Pages

Saturday, May 2, 2026

Trump’s Battleship – What is it Really?

A reader recently launched a mini-rant about the classification of Trump’s battleship as a battleship, claiming it should be a heavy cruiser, instead.  This led me to reflect on what it really is.  Heavy cruiser?  Light cruiser?  Oversized destroyer?  Arsenal ship?  Something else?
 
As you all know, President Trump has a fondness for hyperbole (turning Canada into the 51st state, seizing Greenland, this pretend battleship, etc.) which is often just a prelude to subsequent negotiations (he loves making deals!).  Only the left takes the obvious hyperbole as meaning anything.  The wiser and calmer among us recognize it for what it is and get a chuckle out of it.  Thus, the classification of Trump’s battleship as a battleship is strictly for public relations purposes and, perhaps, a bit of a thumbing of the nose at China.
 
So, if it’s not a battleship, what is it?  Acknowledging that we lack enough specifications to draw much in the way of definitive conclusions, let’s go down the list of classifications, just for fun, and see what, if anything fits.
 
Battleship – It’s clearly not a battleship as it lacks armor, survivability, and effective fire support for land forces among other shortcomings.
 
Heavy Cruiser – A heavy cruiser is a mini-battleship with appropriately heavy armor, guns (land attack), and anti-ship weaponry.  Again, this ship is clearly not a heavy cruiser.
 
Light Cruiser – These are compromise ships that try to excel at one aspect of heavier ship’s tasks while retaining some armor and survivability and, most importantly, holding to a cost-conscious construction budget.  They may be specialized as anti-air, anti-surface, escort, or other tasks.  Trump’s battleship could fall somewhere in this category, in some respects, although it is stunningly not budget-friendly and lacks a specialization so it’s not really a light cruiser.
 
Oversize Destroyer – Trump’s ship certainly falls into this category in terms of the lack of armor and survivability but it has way too much in the way of weapons and is insanely expensive for a destroyer, oversize or not.
 
LCS – Trump’s ship checks a lot of the boxes for being an LCS!  It tries to be all things.  It depends on mostly non-existent systems.  It has no clear mission focus.  One could plausibly call it a hugely oversized, astoundingly expensive LCS although, thankfully, no one has yet mentioned interchangeable modules.
 
Arsenal Ship – The arsenal ship is a concept ship that is, essentially, a mobile missile barge with only that one function.  We’re getting close, here.  Trump’s ship is, essentially, a mobile missile barge albeit with large scoops of non-existent, fantasy gold plating (rail gun, laser, etc.) piled on and lots of independent capabilities that an arsenal ship would lack.  It also conflates anti-air and strike missions instead of focusing on just one.  Nevertheless, this is the closest fit as far as classification.
 
That said, as an arsenal ship it is a hideously poor design as evidenced by the cost and multiple fantasy systems.  An arsenal ship should be a minimally functional, cheap barge for carrying missiles for some other platform to control.
 
 
Conclusion
 
The only conclusion is that, like every recent Navy ship program, the “battleship” is just a collection of disjointed technologies, mostly non-existent, cobbled together and slapped with the inspiring label of “battleship”.  It lacks a CONOPS and, certainly, no formal Analysis of Alternatives has been performed. 
 
Given the extremely low probability of it ever actually being built, we should simply view it as an indicator of Trump’s enthusiasm for a strong Navy and hope that enthusiasm eventually gets channeled into more productive and useful assets.
 
As far as this post, take it as a bit of amusement.  Don’t get too worked up over it.

5 comments:

  1. On the strong navy front, the NYT had an oped decrying the state of Navy that wouldn't be out of place here.
    First appearance of ATM in the Times since Roosevelt ?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/01/opinion/iran-hormuz-navy-south-china-sea-naval-power.html?unlocked_article_code=1.fVA.Euld.6wcN7yp9xo4S&smid=nytcore-ios-share

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eliot Cohen had a good section of Navy commentary in the Atlantic a few weeks ago too: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/03/iran-war-reveals-american-weakness/686532/?gift=cJtrN_LjQGP_7J-HrEDiB5LGSktz1nOrQQEbICdY5vc&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

      Delete
  2. But then again, didn't we have the Long Beach Class Cruisers, The USS Bainbridge (CGN-25), USS Truxtun (CGN-35), California-class cruiser and the Virginia-class cruiser

    ReplyDelete
  3. I hadn't paid much attention to the particular specs of the Trump Battleship, since it seemed obvious vaporware and not worth spending time on - but I had vaguely assumed that in calling it a battleship they were proposing armor on it, and am surprised to learn that's not the case

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Given the extremely low probability of it ever actually being built, we should simply view it as an indicator of Trump’s enthusiasm for a strong Navy and hope that enthusiasm eventually gets channeled into more productive and useful assets."
    How stupid, ignorant & foolish are you? Trump's enthusiasm is for the aggrandizement of his ego. That's why they're named after him.

    I suppose you think Jesus freak Hegseth is the man for the job too?

    ReplyDelete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.