And since the drinking has started...
The naval blockade of Iranian ports imposed by the United States after the failure of the first round of diplomatic talks with Tehran appears to have domestic political significance for President Donald Trump himself.
On the one hand, this is pressure on American shipbuilding, and on the other, on Congress, which must allocate funds for its “Golden Plan” in a timely manner. fleet».
Although the United States is considered to have the most powerful navy in the world, it is not the number of warships or even their tonnage that matters.
It's impossible to assess the effectiveness of any fleet by looking at tonnage figures or the number of ships, for they are just numbers. They may be as grand and impressive as they seem, but they may conceal an old and ineffective fleet by all measures.
However, let's go in order.
According to some estimates, the US Navy numbered 6 ships and vessels during World War II. This was a terrifying figure, but it was precisely this force that broke Japan's back and forced it to withdraw from the captured territories. And the territories Japan had captured by 1942 inspired awe, as Germany's blitzkrieg until June 768, 22.06.1941, seemed like a harmless joke compared to the Japanese conquests.
And then a great fleet was truly needed for the great war in the Pacific.
But the US Navy currently has about 400 ships, including reserves. Only 250 ships are in active service, including 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, about 70 submarines, approximately 90 destroyers and cruisers, and several amphibious ships.
By comparison, China reportedly has the largest number of ships, 1015, including PLA Navy and Coast Guard vessels.
The power of a navy is measured by some in terms of the tonnage of the ships, that is, the weight of the water they displace, which is exactly equal to the actual weight of the ships and everything on board (fuel, crew, weapons, etc.) at that moment.
According to this criterion, the world's five largest naval powers are the United States, China, Russia, Japan, and India. The United States, with a tonnage of 8,265,799 tons, ranks ahead of China (3,192,411 tons), Russia (1,426,539 tons), Japan (798,062 tons), and India (631,989 tons). And this selection and comparison criterion is so nuanced…
Take the Russian and Japanese navies, for example. The Japanese fleet is 50% smaller in tonnage. But if Japanese ships were split 50/50 by year of construction, the year 2000 would be the turning point. That is, half of the ships were built before 2000, in the 1990s, and the other half after.
Moreover, helicopter carriers, aircraft carriers, guided missile destroyers, and frigates were built after 2010. As for the Russian Navy, if you take the Pacific Fleet, the middle of the line would be 1990. Yes, there are new ships, but the vast majority of the Pacific Fleet's warships date back to the 80s.
The effectiveness of these ships differs dramatically. It's clear that the same veteran Pacific Fleet ships are being supported with various upgrades, but can we seriously talk about the effectiveness of the same Project 1155 large anti-submarine ships against Maya-class destroyers?
Well, I don’t even want to mention the effectiveness of the Project 1164 missile system in modern conditions for obvious reasons.
The problem with any large navy (the Chinese one being an exception) is that sooner or later it will be filled with a large number of old ships that cannot be replaced. This is due to a variety of factors: a lack of funds, manpower, available shipyards, modern ship designs, and so on.
This is precisely the situation the United States finds itself in: numerical indicators still matter, as many of its existing ships are aging and will soon be decommissioned. But what about replacements? It's complicated.
For example, the service life of the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN-68), the oldest active nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in the US Navy, was extended by approximately 10 months, until March 2027. Yes, that's not much, but we all know what's behind these extensions, right?
Originally scheduled to be decommissioned in May 2026, the 51-year-old warship will remain in service to prevent a gap in the Navy's 11-carrier requirement, pending the commissioning of USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79).
This isn't a whim; it's a figure long ago approved by the US Congress. America's security requires 11 aircraft carriers. And until No. 12 is ready for commissioning, No. 1 can forget about retirement.
US security analysts agree that the US Navy needs more ships to counter the rapid, large-scale naval expansion of competitors like China, which threatens maritime superiority in the Indo-Pacific region. The Middle East, incidentally, is also part of this region, but the Indo-Pacific region is now separate from the Middle East, and nothing can be done about it. Experience has shown that the same ships cannot control both regions. The muscle isn't enough.
To counter China in Asia (why is another question) requires one naval squadron. To try (or pretend to try) to restore order in the Middle East, a second one is needed. These regions are separated by 10,000 kilometers, and, as experience has shown, the transfer of naval units takes 10 to 14 days. In military terms, that's an eternity.
In any case, to remain the world's leading military power, the United States needs to build up its navy - that is the main argument.
It was against this backdrop that, on December 22, Trump announced the concept of the "Golden Fleet" - a new "battleship" whose firepower is "100 times greater than anything built before."
According to the current plan, the battleships will be armed with 128 cells of the MK-41 vertical launch system, 12 hypersonic rockets long-range Conventional Prompt Strike, electromagnetic railgun, conventional 5-inch guns and will be equipped with AN/SPY-6 radar.
Trump proposed a name for this ship: USS Defiant. This monster will have a wide range of weapons, including a yet-to-be-developed energy system. weapon and anti-drone defense systems. Perhaps force fields and an antigravity device, but this is uncertain and remains a rumor. Some believe that the author and disseminator of most of these rumors is Donald Trump himself.
