The Trump-class is a planned new class of large surface combatants that U.S. President Donald Trump and senior administration officials described publicly as “battleships” and part of a broader naval expansion called the “Golden Fleet.” The Trump-class battleship (also referenced as a BBG-type guided-missile battleship) would comprise USS Defiant (BBG-1), the first vessel announced in the class. Status: Proposed/announced, not yet funded or under construction. Approval and funding by the U.S. Congress would be required before building can begin. This very large, heavily armed surface combatant intended to deliver deep-strike firepower, air and missile defense, and command functions within naval operations. Part of the Trump administration’s “Golden Fleet” initiative, which aims to increase U.S. naval capabilities with new large ships and complementary vessels. Because this is a very recent announcement (late December 2025), details are still emerging and many specifics about design, cost, timeline, and operational concepts are preliminary and subject to change as planning and Congressional review continue.

What we know so far

Naval Sea Systems Command image
So… On the 23rd of December, at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s personal residence, was announced the “Golden Fleet” plan, to revitalize the USN. It comes after the successive announcement of the cancellation of the protracted and delayed development of the Constellation class frigate, previously approved by Trump in his first term in office notably due to cost overruns and a total of $2bn (£1.49bn) spent. It also came right after an announcement of their expected replacement last 19 December, of new vessels based on the US Coast Guard’s Legend-class National Security Cutter.

“Recent operations from the Red Sea to the Caribbean make the requirement undeniable – our small surface combatant inventory is a third of what we have,” Chief of Naval Operations Daryl Caudle said in a video statement about the new ships. (…) We need more capable blue water small combatants to close the gap and keep our [destroyers] focused on the high-end fight.

US officials and defence analysts warned that state of affair, after the cancellation of the Zumwalt class, the bad performances of the LCS (Litoral Combat Ships) and the delays encountered by the new Ford class carriers, or even with the Virginia-Columbia class submarines, that the US is lagging behind China, its main potential maritime rival in the topic of shipbuilding. The only ongoing program that is running smoothly today are the Arleigh Burke class.

So what about this surprising new program ? First off, the question asked by the congress after the Navy announced in the 1990s the retirement of its four Iowa class battleships, about an equivalent firepower guarantee, was never addressed. The argument for big guns however is only sustainable in a single scenario: Short range coastal bombardment. Accuracy is average, but the shock-and-awe of simple explosive shells weighing as much as a small car could not be question, and is more online with the “big stick” of T. Roosevelt (mentioned by Trump in his allocution). Tests were performed with a spanking new 8-in gun by type USN in the 1980s, but nothing came out of it, and the gold standard today is still the 5-in/65 (127 mm) for USN surface ships. Rather than working on an improved 8-in gun for the Zumwalt, which was approved by the Congress in part to carry that coastal bombardment capability, it was believed an innovative railgun, capable of both far greater initial velocity and range, would just extend that coastal bombardment to cruise missile territory, especially with augmented (assisted) shells.

But the program collapsed when it appeared the ammunition for such a gun system (the gun itself was well advanced and ready for production) was just way too costly, after it was already announced the Zumwalt class would be cut down. Each vessel was about to carry one. More than a decade later, the issue of a “big gun” for the Navy, with all the symbolic weight it carries, remains unresolved. Now, one of the key aspect of the new “battleship” which for all analysts are just large guided missile cruisers, is precisely the return of such as “big gun”. At least if the new ship is named a battleship and has no armor, it could have one “big gun” to somewhat justify its status… The use of a railgun again, versus using a scaled-up 5-in gun as planned decades earlier, with the 155 mm caliber (likely but unconfirmed) is not fortuitous. It’s tantamount to a 6-in gun, more light cruiser territory if referring to WW2 rather than the humongous 16 inches of true battleships.

But it’s the possibility of a smaller caliber railgun which seems more enticing. First off, it offers more initial velocity, which traduced both in terminal velocity and extra range, that makes it quite appealing. A massive terminal velocity means a solid projectile (in Titanium for example) by the sheer impact energy could destroy a target as much as a conventional, slower HE (high explosive) one. AP (armor piercing) rounds disappeared from the inventory because armor also disappeared. A railgun has three other advantages, one being the shells could be made much cheaper than missiles (if scale applies), the whole system is globally unlimited as long as there is a powerplant to dispense the colossal energy required, and third, it is much safer and potentially faster to fire. No need for cumbersome powder bags, ammunition lifts and any manipulation, not backfiring or risk of an explosion. So if done right, the railgun is a good idea, and Europe, China work on their own, plus Japan already have one in testing today.

