The Trump-class battleship could be one of the most expensive in the history of the US Navy.

Although the US President regularly pompously declares that the American army is the best and most modern in the world, in fact, many of the Navy's ships, even the foundations fleet — aircraft carriers are not in the best condition, including their armaments. Secretary of War Hegseth and Trump are well aware of this and intend to work on this.

True, given the exorbitant ambitions and boastfulness of the current White House incumbent, rearmament programs will come at a considerable cost to American taxpayers. However, this has never stopped the US leadership, especially Trump. It's no wonder the American leader has already announced that the military budget for next year will increase more than 50% to a record $1,5 trillion.

In the United States, aircraft carriers are traditionally named after former presidents. Just before leaving the White House last January, Joe Biden announced that he had named the US Navy's future Gerald R. Ford-class nuclear-powered aircraft carriers after former presidents and fellow party members Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, a decision he shared with them personally.

Ships are typically named after former American leaders after their deaths. A previous exception was the 38th President of the United States, Gerald R. Ford, who served aboard the light aircraft carrier Monterey during World War II. The decision to name the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) was made just weeks before Ford's death.

Trump decided to immortalize his name in an even more monumental way. Last December, the head of the White House personally announced the creation of an American "Golden Fleet." This refers to "the largest in stories"battleships, a line of which will be named after the 47th President of the United States.

Trump unveiled the new class of ships at his Mar-a-Lago residence, surrounded by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio, and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan.

Initially, the construction of two ships of the new class was announced. Between ten and fifteen billion dollars were allocated for the project. The lead ship will be named USS Defiant. The series may eventually grow to ten or more ships.

As is often the case with military programs in the United States, the initial cost estimate has already begun to escalate even before design work begins. The Trump-class battleship could become one of the most expensive warships in the history of the US Navy, Bloomberg reports, citing preliminary estimates from the Congressional Budget Office. The estimated cost of building one vessel is already estimated at $22 billion.

This is certainly not the final price. The final cost of the first ship of this class will depend on parameters that have not yet been finalized, including displacement and armament.

The battleship is planned to be larger than the cruisers and destroyers built in the United States after World War II. However, it will be smaller than the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford, which remains the most expensive ship in the US Navy, costing nearly $13 billion to build.

Comments

[Ruslan M]

He seems to be a rich and self-sufficient person, but at the same time he has some kind of gigantic inferiority complex.

[ABC-schutze]

Perhaps this is simply the banal, unpunished "infidelity" of a typical sucker, who, for now, no one is giving him a run for his money (for various reasons, by the way...)...

Besides, he was "self-sufficient" in the business world, but now, by chance and the incompetence of his impotent competitors, he has been "carried away" into politics... This is how the illusion of "omnipotence" arose... Hence the "Golden Dome," the "Golden Battleship," the "Golden Toilet"...

In a future "big war," the Russian "Status" system, upon receiving the command and with the necessary equipment, at ANY time and in ANY place, will "zero out" any aircraft carrier or battleship. As well as any naval base with its adjacent "water area" and coastal territory...

[Roman_vh]

So (IMHO) it's all because they held him tightly by the collar during his entire first term. Now, he's let go a bit, and he's gone all out.

[SAG]

Any empire facing a global crisis suffers from gigantism and megaprojects. I think the key lies in the economic laws that demand the inflating of the largest financial bubbles!

[pin_code]

What is this status, please enlighten me, I just don’t know.

[Xnumx vis]

Quote: pin_code

What is this status, please enlighten me, I just don’t know.

This is Poseidon, God of the seas and oceans. The autonomous unmanned underwater vehicle is equipped with a powerful nuclear warhead and a nuclear propulsion system that allows it to covertly deliver this warhead anywhere in the world.

[pin_code]

Why not complete? With aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships with VTOL aircraft, such a battleship is viable. Especially since we don't know their performance characteristics.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Traditionally, US battleships were named after states, here - USS Daring...