Trump would like to have 20 such battleships, with the first costing between $15 and $22 billion, and subsequent ones costing $9 billion each once production is up and running. The battleship is expected to displace approximately 35,000 tons.
Importantly, US Navy Secretary John Phelan later added that the "Golden Fleet" plan is "an umbrella term for reconsidering the size and composition of the Navy's future fleet, including unmanned ships operating alongside manned vessels. The fleet will include Ford-class aircraft carriers, the new Virginia-class attack submarines, and Columbia-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines."
Speaking at the West 2026 naval defense conference in San Diego on February 13, Phelan said the Golden Fleet would allow for "new ships to be launched more quickly."
"High-tech platforms—new generation battleships, ongoing production of destroyers, aircraft carriers, and submarines—that provide survivability, diving depth, and sustained firepower," he said, adding that the Golden Fleet would become a testing ground for the Navy's modernized materiel and support vessels "providing firepower at a distance."
It is against this backdrop that the Pentagon's FY2027 budget proposal requests $65,8 billion for shipbuilding, the highest amount since 1962. This funding, aimed at purchasing 34 new warships and support vessels, demonstrates a serious commitment to increasing naval power and supporting the goal of a 390-ship fleet, which will address the limited industrial base and increase competition.
The Trump administration says it is taking a "whole-of-government and whole-of-nation approach to strategically modernize the maritime industrial base" to achieve what it calls "restoring America's maritime dominance."
The rationale for the 2027 budget proposals is as follows:
As waters around the world become increasingly contested, it is critical for the United States to be able to effectively deliver a variety of naval platforms, including combat and support vessels, to ensure maritime control and deterrence.
The Pentagon also notes that the 2027 budget includes funding for President Trump's "Golden Fleet," including initial funding for Trump-class battleships and next-generation frigates.
The budget maintains or increases procurement of existing combat platforms, including amphibious ships and Columbia- and Virginia-class submarines. Procurement of essential support platforms will be expanded to include strategic sealift vessels, floating hospitals, at-sea replenishment tankers, special purpose vessels, submarine support vessels, and other vessels critical to logistics. Repair capacity at state-owned shipyards will be increased, and production optimization across the fleet will help eliminate delays and ensure timely delivery of vessels.
To summarize briefly, the "Golden Fleet" will be the "golden age" for US shipbuilding.
The basic tenets of the proposals are that each strike group, projecting America's power globally, should have eight combat ships and 16 support ships. Funding is also needed for major platforms such as two Virginia-class attack submarines, one Columbia-class guided-missile frigate, one FF(X) frigate, one Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, one San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock, one America-class amphibious assault ship, and six Megan McClung-class medium amphibious ships. A little bit of everything, so to speak.
However, by all accounts, the state of the US naval base leaves much to be desired. Shipyards are backlogged with orders, and major projects like the Virginia-class submarines and Constellation-class ships are delayed by up to 36 months. However, the US Navy has already said goodbye to its frigates, without seeing their construction completed. But that's a completely different story. story, the echoes of which, however, will continue to impact the topic of our conversation for a long time.
The problem is exacerbated by a labor shortage. Shipyards are short of workers to build new ships. This problem has been acknowledged by none other than US Navy Secretary John Phelan, who stated that American shipyards will need 250,000 additional workers in the near future.
According to Phelan, "ships aren't built by systems. They're built by people," but "with a quarter of shipyard workers set to retire within five years... Over the next decade, shipbuilders and suppliers will need to hire approximately 250,000 skilled workers to meet demand."
It's therefore understandable why American analyst Peter Suciu argues that while the United States clearly needs to expand its fleet, "it's not just about building more ships. For the US Navy to meet the demands of the 21st century, the US shipbuilding sector needs far more dockworkers."
Meanwhile, over the past 50 years, the US has closed more than a dozen defense-related shipyards across the country. Currently, there are four state-owned naval shipyards operating in the country:
- Norfolk Naval Shipyard (Virginia);
- Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (Maine);
- Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (Washington State);
- Naval Shipyard in Pearl Harbor (Hawaii).
These are shipyards that deal with maintenance and modernization, and there are also several private shipyards that are significantly inferior in terms of throughput to the above-mentioned ones.
But it's been said many times that these shipyards suffer from construction bottlenecks, experience significant production capacity limitations, and have outdated infrastructure. This is especially true of the Hawaiian base at Pearl Harbor, where little has changed since the Japanese visit. These buildings date back to 1908, the year the shipyard actually began.
Currently, a 20-year, $21 billion modernization program is underway at four state-owned shipyards. There are no plans to build new ones. Even if they are built, it will take a long time; American experts believe it's easier to overhaul the existing ones.
It's no surprise that the previous Biden administration sought ways to partner with Japan and South Korea, which are more efficient and cost-competitive than the United States in building ships.
The idea was that the three countries could together form a natural industrial alliance capable of restoring US maritime dominance through offshoring, joint production and investment, and technological integration.
