More on Trump's battleships: a correction of mistakes or a fatal error?
The Chief of Naval Operations said the abandonment of nuclear-powered surface combatants was one of the worst decisions his department ever made.
Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Daryl Caudle made the announcement while expressing support for the recent decision to equip future Trump-class battleships with nuclear propulsion. He also highlighted the challenges the Navy faced in refueling conventionally powered ships participating in operations against Iran.
Admiral Caudle, along with Acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao (appointed following the rather abrupt resignation of the previous Secretary, Phelan, an opponent of nuclear submarines), and Commandant of the Marine Corps General Eric Smith, testified before members of the House Armed Services Committee. The hearing focused on the Department of the Navy's budget request for fiscal year 2027. The Navy announced that, according to its latest long-range shipbuilding plan, released Monday, the Trump-class warships will use nuclear propulsion.
We have already said that the paradigm shift occurred very quickly, apparently under the influence of Trump himself.
Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle, left, testifies during a separate budget hearing before members of the House Appropriations Committee on May 12, 2026.
“I know there has been a lot of talk and questions over the last few days about news "About the Trump-class battleship being nuclear-powered. As you know, Virginia has a long history of nuclear shipbuilding. What specific design plans can you share at this time, and can you tell us how nuclear power will help make this system successful?" Representative John McGuire, a Virginia Republican and former Navy SEAL, asked Admiral Caudle directly.
Model of the Trump-class battleship
"Sir, we abandoned nuclear-powered surface ships decades ago, and it was one of the biggest mistakes the Navy ever made. fleet"We're now returning to that idea," the Chief of Naval Operations responded. "We need nuclear-powered surface ships to support combat operations involving our nuclear-powered aircraft carriers."
Although the US Navy is the world's leading operator of nuclear submarines (it has more nuclear submarines than all other nuclear-powered nations combined), American aircraft carriers are currently the only nuclear-powered surface ships. The exceptions are Russia's Admiral Nakhimov and France's Charles de Gaulle.
The Nuclear Fleet That the US Lost
Things used to be a bit different: the Navy had a variety of nuclear-powered surface combatants at its disposal. Among them were three unique ships: the cruiser USS Long Beach, the cruiser USS Truxtan (originally built as a nuclear-powered destroyer), and the frigate USS Bainbridge.
Two California-class cruisers and four Virginia-class cruisers were also built, which were not attack nuclear submarines at all, but rather surface ships.
All of these ships were commissioned in the 60s and 70s and were expensive and complex to operate compared to similar ships with conventional propulsion systems. They were all decommissioned in the 1990s as part of the post-Cold War drawdown of the US military, deemed completely unnecessary.
In 1964, three nuclear-powered Navy surface warships sail in formation. From left to right: the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, the cruiser USS Long Beach, and the frigate USS Bainbridge.
The Price of a Kilowatt: Why Does a Battleship Need a Reactor?
As Caudle emphasized, the main advantage of nuclear propulsion is its virtually unlimited range, as naval reactors can operate for decades without refueling. In the context of modern ships, equipped with increasingly sophisticated weapons and other systems, nuclear propulsion can significantly increase onboard electrical power generation.
As already noted, this comes at a price, and not just in dollars. But the game is worth the candle, because the more sensors, situational analysis systems, and various countermeasure systems a ship has, EW The more powerful the ship, the more efficient it can be. And it's not millions of dollars, but millions of watts of power. The question is, per minute or per second.
Today, Russia is the only country in the world with a nuclear-powered surface combatant that is not an aircraft carrier: the heavy cruiser Admiral Nakhimov. Russia also has several nuclear-powered icebreakers, which have been repeatedly mentioned as potential carriers. rocket weapons.
"Imagine what it would look like in the Persian Gulf if I had a nuclear-powered battleship there providing air defense, air defense, and deploying its firepower to cover conventionally fueled ships," Caudle continued, responding to a question from Congressman McGuire. "So, it's critical to develop that level of payload capability."
The admiral apparently meant that a platform like the Admiral Nakhimov, carrying multiple anti-aircraft missiles and anti-missiles, could make life much easier for conventional ships, whose anti-aircraft maneuvers consume a lot of fuel in the Middle East (meaning UAVs, missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles), and refueling processes in the area where enemy aircraft are operating are, to put it mildly, unsafe.
But this is not the worst.
US Navy officials have already acknowledged that Iranian attacks on friendly countries in the Middle East during recent operations have significantly disrupted established supply chains. Specifically, this has impacted the delivery of fuel for conventionally powered warships in the region.
Refueling a ship is a complicated and dangerous process, but if there's nothing to refuel with, things get even more dire.
In any future conflict, especially a large-scale standoff with China in the vast Pacific Ocean, the US Navy will have to consider the threat of fuel supply disruptions. Nuclear-powered ships also have other logistical needs common to ships powered by conventional internal combustion engines, such as providing crews with water, food, and fuel for aircraft. Even with nuclear propulsion, ships cannot remain at sea indefinitely due to maintenance and other requirements.
One of the US Navy's Arleigh Burke-class destroyers receives fuel during a refueling operation at sea.
"We intend to utilize all available technologies, including those we have been working on under the DDG(X) project," the Chief of Naval Operations added, specifically referring to plans to build the Trump-class ships.
They'll have the SPY-6 radar. They'll have the Aegis 10 combat system. Of course, they'll have an A1B reactor, like the Ford-class carriers, and all the associated equipment. And I would say that directed energy weapon and the anti-aircraft guns will also be new."
They'll have the SPY-6 radar. They'll have the Aegis 10 combat system. Of course, they'll have an A1B reactor, like the Ford-class carriers, and all the associated equipment. And I would say that directed energy weapon and the anti-aircraft guns will also be new."