Another point that was underlined by analysts, beside the massive size of the ship, is the fact, in relation with the former point, of the energy management on board. Officially, the USS Defiant and unnamed sister, would be powered by gas turbines, with diesels as compliment. They would be likely of the reliable LM-2500 type, and if four are stacked, twice as much as an Arleigh Burke, might indeed power the 35,000 tonnes to the required speed. But it left two questions unanswered. Would it be sufficient to power the ship itself, plus all the armament onboard, including the rail gun and lasers, and the complex and hungry combat management system and AESA radar ? If the answer is yes, thus what about future upgrades ? After all, the current Ford class super carriers are powered by two nuclear reactors where just one would be sufficient for its actual real use. It was planned for future power consumption linked to upgrades. It is expected in the future new types of more powerful sensors and direct energy weapons, replacing legacy hard kill systems like the CIWS and RAM. So what about the BBGs ?

Another point of concern is the number of actual missile carried relative to the tonnage and size of the ship. It was announced officially with 128 wells for the full Mark 41 VLS ensemble. So far we have only artists renditions to judge the way they will be placed. The ships so far has four visible VLS spots: One at the bow, behind the rail gun for cruise missiles, one in front of the bridge, one amidship (to confirm), and one aft. It seems the Mark 41 would be placed on two 64-wells racks fore and aft. Both the smaller bow and amidship VLS would take care of the new cruise (CPS) and ballistic missiles (SLCM-N) that were announced. The problem is that 128 missiles is not more than a Ticonderoga class carries today. And the latter are 8000 tonnes ships, a fraction of the 35,000 tonnes for the BBG. Not much bang for the bucks, it seems. Yet, the larger hull is almost twice as large as a Ticonderoga class at 55 feet (16.8 meters), and could enable more missiles.

For the ship itself, there was also a point of concern about its self-protection. The pairs of RAM and Lasers covering port and starboard would likely not be enough to defend the ship in case of saturation attacks, especially if one or the other fails or is in maintenance when the attack happens. The four 30 mm RWS are much more a guarantee against surface drones and fast boats, an asymmetric asset, certainly incapable of doing a proper close-in defense. The RAM are present with their short range missiles, but there is no good old Phalanx CIWS with its sheer volume of fire as a backup. We knew also nothing about its EW and chaff suite. It needs to be generous, at least twice as much as an Arleigh Burke or Zumwalt to match its size.

Beyond the ship, there is the cost issue, and how it will be justified in the larger strategic picture of the real needs of the USN ? For now, we know these battleships will cost the American taxpayer as much as ten billion dollars or more, that is about as much as the Ford class super carriers, for an arguably a lower global firepower. There is also the lack of proper shipyards capable of undertaking such large ships. lets recalls the actual super carriers are built at Newport News Shipbuilding, already at full capacity with Ford’s sister ships, USS JFK in completion, the future USS Enterprise and its three sister ships. Second largest are the America class LHDs, which with 44,000 tonnes and 844 feet are much closer to the desired battleships. These are built for the moment only at Ingalls Shipbuilding, Pascagoula which have the required dry-docks and equipments.

The yard is actually also busy building LHA-8 to LHA-10 and will swap to the next replacement class. There will not be any room to start a BBG before 2029 at least, as LHA-10 is likely to not be launched before that. So the dry-dock will only be free to start BBG-1 that year, leaving three years for the R&D and pre-built modules and equipments for the new battleships. There are simply no other yards capable of handling such large and complex military ships in the USA today. So to add to the already salty ten billion per ship, probably much more would be needed to refurbish and improved other shipyards as declared on the same Presidential allocution.

And there is the elephant in room: The congress willing to vote such monsters when the Navy budget is already strained by projects that went nowhere and don’t fit the bill of matching the PLAN in case of anything happening in 2027 or beyond. One would understand why congressmen and women are doubtful about the capability of the Navy top brass to conclude this program to its conclusion, when the simple task of adapting a proven design, the FREMM class Frigates, ending in a disaster. The current administration thinks coast guard cutters could replace frigates, but the amount of beefing up in all directions is ludicrous to match for example European frigates in capabilities. Let’s recall that these new frigates drove from cutters expected in 2028 for now only have a single gun forward and a helicopter, plus standard navigation and aerial surveillance radars, no sonars, and are just glorified gunboats…

So in the end, will these new “battleships” be a pretext to shake up US shipbuilding, a future reality, or another Trump-style announcement ? Future will tell.

