A little boy found a machine gun…
Residents of the USSR immediately understood the reference to folk poetry of the time, and I think they'll explain it in more modern terms in the comments. But yes, old Donald Trump increasingly resembles the boy from a creepy 70s poetry series or Mikhail Gorbachev from a more recent joke. There was one about Gorbachev using "innovative" (the word didn't even exist back then) methods to kill chickens. The line went, "It's a shame they died, I still had so many new ideas..."
That's something, because Trump's latest turn has caused surprise, admiration, and bewilderment all rolled into one. Strong, strong, damn it!
We're talking about battleships. Yes, Trump suddenly seems to need these ships. Something strange is going on in the US: F-117A Nighthawks, which were supposedly decommissioned long ago, are constantly being spotted in the skies, there's talk of F-22 upgrades, and now they've gotten around to battleships.
Trump said something that, I suspect, made some people in the command fleet the last hair fell out, and the others began to rub their hands with joy:
The country is once again becoming a wealthy nation. Just the other day, we uncovered $31 billion, a surprise discovery. Even my financial advisors couldn't figure out where it came from. It later turned out it was my new tariffs that brought it in. These are funds that could be used to revive the battleships.
Yes, yes, I'm thinking about battleships. We have a Navy board, and we've had discussions about that. I love looking at the Iowa in California. I don't think it's all outdated. Six-inch armor, steel. It's not aluminum that melts under missiles.
Yes, yes, I'm thinking about battleships. We have a Navy board, and we've had discussions about that. I love looking at the Iowa in California. I don't think it's all outdated. Six-inch armor, steel. It's not aluminum that melts under missiles.
Of course, one can only be happy for a country where it is so easy to “raise” 31 billion dollars from the ground, but what Uncle Donald is going to spend it on is truly astonishing.
Trump said he had serious discussions with Navy Secretary John Phelan about the possibility of returning the battleships to artillery weapons and well-armored hulls into the structure of the US Navy. The Secretary of the Navy clearly had nowhere to go, he couldn't just sink to the bottom, so he had to talk.
But there are more questions than answers, raising questions about the wisdom and practicality of the Navy using a battleship it hasn't had in active service since 1992. At the same time, Trump's comments raise real questions about the future of naval guns for large surface warships, especially with railgun development underway worldwide, and the potential value of additional armor to protect against threats including cruise missiles and Drones.
In fact, there's certainly a lot to think about here. But we'll discuss strategy and tactics a little later; for now, we have the theory, or rather, what Trump just put forth.
Trump outlined the prospects for building a new battleship for the Navy at an unprecedented meeting of senior US officers at the Marine Corps base in Quantico, Virginia.
"I think we should think about battleships," Trump said, adding that he had discussed the issue with Secretary Phelan. "Some people will say, 'No, that's old technology.' I don't know. I don't think it's old technology, if you look at those guns."
We're actually considering this concept: a battleship with a solid six-inch steel hull. Not aluminum, which melts when hit by a missile. And the shells are much cheaper than the missiles. We're seriously considering this.
We're actually considering this concept: a battleship with a solid six-inch steel hull. Not aluminum, which melts when hit by a missile. And the shells are much cheaper than the missiles. We're seriously considering this.
In fact, many are unclear whether Trump was referring to attempts to reactivate any of the four former Iowa-class battleships, which are stored as museum ships in various locations across the United States, or to building new ones. It's also unclear how seriously the Navy is considering building battleships of any kind in the future.
Iowa-class battleship USS New Jersey, 1985
The Navy is striving to maintain its combat readiness at a modern level. In accordance with the upcoming National Defense Strategy, work has begun to update the assessment and requirements for combat ships. This work is aimed at deploying the right capabilities in the right numbers and in the right theater of operations. Once force structure decisions are made, they will be made public and promptly implemented. Until then, internal discussions will remain confidential.
From the official statement of the US Navy press service.
Well, that is to say, everyone there is in a state of mild... shock.
Although, it's not the first time Trump has floated the battleship idea. Ten years ago, speaking from the deck of the former USS Iowa, then-presidential candidate Trump raised the possibility of returning the ship to service if he were elected. Trump won the election, but the Iowa remained moored in the Port of Los Angeles, California, where it remains to this day. The photo from this event appears in the title of this article.