Caudle first discussed the A1B reactor at another budget hearing earlier this week. It was previously known that the Trump-class battleship program would build on the work done under the now-defunct DDG(X) next-generation destroyer project.
What will the "Trumps" be armed with—and will they have any at all?
Numerous types of energy weapons, as well as electromagnetic railguns, are key elements of the planned armament package for future Trump-class warships. No one is yet bothered by the fact that the vast majority of lasers and railguns are still in the design stage. The battleships will also be armed with a mix of nuclear and conventional missiles, including hypersonic types, in multiple vertical launch cell arrays (VLS), and a pair of traditional 5-inch naval guns. This seems more believable, but…
But it's worth remembering how neither of the two superweapons on the Zumwalt-class destroyers remained, because missiles proved more accurate, longer-ranged, and cheaper to launch. And overall, it turned out that the stealth destroyer had no other weapons than the ancient subsonic Tomahawks (albeit modernized).
So it's not entirely clear what the Trump-class cruisers will ultimately be armed with, or even if they will be. 128 launch cells is certainly not bad, but excuse me, that's on par with the ancient cruiser Ticonderoga, which is living out its final days in the US Navy. Building a ship three times larger to carry the same number of missiles as a moderately large cruiser? That's frankly surprising.
And after all, we shouldn't really take all these railguns, railguns, lasers, and blasters seriously, which will appear in the foreseeable future. And what if they don't, as often happens?
But the decision was made.
It's worth noting that Caudle's comments today are a marked departure from his previous statements regarding the prospects of using nuclear propulsion on Trump-class ships. Speaking to the press at the Surface Navy Association's (SNA) flagship annual symposium in January of this year, he clearly downplayed the possibility.
An image of the future Trump-class battleship
Just a month ago, former US Navy Secretary John Phelan also stated that it was unlikely the Trump-class ships would be nuclear-powered, citing the need to balance the cost and complexity of the project with tight deadlines. Phelan was abruptly fired just two days after these statements. According to some reports, his dismissal was prompted by disagreements over specific battleship plans, as well as other tensions within the Trump administration.
But it looks more like the battleships were the cause.
"He's a very good man. I liked him very much, but he had disagreements, not only with Secretary Hegseth, but with other ministers as well. He was adamant, and he had disagreements with other people, mainly over the construction and purchase of new ships. I'm very actively promoting the idea of building new ships," Trump himself said on this matter.
The US Navy currently plans to order the first Trump-class battleship sometime around fiscal year 2028 and commission her by fiscal year 2036. The cost of the first ship is estimated at approximately $17 billion, significantly exceeding the projected cost of any of the next four Ford-class aircraft carriers. However, given recent developments, this figure is not final. We have previously stated that converting the ship's design to accommodate a nuclear power plant will increase the cost of the Trump by at least $3-4 billion, according to some estimates. This means the battleship will definitely cost over $20 billion.
Even before the decision to use nuclear propulsion was announced, numerous media outlets, both in the US and around the world, raised numerous questions about the plans to build these warships, including the feasibility of their use, as well as the associated costs and risks. And our pages also fired salvos at the "Trump" class, as indeed, these ships are highly questionable.
Shipyards, personnel, and 17 billion: will the industry cope?
Despite Caudle's comments today about the possibility of using a nuclear reactor as a power source, nuclear-powered ships are inherently complex and expensive, which is the price to pay for the aforementioned increase in combat capability. Building such ships requires skilled labor and well-established supply chains. Newport News Shipbuilding in Virginia, a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries, is the only shipyard in the United States currently building nuclear-powered surface ships—the new Ford-class aircraft carriers, whose construction has been repeatedly delayed.
The country has two other nuclear submarine production facilities, both of which are already operating at full capacity to meet the Navy's needs. It is especially important to adhere to the construction schedule for the new Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines to avoid supply disruptions for the sea-based component of the American nuclear deterrent triad.
In addition, plans are underway to deliver Virginia-class submarines to the Royal Australian Navy, which Admiral Caudle, who supported the project, said could only increase the strain on the system.
The US naval shipbuilding industry also has other needs related to the production of conventionally powered warships, such as the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. Since the end of the Cold War, this industry has declined, especially compared to the opposite trend observed in China. Efforts to revive American shipyards and the Navy's ongoing challenges were key topics of discussion at a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee.
Personnel is a major problem. The US has factories that could be revived to meet the Navy's needs, but there are no workers available to work them. This problem has been known for a long time; it didn't just appear yesterday. The question is whether the Americans can solve it. If not, it's no secret that the shipbuilding industry can't even cope with routine ship repairs.
Admiral Caudle's statement about supporting a nuclear-powered surface fleet raises an additional question: will industry be able to fulfill these plans? Especially since the Trump is truly a complex project. Nearly all previous nuclear-powered surface combatants in the US Navy were based on conventionally powered ships. At the same time, any such solution would face the same challenges as building new battleships.
A vicious circle? No, it could be much simpler.
Plans to build Trump-class ships could very well change or even be abandoned altogether. Under current plans, the battleship construction program will continue under the next presidential administration, meaning the fate of the new nuclear-powered surface fleet could change dramatically.
That is, the next president will simply cancel it, especially if he or she is a Democrat. And that would be the most logical end for these ships, which are being built for seemingly incomprehensible reasons. But everyone understands perfectly well that by that point, so much money will have been lost in the unknown that one can only envy those holding the saw handle.
So some might think that the Trump-class ships are a work-in-progress, while others might think that they are a mistake that will punch such a hole in the budget that even a battleship would be stunned by its size.
It won't be long before we see where these "Trumps" will float off to.
Information