressional approval. And that’s going to be a battle. Republicans will likely support the project—it’s one of Trump’s campaign promises, after all. But Democrats will question every dollar. They’ll demand proof that it’s necessary. Studies. Simulations. Guarantees. And even among Republicans, some fiscally conservative lawmakers will hesitate in the face of such a massive expenditure.

The debate will be fierce. On one side, those who see the Trump-Class as a vital investment in national security. On the other, those who see it as a monumental waste driven by political ego. And in between, dozens of members of Congress who will try to negotiate contracts for their states—because building battleships creates jobs. Thousands of jobs. And that’s politically very appealing.

Ten billion. Per ship. Let that number sink in. Ten billion. That’s more than the annual budget of some countries. And we’re talking about building maybe five or six of these ships. Meanwhile, schools are running out of books. Hospitals are closing. Infrastructure is crumbling. And I wonder: do we really need battleships? Or do we just need to show that we can still build them? Because if it’s just for show, for ego, then it’s the most obscene waste I’ve ever seen. But if it’s truly necessary… then so be it as for the cost. Security is priceless. Well, that’s what they say.

China’s Reaction

Beijing is watching. Closely. The announcement of the Trump-Class ships did not go unnoticed. Chinese state media has covered the story, oscillating between mockery and concern. Mockery because reviving battleships seems anachronistic. Concern because if the United States is investing heavily in these ships, it’s because it sees a strategic advantage in them. And China doesn’t want to be caught off guard.

The response could be a naval escalation. China could accelerate the construction of its own warships. It could develop new weapons specifically designed to counter American battleships. It could strengthen its positions in the South China Sea. And suddenly, we find ourselves in an arms race that is dangerously reminiscent of the Cold War—with even higher stakes. Because this time, the two powers have deeply interdependent economies, and a war between them would be cataclysmic.

Perplexed Allies

The United States’ allies—Japan, South Korea, Australia, and the Philippines—are unsure how to react. On the one hand, they want the United States to remain militarily strong and to maintain its presence in the Pacific. On the other hand, they wonder whether the Trump-Class submarines are really the right strategy. Or if it’s just a prestige project that will divert resources from more effective defense measures.

Some allies might be tempted to participate in the program—to co-fund it or acquire their own versions. Others might prefer to invest in different technologies—submarines, missile defense systems, or cyber capabilities. And this strategic divergence could create tensions within the alliances, because in a crisis, coordination is essential. And if every country has its own vision of defense, that coordination becomes difficult.

We’re living in strange times. A time when superpowers are competing to see who has the biggest… fleet. It’s almost comical. Except it’s not funny. Because behind these ego games, there are real tensions. Real threats. And real consequences if things get out of hand. The Trump-Class ships aren’t just vessels. They’re symbols. Declarations of intent. Bets on the future. And the whole world is watching, wondering whether the United States is visionary or crazy. I wonder that too. And I still don’t have an answer.

When Battleships Reigned

There was a time when battleships were the undisputed masters of the oceans. In the early 20th century, all the major naval powers were building them. The Dreadnought race between Great Britain and Germany contributed to the tensions that led to World War I. During World War II, battleships played crucial roles—from the USS Arizona, sunk at Pearl Harbor, to the USS Missouri, where Japan signed its surrender.

But their reign came to an end with the advent of naval aviation. Aircraft carriers offered a range and flexibility that battleships could not match. The Battle of Midway in 1942 demonstrated that air power would henceforth decide naval wars. And gradually, battleships were relegated to secondary roles—coastal bombardment, amphibious support—before being completely decommissioned. Are we repeating history? Or are we writing a different chapter this time?

Mistakes Not to Repeat

Military history is full of examples of obsolete technologies that were kept in use for too long. The French Maginot Line, considered impregnable, was bypassed in a matter of days. Cavalry charges against machine guns. Soviet heavy tanks against portable anti-tank missiles. Each time, generals were convinced that the old methods would still work. And each time, reality proved them wrong. Brutally.

The Navy must avoid this trap. If it builds the Trump-class submarines, it must not be out of nostalgia. Nor out of pride. It must be because, strategically, tactically, and technologically, it makes sense. Because analyses show a real advantage. Otherwise, in twenty years, military historians will look back on this program as a costly folly. A lesson on the dangers of letting political ego dictate military strategy. And nobody wants that. At least, I hope not.

History judges us. Always. In a few decades, someone will read about the Trump-class battleships and form an opinion. Were they visionaries or arrogant? Bold or foolish? The answer will depend on the events that follow. If the battleships prove their worth in a conflict, Trump will be a genius. If they turn out to be useless or, worse, vulnerable, he’ll be mocked. That’s what leadership is all about. Making decisions whose consequences are not yet known. Betting your legacy on a vision. And hoping you’re right. Because history does not forgive mistakes.

A Windfall for Shipyards

If the Trump-Class program is approved, it will be a boon for the U.S. shipbuilding industry. Thousands of jobs will be created. Billions will be invested in shipyards. Subcontractors across the country will be mobilized to supply components and materials. For economically struggling regions, particularly in the South and on the East Coast, this is a lifeline.

But there’s a downside. If the program monopolizes resources, other naval projects could be delayed or canceled. Next-generation destroyers, submarines, frigates—all of these could take a back seat. And if the Trump-Class ships go over budget (which almost always happens in defense), the impact on the Navy’s finances could be disastrous. It’s as much an economic gamble as it is a military one.