In some ways, the idea of recommissioning the Iowas (or rather, recommissioning them again) reflects past experience. They were the last battleships built for the Navy, and Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri, and Wisconsin were commissioned between 1943 and 1944. All served in World War II in the Pacific and were decommissioned between 1948 and 1949 as part of the post-war naval reduction. Two more ships of this class, still under construction at the time of Japan's surrender, were completely decommissioned.
All four Iowa-class battleships together
Between 1950 and 1951, the Navy recommissioned the Iowa, New Jersey, and Wisconsin for service in the Korean War. All three battleships, as well as the Missouri, were subsequently decommissioned until 1960. The New Jersey returned briefly to service between 1968 and 1969 and served in the Vietnam War.
The Iowa shells North Korean positions on the beach in 1952.
In the 1980s, under President Ronald Reagan, four Iowa-class battleships underwent a major overhaul and modernization program before being recommissioned. The most notable changes included the installation of launchers for 32 Tomahawk land-based cruise missiles and up to 16 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, a change worth emphasizing in light of Trump's remark that "missiles are much cheaper than missiles." The ships also received new radars, electronic warfare systems, and other upgrades, including Mk 15 Phalanx short-range air defense systems.
One of the Tomahawk missile launchers on the former USS Wisconsin, now a museum ship in Norfolk, Virginia.
Tomahawk missile launch
Until the Ticonderoga-class cruisers with 122 Mk 41 vertical launch system cells and the upgraded Spruance-class destroyers with 61 Mk 41 cells entered service in the late 1980s, the modified Iowa design carried the largest number of Tomahawks of any ship in the Navy.
The four battleships continued in service until the end of the Cold War, then were decommissioned between 1990 and 1992. The Missouri and Wisconsin remained in service long enough to see action in the Persian Gulf War.
In 2015, it was conceivable, though increasingly unlikely, that the return of some of the Iowas to service would be possible. The Missouri and New Jersey were decommissioned in 1995 and 1999, respectively, but the Iowa and Wisconsin remained mothballed until 2006. They were then converted into floating museums, but Congress only authorized this under a statutory provision that the U.S. military could reclaim them if the president invoked certain provisions of the National Emergencies Act.
In 2007, lawmakers clarified that this meant, among other things, that "spare parts and unique equipment, such as 16-inch gun barrels and shells, if donated" could also be "returned if the battleships were returned to the Navy in the event of a national emergency."
The debate over the need for naval fire support for future amphibious operations was a key factor in the decision to keep the ships in mothballed condition.
Ten years later, the estimated costs and time required to restore any of the former Iowa-class battleships to combat readiness have likely increased, perhaps significantly. Restoring their aging steam propulsion systems and training personnel to operate them poses particular challenges, primarily because there are virtually no specialists left who specialize in steam boilers and turbines from the last century.
The main machinery compartment of the USS New Jersey during sea trials in 1982 before recommissioning the following year.
No country in the world currently builds new warships of the size and configuration of traditional battleships. Any attempt to do so in the United States would be extremely expensive and labor-intensive. During the last refurbishment, the Iowa had over 1500 crew members on board. This is more than five times the crew of an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. Even assuming automation could reduce this number, assigning a large number of crew members to a single surface combatant would be problematic for a Navy that has had recruitment problems in the recent past.
Furthermore, in the context of modern naval warfare, obvious questions arise about the feasibility of using very large surface combatants, which also require large crews and whose bulk is taken up by relatively short-range guns. Operating such ships in daily life would be extremely expensive and could create other challenges for the US Navy, which is struggling to maintain its existing fleet.
However, just 100 years ago, the military in this world had completely different preferences.
A ship using gunfire must approach at very close range to use it. weapon against any target, while the enemy's anti-access and area-denial capabilities are only expanding. This further narrows the range of operations they can conduct, given that in many cases, a ship could end up within range of enemy weapons. Such a ship is already a priority target for enemy forces, making it difficult to conduct more independent operations without the involvement of a larger surface force.
The future of amphibious operations, which rely most effectively on naval fire support, is increasingly being called into question. Since 2020, the US Marine Corps has been conducting a complete reorganization of its force structure, focusing on new operational concepts that place significantly less emphasis on deployment by traditional large amphibious ships.
Trump's statement yesterday that naval ammunition is cheaper than missiles is true, but this reality doesn't exist in a vacuum. Missiles have become the primary weapon of surface ships around the world for striking targets at sea, on land, and in the air, largely due to the far greater range and accuracy they offer compared to even very large-caliber guns.