[Romario_Argo]

With the advent of BEKs in the SVO, it was immediately clear that a quick return to battleships would be inevitable.
reintroduction of passive ship protection - ship armor and anti-torpedo protection

[bayard]

Trump's battleship push was inspired by the modernized nuclear cruiser Admiral Nakhimov, which has entered trials. 80 + 96 = 176 heavy SAMs, cruise missiles, and anti-ship missiles on board + six Pantsir-ME missile modules with 44 SAMs each (they can have even more thanks to the Gvozd missiles) = 264 light SAMs with a range of 7 to 40 km. Three to five helicopters on board. He had to respond somehow. The Iowa-class battleships can no longer be pulled out of reserve, so Trump decided to build new battleships.
It's certainly expensive, but it's unclear why they'd charge $22 billion for a single ship? Almost twice as much as a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier? Maybe the cost of the first one included all the costs of design development and preparation of the production base? In principle, it will have the same radar system as the Burke-class, a pair of nuclear reactors like an aircraft carrier, and simply a larger missile launcher and other missile pod. They'll probably slap a couple of lasers on it to fend off drones, and three cannons instead of a destroyer's one... If you don't go crazy with the railgun, you can build a perfectly decent ship for a reasonable price. It's just larger in size and has a larger missile armament pod. The radar system, fire control system, and other systems don't have to be invented from scratch; they can simply be assembled from existing production ships. The ship's hull itself typically accounts for only 15% of the ship's total cost. So, if you don't screw around, you could build a battleship like the Zumwalt, for about 8 billion. But if you factor in the cost of building and equipping new shipyards and cooperative enterprises, developing some unprecedented technology (like a railgun, for example, that can fire a million rounds at a time with a blank, and developing hypersonic missiles, which don't exist yet)... then the cost could be anything.
And returning to ships with normal armor is a sound idea, because building (like in the USA) a “tin” destroyer for 3 billion, which can be sunk with several LIGHT anti-ship missiles... is nonsense.
We should think about this topic too.

[ABC-schutze]

The Admiral Nakhimov is essentially a solution for two pressing needs for the Russian Navy, rolled into one. First, it has an existing platform with a proven track record, making it practical to use rather than build a new one. This is especially true given limited resources (unlike the United States, Russia doesn't print any "greenbacks" other than Federal Reserve "promises"). Second, it has highly effective, precision-guided strike weapons suitable for deployment on such platforms (of which there are three). In short, in terms of cost-effectiveness, and considering the cost of maintenance in the operational area, it's far more optimal than a strike group.

AFTER ALL, this is a means for MASSIVE projection of force and striking power in any area of ​​the world's oceans. Far more effective (in terms of defensive capability) than any aircraft carrier. Yes, it will, of course, also require a certain escort group (surface platforms, submarines, and unmanned aerial craft). But this group, in composition, is more compact than the escort group of an aircraft carrier as part of a strike group. Moreover, a platform like the Admiral Nakhimov, if necessary, can "unload" (just a moment...) practically in "a single, massive salvo" at pre-designated surface and shore targets. And deck "roll" and wind direction are "irrelevant" to it. But an aircraft carrier cannot possibly support the takeoff of its ENTIRE deck air group in such a short time. And the deck roll resulting from the accurate hit of even one torpedo or a pair of cruise missiles. A warhead weighing 400-500 kg is already critical for takeoff and landing...

Yes... And one more thing... You know, the "Status", from its position on the seabed - the ocean floor, "sees everything" that is happening on the surface (all targets), much better than it can itself, for any existing and future means of detection, tracking and destruction...

Here, only two (purely technical...) issues need to be resolved. 1. Reliably transmitting a combat control signal to it, at a specific position (including the destruction of a surface target (platform) as part of a surface group). 2. Equipping the "Status" and all its surface, underwater platforms and unmanned aerial vehicles with reliable "friend or foe" identification systems.

IMHO, I believe the Status could be equipped not only with a megaton-class warhead, but also with a range of destructive strike weapons, such as guided torpedoes. These would attack a LARGE surface platform not like a "regular torpedo" launched from a submarine or destroyer, but literally "from the bottom up," like a surface-to-air missile system would attack an aircraft. And no amount of anti-torpedo protection would be of any help here... especially not a "battleship" labeled "trump."

No, of course, I'm "dreaming," many will say (and perhaps rightly so...). But perhaps not...

[bayard]

