Summary and Key Points: Dr. Brent Eastwood explains that the “Golden Fleet” initiative has moved from rhetoric to reality with the announcement of the Trump-class battleship, starting with the USS Defiant (BBG-1).
-Displacing 40,000 tons and costing an estimated $20 billion, the Defiant is designed as a “kinetic missile barge” capable of carrying 128 VLS cells and nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.
Trump-Class Battleship. Image Credit: Creative Commons/White House.
Trump-Class Battleship. Image Credit: Creative Commons/White House Photo.
-Alongside the $185 billion Golden Dome missile defense umbrella, this strategy marks a return to centralized, high-mass naval power, challenging the Navy’s previous shift toward distributed operations.
The Return of the U.S. Navy Battleship: Why the Pentagon is Pivoting to the Trump-Class
What is it with President Donald Trump and gold? There are gold Trumpian staircases, gold logos, gold watches, gold coins, and now the $185 billion Golden Dome missile defense umbrella and the U.S. Navy’s “Golden Fleet.” That last includes the proposed Trump-class battleship, planned to start with the USS Defiant (BBG-1).
This powerful modern dreadnought will carry 128 vertical launch cells that could send hypersonic ballistic and cruise missiles deep into enemy airspace.
One of the glaring problems of the Trump-class is the expected cost: more than $20 billion per vessel. To put that figure into perspective, take a look at the price tag for the USS Gerald R. Ford supercarrier. That was a hefty $13.3 billion investment. The USS Defiant would need at least an additional $6.7 billion before it graces the seas.
The Concept: So Far So Good
This battle wagon is a modern missile barge that would displace 40,000 tons. It could carry hundreds of ballistic and cruise missiles and might launch hypersonic weapons. The Trump-class would be a marvel in propulsion, with the latest nuclear powerplant giving it worldwide reach and range. It would have the speed to keep up with a carrier strike group and react quickly to enemy attacks against U.S. flattops.
Can It Attack the Shores Like the Iowa-class Battleships?
Shore bombardment would also punish the enemy. The Trump-class could take out many targets to prep the battlefield for an amphibious invasion. Its firepower would be immense, and the missile barge would seek to overwhelm defenses and rain in danger-close projectiles to protect Marines fighting onshore.
USS Iowa Seal 19FortyFive.com Original Image Taken By Harry J. Kazianis Onboard Battleship USS Iowa in 2025.
16-Inch Guns of USS Iowa 19FortyFive Image taken By Harry J. Kazianis on the Deck of the Battleship USS Iowa.
USS Iowa Battleship. Image Credit: 19FortyFive.com
Kinetic Missile Fight Stalwart
The proposal is not without critics. Naysayers agree about the importance of missiles, both conventional and nuclear-tipped, for future warfare. I call this the “kinetic missile fight.” Defense strategists are learning lessons from the use of projectiles in Russia and Ukraine, as well as the way Houthis menaced U.S. warships with ballistic missiles. Now again, during the U.S. and Israeli war against Iran, the skies are filled with projectiles from both sides.
But is a new ship the correct way to deliver munitions during the kinetic missile fight? The U.S. Navy for decades has depended on Tomahawk cruise missile delivered by surface vessels and submarines. Why not use existing platforms for missile strike? Does the Navy need a new and expensive ship to conduct a fight that is already possible with current vessels?
Let’s Do It Anyway – the Weapons Onboard Are Worth It
Proponents say yes. The USS Defiant could be outfitted with the Conventional Prompt Strike rapid-velocity weapon. It would also have a nuclear-tipped Surface Launched Cruise Missile.
There are also 128 Mark 41 Vertical Launching System cells. Plans include a 32-megajoule electromagnetic railgun and enough room for 12 Conventional Prompt Strike hypersonic missiles.
Can It Also Defend Itself?
However, the critics are still out in force. The Trump-class battleship may not be as survivable as other ships in the fleet. Yes, the Aegis Combat System deployed on destroyers and frigates would extend its protection to the new battleship. The Trump-class itself would need some type of shield, such as the SM-Standard Missile family of interceptors and a close-in weapon system. This would add more weight and cost to the vessel.
Can the United States Even Build It?
Mark Cancian of CSIS is a pessimist. He thinks the missile barge would first require a ship-building industry able to reliably produce such vessels. Does the U.S. maritime industry have the capabilities to produce such an expensive and ambitious ship? Besides aircraft carriers, this would be the largest vessel built in the last eight decades.
Not A Ship That Can Be Integrated into Existing Naval Doctrine
“The Navy has been moving toward a distributed operations model, in which fleet assets are spread out and connected by a network, maximizing fires by coordinating many different sensors and shooters. This [battleship] proposal would go in the other direction, building a small number of large, expensive, and potentially vulnerable assets,” Cancian wrote.
An aerial bow view of the battleship USS IOWA (BB 61) with its 15 guns (nine 16-inch and six 5-inch) firing a salvo off the starboard side.
USS Iowa battleship. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
Iowa-Class Battleship USS New Jersey. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
A tug boat nudges the bow of the battleship USS Wisconsin (BB 64) as the ship is pushed from the Norfolk Naval Shipyard to the Nauticus Museum in Norfolk, Va., on Dec. 7, 2000. The Wisconsin will be the centerpiece of a four-part exhibit on the battleship’s role in Naval history.
It’s a Magnet for Enemy Punishment
The idea that the Trump-class battleships would be “missile, bomb and drone magnets” is a real concern. They would not be able to patrol close to shore unthreatened. The Navy requires a distributed deployment approach that integrates weapon systems able to work with submarines and the other ships in the fleet.
The Pentagon is calling for 20 to 25 Trump-class battleships without mentioning cost and feasibility.
The tactics and techniques needed for the USS Defiant and its future sister ships have not been developed. Is this a stand-alone ship that can patrol without the defense coverage of a carrier strike group? Or does it need to be integrated with other naval assets?
This Program Needs Congressional Buy-In
These questions must be answered before work begins. The program also does not have any Congressional champions at the moment.
The U.S. shipbuilding industry is dragged down by problems. Most new ship programs are delayed. There is no timeline for the Trump-class, and it is not clear where the money is going to come from. Will other ships and submarines need to be curtailed or even cancelled to make the Trump-class available?
This Is Not the Golden Answer to the Golden Fleet
I’m willing to give the USS Defiant concept a chance to develop. It could be a difference maker in future warfare. The load-out of weapons is impressive. But I worry about stretching resources and existing shipbuilding efforts too thin.
The cost is prohibitive, and the ability to fire cruise missiles and hypersonic weapons can be incorporated into existing ships. The Trump-class battleship may be a good idea that is just not fleshed out properly. Just because it is part of a “Golden Fleet” does not mean it should be built in numbers.
We may not have heard the last of the Trump-class, but the pessimists could win out over the optimists—this missile barge may not come to fruition anytime soon.
About the Author: Brent M. Eastwood
Author of now over 3,000 articles on defense issues, Brent M. Eastwood, PhD is the author of Don’t Turn Your Back On the World: a Conservative Foreign Policy and Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare plus two other books. Brent was the founder and CEO of a tech firm that predicted world events using artificial intelligence. He served as a legislative fellow for US Senator Tim Scott and advised the senator on defense and foreign policy issues. He has taught at American University, George Washington University, and George Mason University. Brent is a former US Army Infantry officer. He can be followed on X @BMEastwood.