Large surface warships in service today, including those in the US Navy, are typically equipped with at least one dual-purpose gun, but its role is clearly secondary to the missile launchers, as these guns are much smaller than those on the Iowa-class ships. Depending on the class, navies today carry guns ranging from 76mm to 130mm.
In addition, they are usually equipped with a variety of other weapons, of smaller caliber, but for close-range anti-aircraft and now also anti-drone defense.
However, it must be acknowledged that intercepting a cruise missile is simpler than intercepting a 406mm projectile. As American experiments have shown, creating an interceptor missile with a Doppler-based seeker is possible, just as effectively intercepting a projectile is possible. The only question is at what cost. Intercepting a 406mm projectile that costs $11,000 with a missile that costs $1,660,000.
An Iowa-class battleship fires nine 406mm shells in a single salvo. That's a minimum of $15 million to neutralize. Considering the 16"/50 Mark 7 gun is capable of firing two rounds per minute (and did so in the same Battle of the Philippine Sea in 1944), that's $30 million per minute to neutralize.
You might say, "The Arleigh Burke" can fire more missiles, but interceptors aren't any cheaper." Yes, that's true. However, it's one thing to target a missile that produces a decent heat signature, has working radar sensors, and is a 6-7 meter long metal cigar, thus detectable in the radio spectrum. It's quite another to target a projectile that's simply inertial flight and is a 1,6 meter long, 0,4 meter diameter dummy. As the saying goes, target as much as you want. The main thing is to make it while the projectile is in the air.
The US Navy's Arleigh Burke-class destroyer fires its 127mm gun.
It's worth noting that senior Navy officials have previously discussed the need to consider future naval warfare plans beyond the total number of missile launchers, especially given the fleet's reduced size. Key to these discussions was how to fill the gaps left by the retirement of the last Ticonderoga-class cruisers, now scheduled for the end of the decade, which will lead to the decommissioning of hundreds of vertical launch tube cells. However, large-caliber guns, historically associated with battleships, were not considered as an alternative.
Concepts have been put forward in the past for battleship-like arsenal ships equipped with hundreds of vertical launch tubes that could simply carry missiles that would be controlled from normal ships.
An illustration from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency showing a simulated arsenal ship built in the 1990s.
We've already seen the serious controversy surrounding the Zumwalt-class destroyers. A pair of 155mm Advanced Gun Systems (AGS), concealed within stealth turrets and complemented by specialized long-range projectiles, was a key feature of the final DDG-1000 design, clearly designed to meet the growing demand for naval fire support.
However, the proposed munitions for the anti-aircraft guns became so expensive that the Navy decided not to purchase them, rendering the anti-aircraft guns effectively useless. The Navy is currently removing at least one turret from each of its three DDG-1000-class destroyers to convert them to launch intermediate-range Conventional Prompt Strike (IRCPS) hypersonic missiles.
Defense spending cuts immediately following the end of the Cold War led the Navy to significantly scale back its plans for the Zumwalt-class. Consequently, only three ships were built, one of which has yet to be commissioned. The DDG-1000 program incurred significant costs and faced serious technical challenges amid persistent questions about the ships' intended roles and missions. USS Zumwalt, USS Michael Monsoor, and the future USS Lyndon B. Johnson are currently assigned to a unit focused primarily on research and development, as well as test and evaluation. The cost of maintaining this small fleet of exotic ships remains a pressing question.
A group of photographs showing the installation of the new IRCPS hypersonic missile launchers on the USS Zumwalt.
There's a developmental avenue that could significantly expand the capabilities of naval weapons: railguns. These weapons, which use electromagnets rather than chemical propellants to launch projectiles at very high speeds, could offer a new and flexible way to quickly engage targets at sea, on land, and in the air, at significant ranges for a weapon. Railguns also offer advantages over missiles in terms of magazine capacity and per-shot cost.
Between 2005 and 2021, the Navy worked intensively to develop a functional railgun. The projected cost of the projectiles for this weapon was approximately $100,000. This was not only cheaper than missiles, but also much cheaper than the projectiles the Navy was developing for the guns on the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, which cost up to $800,000 per projectile before the project was canceled.
The US Navy suspended work, at least publicly, on a naval railgun prototype in the early 2020s, citing technical difficulties. Planned sea trials have been repeatedly postponed. Development of ammunition for use in existing 127mm naval guns, as well as land-based weapon systems, continues.