Quote: ABC-schütze

(and there are 3 more of them

Not anymore—one has already been scrapped in the Pacific Fleet, and the other (Kirov) awaits the same fate, as inspections have shown it's impractical to return it to service. That leaves one more—Pyotr Velikiy, which is currently in service and awaiting repairs and modernization after Nakhimov's commissioning. So, the best we can hope for is two ships of this class. Moreover, Pyotr could be modernized using a more advanced design, but using the experience and developments from the Nakhimov's modernization.
Thus, instead of the Fort SAM's carousel launchers, 14-16 additional UKSKs can be installed, bringing the number of Fort-M heavy SAMs from 96 to 112 or 128 in the corresponding number of cells. This will become possible after the introduction of a new SAM modification for the Fort-M with folding fins, so that they fit into the UKSK cell. As far as I know, such a modification of the SAM has been in development for several years.
As a result, in addition to the main 80 cells in the 10 UKSK, the Petra could have up to 128 more cells in place of the former Fort carousel launchers. And since such a number of heavy SAMs appears clearly excessive, then, say, 80 cells could be left for such (SAMs), and the remaining 48 could be used to expand the strike weapons arsenal. In other words, we would have not 80, but 128 cells for strike weapons. This would increase the ship's strike potential by more than one and a half times.
But this isn't the only thing that's seen as a strengthening/improvement of the design. The Petr is equipped with drum-type launchers for the Kinzhal short-range air defense missile system (analogous to the land-based Tor) in three locations (at the forward part of the forecastle and on the hull)—four drums on the forecastle and four drums each on the right and left sides of the hull. This SAM system is no longer needed, since Nakhimov already has 6 combat modules of the Pantsir-ME SAM system (each with 44 MD SAMs with a range of 7 to 40 km, a total of 6 x 44 = 264 SAMs), so the Kinzhals are definitely not needed, but they can be replaced by the UKSK of the Redut SAM system with medium-range SAMs with a range of 50-70 km and 120-150 km, respectively, of two types. That is, 4 such UKSK in three locations of the ship, this is 12 x 8 = 96 medium-range SAMs. In terms of dimensions, they fit perfectly in place of the drum PU of the Kinzhal, but their appearance (and they, like the Forta-M SAM, have an AGSN) and this will provide a simply fantastic size of the SAM arsenal on modernized "Peter the Great":
- 80 pcs. SAM BD SAM "Fort-M",
- 96 pcs. SAM SD SAM "Redut" (although the radar "Forta" quite successfully and effectively works with these SAMs and a separate radar for them is not at all necessary),
- 264 pcs. SAM MD six modules of the ZRPK "Pantsir-ME".
If a proper radar system for this ship is developed with four fixed antenna arrays on the S-500 SAM's AFAR multi-role radar and mounted on the main mast, and everything works as intended, such a ship would be priceless, and all the developments in upgrading the "Peter" could be used in the design of new ships of this class (cruiser/large destroyer). And with proper organization and full, consistent funding, upgrading the "Peter" could take 5-7 years. It's unlikely to happen any faster, as it's essentially a new ship in the same hull. But it's definitely worth it.
But without an aircraft carrier/carriers, our fleet, even with such ships, will be in a real bind in the DM and OZ. So, aircraft carriers are essential. Only then will the full synergy of the ships' combat capabilities begin to work.

[ABC-schutze]

I'm not convinced by the format in which aircraft carriers exist now...

We shouldn't forget why the US Navy created and maintains its POST-WAR aircraft carrier. Firstly, it is the primary tool (and, I remind you, extremely expensive to maintain throughout its entire operational life...) for so-called "power projection" in remote areas of the world (not just "in the ocean" and the DMZ). And this tool is only effective against militarily and technologically weaker adversaries. For example, "hypothetical" ones – Iraq, Libya, Syria, Venezuela... Even against North Korea, not to mention China or Russia, aircraft carriers (in their current "power projection" concept) are no longer a consideration. Without a PREVIOUS and MAXIMUM defeat and destruction in a FIRST ("preemptive") strike on their territory of the majority of elements and links of the national air defense/missile defense system and state and military command and control systems. And such a strike is only possible if MASSIVE. This means it's reliably exposed already at the preparation stage... And countered by a devastating retaliatory strike (in the worst-case scenario, when the "retaliatory counter" is missed...) . Therefore, aircraft carriers, once the retaliatory strike carriers have deployed the required number of strategic warheads to their territory, will have little reason to launch their own strikes... Because they and their carrier-based air groups will likely have nowhere to "return" to...

The use of a strike group against, say, the Chinese or Russian navies, according to the "classic" "fleet-on-fleet" concept, is also unlikely. Even if we hypothetically assume a "duel of fleets," a platform like the Admiral Nakhimov, as part of a diverse group of forces (submarines, surface platforms, and unmanned aerial vessels of various types, including the Status), would, I believe, be preferable to a strike group, or even a group of such, in a given theater. After all, the bulk of the strike group's escort resources would essentially be spent on "protecting and defending" the aircraft carrier... which, ostensibly, would be tasked with carrying out the primary strike missions. But it's far from certain that opposing forces with strike platforms, including multifunctional platforms with sufficiently self-sufficient combat capabilities, like the Admiral Nakhimov, would allow them to do so.