Older Related Programs

The CGN(X) program

CGN(X) program, 3D impression (CC). This was 2008 development advocated by Electric Boat (EB) and Northrop Grumman Newport News (NGNN), notably to preserve their unique skills in nuclear-powered cruisers. 2011 evaluation was $600-$800 million per unit cost, not including R&D.

It is something of an evidence today, but the question is resurfacing again and again in the public: If the right place of a Battleship is now agreed to be in museums, why the USN is ditching out its cruisers without replacement ? First off, there was a time when a “cruiser” was a clearly identified type, compared to a destroyer. The core idea of a cruiser however was slowly dying in the West in general, incapable of affording such a ship as in the 1980s. Only USSR and the US kept these. In the US, the use of destroyer hulls, the Spruance class, to built AEGIS-centered Ticonderoga class cruisers already saw the lines blurring between the two types. This was further demonstrated with the Arleigh Burke class, which were destroyers and yet embarked an even more advanced variant of the AEGIS, which coupled with a powerful and versatile VLS battery made the “Tico” redundant.

The 1980s 17,000 tonnes strike cruiser program

The writing was already on the wall in 1990 when the “Burke” were started construction, and yet, this made many in the naval staff uncomfortable. Thus, a program to replace the “Tico” by a far more capable and larger vessel made sense, even with the end of the Cold War. This was the DDG-X program. It had two main tasks: Replacing the Ticonderoga class, but also the now retired Iowa class battleship, with good old conventional firepower, basically carrying more missiles and having command capabilities than a Burke, and mixing missiles and heavy artillery. After all, the Congress imposed for long to have this artillery capability almost as an insurance. Shells are far less expensive than cruise missiles, and there was still a large inventory of 16-inches shells in 1990.

So the CG(X) or “Next Generation Cruiser” was meant to be a heavily armed warship with advanced air and missile defence capabilities, but the program was cancelled in 2010 due to budget constraints and shifting priorities. It was replaced by the Flight III Burke class, which series was pushed from 90 to 99. Initially it was budgeted to $3.2 billion per ship and 19 were planned. On paper, based on their final specs, they were seriously large ships, and the only comparison coming to mind are the also cancelled Long beach class, of which only one ship was ever built, paired with the equally lone USS Enterprise back in the sixties. They were to displace 20,000–25,000 tons with a nuclear power and a new advanced Integrated Electric propulsion to feed future sensors and systems which were energy-heavy in futures upgrades over 30 years. There were around 128 to 256 VLS, but also a single turret with the new 155 mm (6 in)/62 calibre Advanced Gun System. The latter was supposed to be the coastal bombardment asset the Congress wanted to maintain, in order to replace the Iowa class.

The return of “heavy” artillery in the Navy has been an ongoing debate for decades. In the 1960s already, tested were performed with a 8-inches (203 mm) calibre, and for once, it’s the army that showed that a 155 mm calibre was more than enough, with the new generation of very long range, self-directing augmented ammunition. These shells were in a soft spot, far costlier than traditional “dumb” shells, but cheaper than cruise missiles. One of the cornerstone of the new cruiser program, started around 1995, would evolve into the Long Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP), which had its own development later in the weapons section.

The CG-X program

The CG(X) program was announced on 1 November 2001 with a requirement for eighteen of such missile cruisers, then nineteen to adjust to the “313-ship” Navy in 2005. This was before the rapid rise of the PLAN. The 2007 reassessment suggested the was split between a five proper CG(X) 20k tons cruisers and fourteen 12k “escort cruisers”. In the end, the former became 23,000 ton “ballistic missile defence ships”. New long range SAM and possibly even directed energy weapons were part of the mix, with political pressure to have these nuclear-powered, which was not the case for the cheaper “escort cruisers”. Then came fiscal year (FY)2009 budget. The first CG(X) was to be operational by 2011, a second commissioned in 2013. The current battleship could recoup some R&D in these designs s well.