Other countries, including China, have also been developing this capability in recent years. This could herald the coming emergence of a new category of gun-armed naval vessels, which some experts and observers have sarcastically described as something like the second coming of the battleship.
Trump's remarks also touched on the fact that battleships like the Iowa offered a higher level of physical protection than modern surface combatants. In particular, battleships have historically featured thick armor belts along the outer hull and below the waterline. The Iowa's main armor belts, composed of 307mm-thick Class A cemented armor plates, were mounted at an angle, resulting in a thickness of 349mm. This would clearly require new types of weapons today, as penetrating armor of such thickness (and it's worth remembering that any battleship has a steel backing beneath the main armor belt, with cement between the backing and the armor plates) would prove a formidable challenge for modern anti-ship missiles.
It's also unclear what exactly the president meant when he mentioned "aluminum." Aluminum and aluminum alloys offer certain advantages in shipbuilding, particularly in terms of weight and cost. However, for many years, there has been debate about their relative strength, as well as their lower melting point and fire resistance compared to available steels.
Persistent cracks in the aluminum superstructures of the Ticonderoga-class cruisers played a significant role in the Navy's decision to switch to an all-steel design for the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. The all-aluminum Independence-class littoral combat ships also suffered from cracks for many years.
Independence-class littoral combat ship
A modern version of the armor belts found on traditional battleships could provide additional layers of protection against anti-ship cruise missiles, including those with specially designed penetrating warheads.
Beyond battleships, Donald Trump has for many years taken a very active interest in Navy ship design. At the end of his first term, the president claimed to have personally intervened to transform the Constellation-class frigate from a "terrible-looking ship" into a "yacht with missiles."
"I don't like some of your ships. I'm a very aesthetic person, and I don't like some of your ships from an aesthetic standpoint," Trump said during another speech today. "They say, 'Oh, it's stealth.' I say it's an ugly ship."
Even before he was confirmed, Navy Secretary Phelan said Trump also texted him in the middle of the night to complain about what is commonly referred to as "rust problems" on American warships.
In 2017, Trump also proposed that the Navy abandon the electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) used on Ford-class aircraft carriers and return to steam-powered catapults. The EMALS system had been a source of problems for years, requiring the Navy to expend significant resources to address the issue.
All of this is happening as the Navy continues to struggle to acquire and commission new warships, as well as modernize its fleet overall, not to mention maintain existing vessels. The Constellation-class frigate program, already three years behind schedule and slated to deliver the first ship nearly ten years after the initial contract, has become a prime example of these shortcomings. Constellation was supposed to reduce risks and costs by using a serial design as a starting point, but the ship now shares only about 15% of its design with its parent project, the Franco-Italian multi-purpose frigate Fregata Europea Multi-Missione (FREMM), a development that has left Congress feeling less than optimistic.
An image of the future frigate USS Constellation
"Frankly, all of our programs are a complete mess," Secretary Phelan told members of Congress during a June hearing. "Our most effective program is six months behind schedule and 57% over budget."
In recent years, the Trump administration and Congress have sought to reverse these trends, including by incentivizing American shipbuilders and exploring opportunities to attract foreign companies. The Navy is also increasingly focusing on acquiring more small vessels, including unmanned ones, to strengthen its capabilities and operational capabilities, and maximize the efficient use of existing resources.
It's important to remember that Trump often makes grandiose statements about potential future military purchases that never materialize.
Nevertheless, the Iowa-class battleships, built in the 40s, saw service in the wars of the 20th century with flying colors. They supported American forces in operations in Korea, Vietnam, and even during Operation Desert Storm.
But with the advent of smart, fast anti-ship missiles capable of attacking such giants in a controlled swarm from beyond the range of their defensive weapons, maintaining such enormous ships, which cost over $2 billion per year per unit, became completely pointless.
Moreover, the thick armor of battleships is no panacea. Unarmored aircraft carriers proved more effective, as they were simply able to push all potential threats a considerable distance away with their air wings.
However, old Donald often gets carried away. Perhaps it's due to his overly close contact with a certain Eastern European president who has mastered practically the entire spectrum of complex substances, or perhaps something else. But the recent release of information about battleships could simply be another public statement. Like a reconciliation between warring countries.
So it's no wonder the White House calls the moments when Trump reconciles Albania and Azerbaijan "those days." Maybe he'll even let them go, and the battleships will remain in place. And, in our parlance, just because a little boy finds a machine gun doesn't mean the village is in danger.
Information