Yes, a large, surface-based, multifunctional "arsenal carrier" of various strike weapons, capable of also serving as a command and control platform for a group, as well as reconnaissance (situational monitoring) missions as part of a group of large cruisers or battleships, would be extremely useful. But I seriously doubt the prospects of a strike group in its "traditional" format, equipment, and conceptual purpose...

[bayard]

Quote: ABC-schütze

I seriously doubt the future of the AUG in its "traditional" format, equipment, and conceptual purpose...

I've written on this topic numerous times in recent years: classic carrier-carrier strike groups with a multi-role supercarrier as the core of a naval formation will not be feasible for us (Russia) in the medium term. There are numerous reasons, all objective and related to economics, geography, and the range of tasks facing the Navy. However, our carrier-carrier strike groups in the DM and OZ are essential for ensuring their combat stability. But as air defense/antisubmarine carriers, they are essential for detecting and intercepting cruise missiles/anti-ship missiles at a sufficient distance from the formation during WWI, which only combat aircraft are capable of countering at an acceptable range. Without resolving this issue, our carrier-carrier strike groups in the DM and OZ will be extremely vulnerable, since anti-ship missiles approaching the formation during WWI will be detected by shipborne radars, depending on the height of their antenna arrays, at a range of 15 to 40 km—at best. And there will always be a threat of air defense overload. The use of combined sophisticated jamming, EMP, and other methods to penetrate the KUG air defense system makes repelling such attacks particularly difficult. There will simply be too much time to react, and the risk of missing the target or failing to counter the jamming in time to guarantee target destruction is too great.
If the Russian Federation acquires a capable VTOL aircraft, the task of providing air defense for the KUG could be accomplished even with VTOL aircraft based on the VI 45,000-50,000-ton UDC, with two squadrons (24 units) of VTOL fighters with a capable Byelka-class airborne radar, a squadron of anti-submarine warfare helicopters, and four AWACS helicopters. Such VTOL aircraft would cost around $2 billion at the current exchange rate and be built relatively quickly, simultaneously at two or three shipyards. However, such VTOL aircraft would not be the KUG's main striking force, but merely its aviation reinforcement to ensure long-range interception of cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles during World War I. We optimally need four to six such aircraft in the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet. Building such a large number of these ships and escorts requires little money, and the timeframe could be 15-17 years. But this only makes sense if Russia decides to build its own merchant and fishing fleets, which require an ocean-going navy to protect and ensure freedom of navigation. This navy will be built and maintained primarily with taxes and treasury revenues from maritime trade and fishing. This has always been the case for all maritime powers, as stated (by the private Merchant Fleet) in the famous "Gorshkov Doctrine," and it must be the same for Russia if it is truly concerned about its own sovereignty.

[Romario_Argo]

Even within the framework of the hull of Projects 1164 or even 1155 with a length of 165-185 meters, it is possible to create a heavy cruiser with a VI of 8-12 thousand tons, where 6 thousand tons will be allocated for armoring with 100-mm ceramics, including anti-torpedo protection (100 + 50 + 50 + 100)
Armament: 128 guided missiles and anti-aircraft missiles + 4 anti-aircraft missile and gun mounts, 128 anti-aircraft missiles, 4 packages of 16 torpedoes and 2 turrets for 4 railguns + 4 twin 57-mm cannons from BEKs, there is even room for 2-4 RBU-6000
& Radars will be protected by 100mm radio-transparent ceramics
The ZRPK, RBU and twin 57 will be retractable into barbettes, following the principle of the old naval SAM Osa and PTZ packages behind the hatch ports.

[pin_code]

Not just Daring Donald Trump (almost McDuck)

[ziqzaq]

Traditionally, US battleships were named after states, here - USS Daring...

Well, definitely our agent...
Soviet school, we will all die but we will not disgrace the fleet!!!
Apparently, Donya was a marine in the Union in his youth: I see the goal, I see no obstacles...

[olboop]

Traditionally, US battleships were named after states, here - USS Daring...

What's so surprising? The progenitor of all battleships was named Dreadnought.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

The dreadnought was a creation of the British navy, not the American one.
The former have their own traditions, gingerbread and, until recently, gorg with pudding.

[Asker]

I wonder how many times this symbol of the "greatness of Emperor Trump - 1" is more valuable than one Poseidon?

[pin_code]

Poseidon isn't for that kind of thing. He operates on a different level.

[multi-category]

It would be interesting to see when a battleship named Trump sinks under Trump.
I remember that Deutschland was renamed because it was unclear how to tell the Germans that Germany had sunk.