Design of the class

Hull and general design

As shown in particular on the New York harbor rendition silhouette, the Trump class USS Defiant is a sleek looking machine, with a low hull, like essentially a stretched out Arleigh Burke rather than a Zumwalt the current president probably found “ugly AF”. Personal aesthetics aside (as proclaimed in the conference), the ship with its low-mounted bridge and radar above, is clearly a throwback to the planned CG(X) of the early 2000s or even planned large cruisers of the late 1980s to counter the Kirov class.

The BBG-1 class is going to be massive, and to make true Donald Trump’s declaration about their size, it would be “slightly longer” than an Iowa class of old. Meaning between 840 and 880 feet or 256 to 268 meters long, which indeed is comparable for the latter to an Iowa (270 meters overall). In beam, to stay stable, it’s going to be either 105 to 115 feet, that is 32 to 35 meters (comparable to a WW1 dreadnought indeed) giving the right hull ratio for speed and stability as a platform. The draft will depend on many factors and the displacement overall and was stated between 24 and 30 feet, that is between 7.3 to 9 meters.

The hull ratio in that case would be 7.6, compared to a Burke class at 8/10. So unless the hull had very refined lines or the powerplant is capable of delivering an extra output, reaching 30+ knots will not be that much of a challenge.

Powerplant

The new Trump class being a very large ship, twice as large as a Zumwalt class and yet lighter than a Ford class, was announced to have a conventional, not a nuclear power plant. This is not a reboot of the Long Beach. According to the official release, we only know a speed over 35 knots, so nothing has been specified. Let’s review options:
If it is non-nuclear indeed, it is unlikely to return to steam turbines, and a set of four gas turbines and four diesels as backup or adding up to power all systems on board are likely. We are talking here four LM2500 gas turbines capable of 200,000 shaft horsepower (shp) total. The non-nuclear option is globally cheaper and enabled the ship to enter any port on the planet.

If it’s nuclear, a single A1B reactor like on the Ford class, powering four 600 psi boilers, each driving modern steam turbines on four shafts (or two, nothing was communicated still) would b ideal for the reserve of power needed for upgrades and current systems like the rail gun. The nuclear option, with this type of reactor, would offer that power reserve needed. Plus the A1B was announced “for lifetime” so no costly overhaul to re-core it after 15+ years.
The AB1 is indeed capable of providing 125 megawatts (168,000 hp). No power figure has been communicated yet, but reaching well beyond 30 knots is not far fetch with that power, since it’s a 35,000 tonnes displacement versus 100,000 plus tons for a Ford class.

Protection

Passive Protection

Stealth

According to what we know, and what we see, the Trump class has indeed shapes showing care in stealth features at least for the superstructure. The Zumwalt’s radar cross-section (RCS) was equivalent to a fishing boat, but it was still smaller than the projected battleship. If the same slopes are applied, and we are not talking here of a single blocky thing (for aesthetic reasons supposed ?), its angular shape makes it “50x harder to spot on radar than an ordinary destroyer”.

Soundproofing measures would likely be applied around the design of the power plant, with the near-absence or mechanical connections to the drive, only muffled sound of turbine blades, gas turbines and electric motors compartments all “rafted”, that is separated from the hull and mounted on shock-absorbent materials and sprung connections. The acoustic signature is likely, if well-made, comparable to that of the last batch of Los Angeles-class submarines. There would also be likely water sleeting (Prairie style) along the sides.
To reduce the thermal/infrared signature, passive cool air induction in the mack.
The ship however is announced to be made “all steel”, without aluminum structures above, which is not good for its magnetic signature overall. No composite deckhouse, unlike the Zumwalt class. This new staggered 5-deck tall structure would still enclose sensors and electronics. At least panels could be made in composites, less susceptible to corrosion when coupled with steel. Steel is heavier, but the apparent low structure design compensates for that…

Protection

The true game changing feature for a proper battleship is its armor. Whether it make sens today at the same level as before is everyone guess against modern missiles, but an Iowa class hull was designed to face incoming rounds up to 400 mm and more, so any missile. However, the superstructure was not armored and only count on active defense back in the Reagan era to counter missiles, with CIWS, chaffs and EW. Passive armor is still present on modern warships, notably to protect the command center buried deep into the ship, with kevlar panels. But if the radars of a Trump class are destroyer, the ship is essentially blind and unable to perform. So such a big and tempting target needs an extra mile in terms of active protection, at least equivalent and if possible superior to a Ford class carrier, a Zumwalt or a Burke in that matter.