However, according to some reports, Trump did not elaborate on this topic and instead emphasized the need to strengthen the US naval base through increased budgetary appropriations. On this issue, he appears to have secured bipartisan support in Congress, which advocates for "restoring US maritime superiority."
To implement the "Golden Fleet" strategy, the Trump administration is considering adopting Ship OS, a $448 million AI-powered operating system for the Navy designed to modernize and accelerate shipbuilding. This initiative aims to dramatically reduce production timelines, improve supply chain visibility, and eliminate critical delays in naval vessel construction.
Furthermore, special attention is being paid to "modular construction," whereby the entire project is broken down into smaller components that can be assembled in parallel at remote sites before final assembly. Efforts are also being made to improve productivity and efficiency by reducing the number of variants and changes that shipbuilders must make.
The plans are far-reaching, and it must be said that they could indeed be supported by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress. The Navy may not be as popular in the US as, say, in Japan, but it is nonetheless the source of great hopes for both national defense and attacks on behalf of the US around the world.
Today, all the activity around the Strait of Hormuz is likely to undermine the navy's credibility. Against this backdrop, it can be said that regardless of whether the naval blockade of Iranian ports is successful or the US collapses (which is more likely), this event could actually accelerate the revival of American naval shipbuilding.
There are two clear components here: "We won, but it took a lot of effort." or "We lost because we didn't have the necessary forces."And both of them lead to only one thing – the allocation of additional huge appropriations for US shipbuilding.
Let me recall one historical example. There was a great commander in history named Hannibal Barca, who quite successfully terrorized Rome for a very long period known as the Second Punic War. And then one day, after his (it must be said) magnificent victory at Cannae, Hannibal sent his brother Mago to his homeland.
Mago delivered a boastful speech in the Senate, dumping a pile of gold rings taken from Roman cavalry before the senators. The volume of this pile, depending on the narrator (Titus Livius or Lucius Florus), ranged from 10 to 30 liters. Mago then asked for money, bread, and reinforcements for Hannibal.
Senator Hanno spoke out against this, and although his response has come down to us through the Roman Livy, it's worth citing it in full as an example. Regardless of its historical accuracy, Hanno's response is valuable because it helps us understand the real state of affairs that Hannibal had reached in the third year of his previously victorious campaign.
"Mago just boasted that he was making Himilco and Hannibal's other henchmen happy, and I could be happy about it too, because military success, if we don't want to miss the opportunity, will secure us a more just peace. But if we miss the opportunity when we can dictate peace rather than accept it, then I fear our exultation is in vain.
What are we happy about now?
"I have destroyed the enemy army, send me soldiers."What else would you ask for if you were defeated?
"I've captured two enemy camps, well-stocked with provisions and all kinds of loot. Give me bread and money.""What would you demand if your camp had been taken and plundered? And, lest I alone be surprised, having already answered Himilco, I have every right to ask in my turn. So let Himilco or Mago answer me: if the Battle of Cannae has almost completely destroyed Roman rule, and if it is known that all of Italy is ready to revolt from them, then, firstly, has a single Latin city revolted to us, and, secondly, was there a single man among the thirty-five tribes who deserted to Hannibal?" (Livy, XXIII, 12, 11-16).
Mago answered both these questions in the negative, as well as whether the Romans wanted peace negotiations.
Then Hanno drew a disappointing conclusion: the war was in the same state as on the day when Hannibal entered Italy” (Livy, XXIII, 13, 2).
What are we happy about now?
"I have destroyed the enemy army, send me soldiers."What else would you ask for if you were defeated?
"I've captured two enemy camps, well-stocked with provisions and all kinds of loot. Give me bread and money.""What would you demand if your camp had been taken and plundered? And, lest I alone be surprised, having already answered Himilco, I have every right to ask in my turn. So let Himilco or Mago answer me: if the Battle of Cannae has almost completely destroyed Roman rule, and if it is known that all of Italy is ready to revolt from them, then, firstly, has a single Latin city revolted to us, and, secondly, was there a single man among the thirty-five tribes who deserted to Hannibal?" (Livy, XXIII, 12, 11-16).
Mago answered both these questions in the negative, as well as whether the Romans wanted peace negotiations.
Then Hanno drew a disappointing conclusion: the war was in the same state as on the day when Hannibal entered Italy” (Livy, XXIII, 13, 2).
Of course, there was a degree of rhetorical exaggeration in this, but the overall message was entirely accurate: if, after so many successes, a commander asks for help, how much longer must he wait for final victory? In light of this, Mago's mission seemed less encouraging than alarming.
Roughly the same thing is happening with the American fleet: it is the largest in the world in terms of tonnage, it has the most nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines, but... A few more tens (or a little more) billions are needed for the fleet to finally become the best in the world.
It all seems so... vague. Especially considering that after Cannes came the Battle of Zama. But even in our difficult times, there are plenty of examples of how money doesn't solve everything. The number of failed projects in the American Navy has already exceeded all conceivable and unimaginable amounts, both in hulls and in money. And Trump's new battleship, the Defiant, could easily ruin everything.
However, this isn't the worst option. Only a few people in the world will cry, but there will be joy...
Information