[pin_code]

There was the cruiser Rossiya, the battleship France (but they were lucky). It's just not necessary to give ships significant names. Baden, Udomlya, Dakota, even the Welsh one (I don't remember the battleship Britannia).

[alovrov]

"Unlimited lust for power has astonished Europe: here it is shaken: it has calmed down in the midst of the deserts of the Ocean."

[stels_07]

Melko Donald. Soon the island in the north will be called Donald Land.

[Dimy4]

What's with the island? Donald's United States would burst from its own greatness.

[OlegEKB]

What about the States?
we need to take aim at the continents, Northern and Southern Trumpia

[snow mountain]

Quote: multicaat

It would be interesting to see when a battleship named Trump sinks under Trump.

As soon as it gets close to the Houthi coast!

[Junior Private]

The era of battleships is long over. Now is the era of hazelnuts. Although they'll do against banana republics. But there aren't any left. Building and maintaining a battleship costs money. They're embezzling money again.

[VitaminBF3mg]

I think they just want to move Arliberk into the "heavy" class—an armored destroyer. Why not a new battleship? Instead of guns, there will be "axes" + armor, etc.

[Junior Private]

A destroyer and a battleship are essentially different classes. It's much cheaper to launch the same axes from a non-naval base, and you don't need to maintain a crew or perform maintenance. The US really screwed up with the Zumwalts.

[VitaminBF3mg]

I agree, they'll make a larger destroyer (a battleship like a destroyer) and use an aircraft carrier to intimidate. Otherwise, let them cut and dream... and, an aircraft with such a battleship and escorts is as powerful as 2-3 republics, they can draw dollars.

[pin_code]

They want to test whether the armored monster can withstand missiles. That's all. And it's expensive. But what if?

[AK-1945]

A big happy child with expensive toys.

[Mikhail Nasharashev]

If you want to ruin a country, then impose a Trump-class battleship on it.

[Gomunkul]

The estimated cost of building one vessel is already estimated at 22 billion dollars.

Let them build it, they have already built a series of 32 Zumwalt-class destroyers, now let them build Trump-class battleships.

Thus, the Zumwalt-class destroyers became the most expensive surface combatants in the world ($9 billion per unit), several times exceeding the original project cost. A total of 32 such ships were planned, but due to design issues, the project was scaled back to three.

[Volunteer]

There were once round "popovkas" on the Black Sea, but now they will build them in the shape of a six-star and name them "Kushner," "Vitkov," "Adelson," and other donors and owners.

[Censor]

Grandfather apparently doesn't understand, and those around him are afraid to enlighten him, the design and construction timeframe for a ship of this class. Not only he, but even his successor won't be around to see this ship's arrival. And in three years, this ridiculous project will be immediately forgotten, because there are much simpler ways to spend money in the American military-industrial complex.

[tralflot1832]

Joe Biden, by naming Bill Clinton's next aircraft carrier, immortalized the name "Jeffrey Epstein" for its entire service.
"What aircraft carrier did they send to Clinton? Or to that damned Jeffrey Epstein?" That's how it will be.

[KSLN-CZ1]

More pompously then Adolf

[Metallurg_2]

Joe Biden announced that he has named the U.S. Navy's future Gerald R. Ford-class nuclear-powered aircraft carriers after former presidents and fellow party members Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

Was it Samokhodny who got it wrong, or the author of the article?
Bush Jr. is not at all a party comrade of Samokhodny.

[solar]

Ships are usually named after former American leaders after their deaths, with the exception of the 38th US President, Gerald R. Ford.

The author is not familiar with American aircraft carriers. USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) and USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77) were named after Reagan and Bush Sr., who were still alive at the time.

[BAI]

The width of the Panama Canal will become an insurmountable obstacle to Trump's gigantism.

[Esaul]

We should also make it fly, like the Avengers in Marvel. Then it could be shot down with an anti-aircraft missile.

[romandostalo]

They won't build anything, the design work alone will take at least a year, since it's practically a new development. So what next? They don't have anything left to produce an armored hull, so what next?

[olboop]

I can't recall a single time in naval history that a series of ships was named after a ruler. Apparently, emperors and kings were more modest than Trump.

[1944-1989]

The psychopath's old plans are nothing compared to the will of conscious nations; no matter how much this orange man extols himself, in the end he is always humiliated by the truth.

[Free]

I propose selling them the Nakhimov. And with the proceeds, build Gorshkov-class submarines, or better yet, submarines with external propulsion systems for close-range combat, and buy basic Su-30M2s for the fleet, plus air-to-air missiles and anti-ship missiles for them.