The passive armor had not been revealed, but by default it could be aligned on that of a Burke class destroyer, namely:
Double-spaced steel layers to buffer the VLS and steering system, central operation, from anti-ship missiles detonations. Kevlar spall liners are also integrated into all these sensitive areas, also offering greater resistance to fire. On that chapter, there will likely be automated fire-fighting systems all around, and automated piping rupture isolation. On-board sensors, which can displayed on any monitor if needed, could paint a picture of any critical and sub-system on board (like temperature parameters).
There is also likely an NBC system, standard since the 1970s. It comprises full sealing of the interior with air conditioning and slight overpressure, external detectors as well of any radiation, or chemical compound. There is probably also an external network of sprinklers to wash out the main structure and hull.

Lastly, the same compartmentation used for all previous ship in case of underwater damage is integrated in the hull structure, with a better segmentation and double hull.
The Peripheral Vertical Launch System is also part of these protection measures: The Mk.57 PVLS is a missile launch system designed to avoid intrusions into the center space of the hull and reduce the risk of loss of the missile battery or magazine explosion. The pods inside VLS cells are distributed around the outer shell with a thin steel outer shell and thick inner shell. This directs the force of any explosion outward, like reactor bricks (ERA) found on main battle tanks or modern reactive armour blocks. Another inclusion from another armed branch of the US military, and unique feature of the class. This design also reduces the loss of missile capacity to just the affected pod. So far it was not adopted in any other design, at least known.

Active Protection

A mix of features that comprises according to the official reports, two RAM launchers, four 30 mm Guns of the RWS type, four ODIN systems, and two “counter UxS systems”, meaning against UAVs, USVs and UUVs (air, surface and undersea drones or unmanned systems).

RIM-116 RAM

The RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile complement to the traditional gun-based CIWS with a longer reach, covering an intermediate bubble between the Sea Sparrow and 30mm CIWS/25mm RWS is the RIM-116. The Rolling Airframe Missiles are carried in a 21-strong configuration in the Mk 49 Guided Missile Launching System (GMLS). The Mk-144 Guided Missile Launcher weighs 5,7 tons (12,736 lb) but cannot employ its own sensors prior to firing and thus is fully integrated with the ship own combat system for direction. It is in service from 1992. Unit cost was on average 900.000 million back in 2021. Each missile is 2.79 m (9 ft 2 in) long for 159 mm (6.25 in) diameter (Block 2) and a wingspan of 434 mm (17.1 in). It carries a 11.3 kg (24 lb 15 oz) Blast fragmentation warhead and is powered by a Hercules/Bermite Mk. 36 solid-fuel rocket for a 9 km (5.6 mi) range at speeds in excess of Mach 2 (1,500 mph; 2,500 km/h) guided by optional passive radio frequency/infrared homing and infrared dual mode for an accuracy claimed over 95%.

ODIN

Two Optical Dazzling Interdictor, Navy system is as much a protective and offensive asset, classed as “weapon”. Similar to dazzler of some main battle tanks, its goal is to dazzle an incoming missile, not destroying it. More to come.

Lasers

Two sets of High Energy Lasers with Integrated Optical-dazzler and Surveillance likely replacing the ODIN system after the first two ships. In that case, either two 300 Kw or 600 kw lasers would be installed but it’s depends of the power choices, gas turbines or nuclear, albeit the former seems announced. More to come.

Armament

Naval Sea Systems Command image

5-in/54 Mark 45 Mod 1/2 HVP

Two are visible, either side and rear of the forward main VLS. They are a guarantee of firepower aside the eletric gun, covering both port and starboard areas and still distant enough for coss fire either side. A proven design from 1968, introduced in 1971 as the Spruance entered service. Fully automated instead of the previous weapon system, so it was much smaller and lighter but fired faster and more accurately. There were two, one for and aft on the Ticonderoga class, not modernized apart for the fire control sytem over the years.

⚙ specifications 5-in/54 Mark 45 Mod 0

Weight 21,691 kg (47,820.5 lb), Barrel length 8.992 m (29 ft 6.0 in) long. Elevation/Traverse −15° to +65° at 20°/s, traverse ±170° from centerline at 30°/s. Loading system: Barillet. Range 13 nmi (24.1 km), Guidance: Radar
Crew. Automated. Round: Shell 127 x 835mm (54 caliber). R 31.75 kg (70.0 lb). Rate of Fire: 16–20 rounds per minute, automatic 2,500 ft/s (760 m/s).