Lobbies in Action

Behind every major defense program are lobbyists. Companies seeking contracts. Unions seeking jobs. Elected officials seeking investments in their districts. And the Trump-class destroyers are no exception. The halls of Congress will be filled with lobbyists touting the project’s merits, promising jobs, and waving the banner of national security.

And that’s where it gets complicated. Because military decisions should be made based on strategic needs—not on economic interests. But in reality, the two are inextricably linked. And separating what’s truly necessary from what’s merely politically advantageous is nearly impossible. So we move forward, hoping that the right decisions will be made—but with no guarantees.

I hate this part. The part where money and politics get mixed up with national security. Because I know decisions will be made for the wrong reasons. Not because that’s what the military needs, but because it creates jobs in the right state. Because it enriches the right company. And it makes me cynical. Because I want to believe that our leaders put security first. But I know that’s not always true. So I watch this program unfold, and I wonder: how many decisions will be made for the right reasons? And how many for the wrong ones?

The Crucial 60 Days

The countdown has begun. The Navy has 60 days to establish a design schedule. That may seem like a long time. Or terribly short, depending on your perspective. The engineers will have to work day and night. Simulate. Calculate. Evaluate. They’ll have to answer hundreds of technical questions. What size? What displacement? What propulsion? What armament? What armor? How many crew members?

And above all, they’ll have to estimate how long it will take. Because building a battleship isn’t a quick process—even with modern technology. We’re likely looking at 8 to 12 years from design to commissioning. Perhaps longer if complications arise. And during all that time, the world keeps changing. Threats evolve. Technology advances. And what seemed like a good idea at first may become obsolete before the first ship is even finished.

The Final Decision

Once the timeline is set, the moment of truth will arrive. The Pentagon will have to decide: do we go ahead or not? Congress will have to approve the funding. The president will have to sign off on it. And at that point, we either commit fully to the Trump-Class program or we walk away. There are no half-measures. Building one or two battleships just to “try it out” makes no sense. It’s all or nothing.

And this decision will shape the Navy’s future for decades to come. If we build the Trump-class ships and they succeed, they’ll become the heart of U.S. naval strategy. If we build them and they fail, we’ll have wasted precious resources. And if we don’t build them, we’ll always wonder: what if? What if we’d dared? What if it had worked? These questions will haunt decision-makers. Whatever their choice.

In 60 days, we’ll know. Well, we’ll know a little more. We’ll know if it’s feasible. If it’s realistic. If it’s worth it. But even then, we won’t have all the answers. Because the real answers won’t come for years. When the ships are built. Or not. When they’re tested. Or not. When they’re used in combat. Or not. The uncertainty is unbearable. And yet, it’s in this uncertainty that we live. Always. We make decisions without knowing the consequences. We gamble on the future. And we hope we’re right. It’s terrifying. And exhilarating. And human.

A Bet on History

The Trump-class ships aren’t just ships. They’re a gamble. A gamble that the future of naval warfare may include concepts from the past, reinvented with today’s technology. A gamble that intimidation and physical presence still matter in a world of drones and missiles. A gamble that America can still surprise the world. And like any gamble, it can be won. Or lost. Spectacularly.

Trump has always loved bold gambles. The towers that bear his name. The ventures that defy logic. The political campaigns no one thought possible. And now, battleships. Massive warships—obsolete to some, visionary to others—that will carry his name across the oceans. For decades to come. This is his legacy. For better or for worse. History will be the judge. But he, at least, dared.

The world is watching

China is watching. Russia is watching. Allies are watching. Adversaries are watching. Everyone wants to see if the United States will really go through with it. If they will really build battleships in the 21st century. And depending on what happens, other nations will adjust their strategies. It’s a complex geopolitical dance. Every move triggers counter-moves. Every decision has global repercussions. And the Trump-Class ships are now at the center of this dance.

I’m ending this article with more questions than answers. Are the Trump-Class ships a brilliant idea or a disaster? I don’t know. Will they change naval warfare or become monuments to hubris? I don’t know. But I do know one thing: we’re living in extraordinary times. An era where the impossible becomes possible. Where the rules are being rewritten. Where boldness counts for more than caution. And these battleships—whether they’re built or not, whether they succeed or fail—represent something greater than themselves. They represent the refusal to accept that the future is already written. The refusal to believe that old methods are dead. The refusal to give up before even trying. And that, at the very least, deserves our attention. If not our respect.

I am not a journalist, but a columnist. I am an analyst, an observer of the military and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work consists of dissecting defense decisions, understanding their geopolitical implications, and anticipating the consequences of strategic choices. I do not claim to possess the cold objectivity of traditional journalism. I strive for clarity, sincere analysis, and a deep understanding of the issues that concern us all.

This text respects the fundamental distinction between verified facts and interpretive commentary. The factual information presented in this article comes from official and verifiable sources, including the U.S. Navy’s announcement regarding the Trump-Class program, statements by Pentagon officials, analyses published by 19FortyFive and other defense-focused media outlets such as Jane’s Defence Weekly, Defense News, and Naval News, as well as historical data on U.S. battleships.

The analyses and interpretations presented here constitute a critical synthesis based on the available information. My role is to interpret these facts, contextualize them, and give them strategic and human meaning. Any future developments in the Trump-Class program could alter the perspectives presented here.