The HVP rounds are the hypervelocity projectiles developed by BAE system. They are next-generation, common, low drag, guided projectile capable of executing multiple missions for a number of gun systems. Financially it would be workable in scale only, especially for the new 6.1-inches or 155 mm (presumably) electric gun developed for the BBG-1. The cost of these doomed the Zumwalt.

32 MJ HVP Advanced Gun System

Yes, the most controversial aspect of the Zumwalt class is back on the line. This Advanced Gun System was back in the days a a 155 mm (6.1 inches), 62 cal. Naval gun in a stealthy turret. The difference here is that a single one would be mounted on the foredeck, a reboot of the most recognizable feature of the Zumwalt class. The gun was supposed to work with a large provision of the Long Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP). Essentially more a rocket than shell, with a warhead fired from the AGS gun (11 kg or 24 lb bursting charge). It was tested with a circular error probable of 50 meters but a range of 83 nautical miles (154 km). The turret were designed to be fully automated for the storage system and a total of 300+ rounds. In that case, the LRAP would be replaced by the more mature and affordable BAE system HVP.

The barrel normally hidden behind cover panels on top, erected when firing, and water-cooled to prevent overheating, for a rate of fire of 10 rounds per minute and a max 70% elevation. The firing control enables the same as the latest land SPGs, the Multiple Rounds Simultaneous Impact (MRSI) firing tactic, in which all rounds land simultaneously on a target. This was judged equivalent to 12 conventional M198 field guns landing their shells at the same time. This gun system was designed for shore bombardment and thus have a ballast tanks to lower themselves for a reduced profile, and even possibly use asymmetric filling to create artificial listing and thus, increase further the range, perhaps to 80%, albeit 70% is already hard to beat.

CPS

The Conventional Prompt Strike Missiles (CPS) is one of the innovation of the design. They are placed in a forward VLS between the eletric gun and the two 5-in/62 guns.
CPS offers capabilities comparable to nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles while employing conventional warheads for precision effects. The CPS missile consists of a two-stage solid rocket booster paired with a C-HGB, deployed using a cold-gas launch mechanism. None nuclear-tipped, they would still be able to strike targets over 3,700 kilometres (2,300 mi) away, in under 30 minutes.

Mark 41 Vertical Launch System

The new battleships VLS system of the Trump class is at the heart of the design of course, however so far “only” 128 cells had been announced, which is the same as the latest Ticonderoga class cruiser. These are located in two classic fore and aft 64-cells rack of with multiple stacks of ramps, that is deepr enough to accomodate all sorts of mission-based missiles, provided with cradles to handle smalller diameter missiles. The official scheme shows however the full VLS between islands amiodship, and another aft before the hangar in another artist view. If placed between the two hangar and 64-strong this made sense.

For reference the Zumwalt class instead had peripheral launchers forward since the new eletric guns took the central sectioon of the bow. In that case they were 20 Mk. 57 separates VLS modules, four cells per module and 80 launch cells in total, still, each with potentiall four RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow.

But the larger, longer hull of the Trump class could accomodate at the same time as shown in artists renditions both a single railgun forward, and a first VLS, then the official NSSC shows a “28 Mk41 VLS” amidship, which could be a typo.

RIM-162 Evolved SeaSparrow SAM

Specifications
Mass: 620 lb (280 kg)
Dimensions: 12 ft (3.66 m) x 10 in (254 mm)
Warhead: 86 lb (39 kg) blast-fragmentation
Detonation mechanism: Proximity fuze
Engine: Mk 134 Mod 0 solid fuel rocket
Operational range: 27 nmi+ (50 km+), Mach 4+
Guidance system Block 1: Mid-course update datalink, terminal semi-active radar homing
Guidance system Block 2: Dual semi-active/active radar homing

RIM-174 Standard ERAM

Also called SM-6 standard SAM.
Specifications
Mass: 3,300 lb (1,500 kg)
Dimensions Block IA: 21.5 ft (6.6 m) x 13.5 in (0.34 m)
Dimensions Block IB: 21.5 ft (6.6 m) x 21 in (0.53 m)
Wingspan: 61.8 in (1.57 m)
Warhead: 140 lb (64 kg) blast fragmentation
Detonation mechanism: Radar and contact fuze
Engine: Two stage: solid rocket booster, solid rocket booster/sustainer
Operational range: 130 nmi (150 mi; 240 km) or upwards of 250 nmi (290 mi; 460 km), 500 km against land targets
Flight ceiling: 110,000 ft (34,000 m)
Maximum speed: Mach 3.5 (2,664.2 mph; 4,287.7 km/h; 1.2 km/s)
Guidance system: Inertial guidance, terminal active and Semi-active radar homing

BGM-109 Tomahawk SSM

Specifications
Mass: 2,900 lb (1,300 kg), 3,500 lb (1,600 kg) with booster
Dimensions: 18 ft 3 in (5.56 m) without booster x 20.4 in (0.52 m)
Wingspan: 8 ft 9 in (2.67 m)
Warhead: Optional Nuclear W80. 1,000 pounds (450 kg) HE/submunition dispenser BLU-97/B
Detonation mechanism: FMU-148 since TLAM Block III or else
Engine: Williams Itnl. F107-WR-402 turbofan, TH-dimer fuel, solid-fuel rocket booster
Operational range: Block Vb: 900 nmi (1036 mi; 1666 km) classified
Flight altitude: 98–164 ft (30–50 m) AGL
Speed: Mach 0.74. about 570 mph (500 kn; 920 km/h)
Guidance system: GPS, INS, TERCOM, DSMAC, active radar homing (RGM/UGM-109B)

RUM-139 VL-ASROC

Specifications
Mass: 1,409 lb (639 kg)
Dimensions: 16 ft 1 in (4.89 m) x 1 ft 2 in (358 mm)
Wingspan: 2 ft 3.4 in (696 mm)
Warhead (RUM-139C): Mark 54 torpedo
Engine: Two-stage solid-fuel rocket
Operational range: 12 nmi (22 km)
Top speed: Mach 1 (309 m/s; 1013 ft/s)
Guidance system: Inertial guidance and Mk 210 Mod 0 Digital Autopilot Control subsystem

30 mm Mk 46 Mod 2 GWS

It was first Deployed in 2005 for the Mark 46 Mod 1.
Range: 4,400 yards, max effective range (full caliber ammo).
Rate of Fire: 200 rounds/minute. Modes: single, five (burst), fully auto.
Magazine Capacity: 400 rounds (dual feed, 200 per side).
Caliber: The Mark 46 Mod 2 GWS includes the Mk 44 Mod 2 30 mm cannon, single barrel, open bolt, dual feed
Guidance System: Forward-looking IR sensor, low-light TV cam, laser rangefinder provides, closed loop tracking system.

Air Group

Naval Sea Systems Command image
The Trump class is supposed to have conventional SH-60 Seahwaks for the usual SAR, liaison and ASW work. But it was announced in complement they would carry V-22 Osprey in “double hangars”. Certainly not superimposed as this was never done for any conventional combat surface ship in the USN apart some LHDs, with a hangar dedicated to helicopters and aircraft, and another below for land vehicles, but not two aerial platform hangars, especially if housing the V-22 Osprey. The latter, even if its propellers are folded is still 18 ft 1 in (5.51 m) tall, meaning at least a 6-meter or about 19 feet. The apparent hangar is tall enough for a V-22 and the artists views shows two hangar indeed “side by side” separated by a VLS. Which is more likely given the beam overall of the ship aft.

But one point remains: Why a V22 Osprey as announced ?. It makes sense for an amphibious warship, not for a surface combatant. As a remainder, the Osprey is a convertible helicopter (meaning slightly faster than a standard helicopter) battle taxi. It means bringing 24 troops or 24,000 Ib cargo from point A to B. The V-22 never was intended to be on a classic surface combatant, as it was not tailored for any offensive role that might be “useful”, likely ASW. At best it could carry machine guns. It only made sense if the ship uses these for supply/transfer of personal between ships in the strike group, as command vessel. Future will tell.

MQ-8 Fire Scout

If the BBG-1 is indeed use as a motheship for dones, the Northrop Grumman MQ-8 Fire Scout is an unmanned autonomous helicopter, developed by Northrop Grumman, is likely to be used. It is made for reconnaissance, situational awareness, aerial fire support, precision targeting support, derived from the Schweizer 330. MQ-8B from the Schweizer 333 and MQ-8C Fire Scout fom the Bell 407. By February 2018, 23 MQ-8Bs were in service, but they were retired by October 2022. It was merely tested on board USS Zumwalt. Other drones could be envisioned of the same type.

Sensors (prospective)

SPY-6

The very capable AN/SPY-6 AMDR was also originally proposed for the DDG-1000 (CG(X) program), to be stretched out and create a cruiser. But the latter was cancelled while AN/SPY-6 AMDR was still developed in parallel for installation on the Arleigh Burke Flight III, with retrofit on the Flight IIA. But due to a smaller aperture of 14 feet (4.3 m) it will be less sensitive than the 22 feet (6.7 m) variant of the planned CG(X). Work was done to create a 22-foot (6.7 m) aperture mostly for Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD), and since the DDG-1000 lacked the Aegis Combat System, it was decided not to install it in the end. On the BBG-1 it would have 32 RMA and 4 faces located on the structure above the bridge. It will go with SEWIP with 4 faces.

Fire Control

Raytheon and partners developed the AN/SPY-6 Air and Missile Defence Radar (AMDR) to work notably with the Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR) already is currently installed on the second Gerald R. Ford-class, USS John F. Kennedy. So the Dual Band radar is a one-off only used by the first super carrier and envisioned for the DDG-1000 class only and possibly the BBG-1. The reserve of power would be enough.

Computing & Display (prospective)

The Common Display System or “keds” was developed to enable specialists and operators to interact via trackballs and specialized button panels, with touchscreens option on the interface. The system was developed to monitor a full array of weapons systems or sensors with a reduced manpower. The ship could even be steered from the ops center, protected by kevlar panels, unlike the bridge, a modern reinterpretation of the conning tower. The Computer network is based around the Total Ship Computing Environment Infrastructure (TSCEI), developed from the General Electric Fanuc Embedded Systems, PPC7A and PPC7D, both single-board computers running Lynux Works’ Lynx OS Real-time operating system (RTOS). They are contained in sixteen modular cells proof against shock, vibration, and electromagnetic interferences. There were sixteen pre-assembled IBM blade servers assembled to run the system also inside the CO, with a focus on seamless integration of all onboard systems and sensor fusion for better mission planning.

Sonar (prospective)

On board, ASW detection was solid as well, with a dual-band sonar controlled by a highly automated computer system capable also of detecting mines like all types of submarines, and enhanced database acoustic detection based on recorded sound patterns. This suite was claimed superior to the Arleigh Burke class system for littoral operations (the trademark of the Zumwalt) but less for blue water or deep sea operations. The system comprises the following for the detail:
-Hull-mounted mid-frequency sonar AN/SQS-60
-Hull-mounted high-frequency sonar AN/SQS-61
-Multi-function towed array sonar and associated handling system AN/SQR-20.
This multi-function towed array however could only work in conjunction with its helicopters or VL-ASROCs. Despite is massive size, the Zumwalt has no on board 324 mm torpedo tubes.

⚙ BBG-1 planned specifications
Displacement	35,000 tonnes announced*
Dimensions	840 to 880 feet x 150-115 ft beam x 24-30 ft draft
Propulsion	Unknown, see notes
Speed	30 kn+ (56 km/h; 35 mph) announced
Range	Depends on the propulsion chosen
Armament	SLCM-N, 12 Cells CPS, 128 Cells Mk41 VLS, MJ Railgun, 2x 5-in HVP.
Protection	Stealth, kevlar, chaffs, EW, 2 lasers, 2 RAM, 2x 30mm RWS, 4x ODIN
Sensors	AN/SPY-6 AESA MFR, AN/SQS-60/61/20 sonar.
Air Group	4+ MH-60R helicopter(s), 2+ V22 Osprey, MQ-8 Fire Scout VT-UAVs
Crew	650-850 depending on automation

*symbolic of the Washington treaty cap…

The Trump class (so far)

Planned, official specs to be released 2026. To be built for a launch in 2028 but TBD.

Planned, official specs to be released 2026. Construction TBD in both cases.

Read More/Src

Links

goldenfleet.navy.mil
news.usni.org
navalnews.com
twz.com
breakingdefense.com
edition.cnn.com
washingtonpost.com
ndtv.com
nytimes.com

Videos

The official conference.