US President Donald Trump unveiled the official proposal for a guided missile battleship with a considerable displacement and an array of new weaponry.
The previous mention of a new generation of battleship by Trump was naturally not taken seriously due to being merely a word of mouth at that moment. However, the recent event at Mar-a-Lago became a scene for the officialisation of the proposal for a battleship alongside a procurement plan.
Currently dubbed “Trump-class Battleship”, (Lead ship named as “BBG-1 USS Defiant”), which might later be changed for obvious reasons, the BBG design has a displacement comparable to the battleships of the old at 35000 tonnes with a systems layout that can be simply described as combining today’s assets with some new strategic weaponry.
Construction Plan
The joint announcement at the USN event at Mar-a-Lago includes that two ships are planned for initial procurement, with the final goal set as 20-25 ships in total. The construction is planned to start in 2030.
Another thing regarding the construction is that Navy Secretary John Phelan stated that all eligible shipyards will be mobilised to build the battleships, which can be expected to take far longer than a destroyer like the Arleigh Burke-class due to the displacement and proposed equipment.
Specifications of the Bold Proposal for a Modern Battleship
Some of the experts who conducted a what-if work on what a battleship in modern day would look like pointed at the main source of firepower as sheer VLS count, naval guns staying as secondary weapons, and more potent sensors thanks to the large space for bigger powerplants. On the other hand, lasers and railguns were looked at as possibilities due to the technologies being yet to mature.
To start with specifications, the ship is proposed with a length of 268 m and a displacement of 35000 tonnes. The crew count is something controversial, but anticipated at 650 to 850 onboard crew. The ship to be powered by what is likely to be IEP propulsion, combining all kinds of combustion engines under the roof of electrical generation for both movement and electrical systems’ operation, is stated to be capable of 30+ knots speed.
The weaponry proposal for the exotic proposal of a super-heavy surface combatant is diverse, as one might expect. The official presentation by the US Navy shows 128 Mk41 VLS cells and 12 large diameter cells for the CPS hypersonic glide weapon as the missile load.
CPS is currently being integrated on Zumwalt-class destroyers (Which deserve a second mention later on) in place of the 155 mm AGS naval guns, as a substitution of extended range naval bombardment capability with long-range deterrence through hypersonic glide weapons.
A nuclear-armed cruise missile is included in the armament as SLCM-N, which might mark the return of nuclear-armed cruise missiles to the US Navy after the retired BGM-109A Tomahawk (TLAM-N). It is not clear if SLCM-N will be launched from Mk41 VLS or a unique VLS like CPS.
Secondary weapons are equally diverse, with two Mk45 127 mm naval guns and a 32 MJ railgun with HVP rounds at the bow, alongside high-power laser weapons (300 kW or 600 kW) at the midsection. While Mk45 is already in widespread service, a 32 MJ railgun and laser weapon are somewhat controversial in terms of maturity, as mentioned before.
Before going into the problems with mounting a railgun, it is clear from the description that BAE Systems is being considered as the supplier of the railgun due to its having developed a 32 MJ prototype and the HVP high-velocity guided round. NAVSEA’s infographic shows that a range of 200 km can be achieved with a 32 MJ railgun firing rounds at hypersonic speeds. HVP is being presented as a multi-role ammunition for various calibres of large guns with high velocity and guidance for the extended range engagement of both air and surface targets, and has been tested from existing guns like 127 mm and 155 mm.
When it comes to the issues, the primary issue is that the railgun development has lain dormant in the US Navy for multiple years due to the energy supply and durability challenges and bringing it back on time for the stated construction schedule is something to be doubted. Beyond the development and integration part, the railgun has to be tested against the envisioned target groups at different ranges to see if it will perform as intended in combat scenarios. While the process would not be so complicated for a conventional gun, a railgun with drastically different ballistics and a two-sided reloading loop (Ammunition+Charging) will take considerable time before it can get into operational status.
When it comes to laser weapons, they could be regarded as a closer target compared to a large-sized railgun, but still with a considerable distance to be taken to reach a power regime such as 300 kW to 600 kW. Current laser weapons going up to 100 kW in power can engage UAVs at close range or blind optics at longer ranges. Laser weapons of higher power have always been envisioned as future CIWS options against cruise missiles, as they can damage the seeker required to home on the ship, even if they fail to reach the fuel or warhead.
Other than the hard-kill weapons, a C-UxS system is shown as a soft-kill weapon, understood to be a multi-spectral jammer or HPeM emitter to disable UAVs or USVs.
The radar suite is stated to consist of four planar arrays of SPY-6 AESA radars with 37 RMAs, the same as Arleigh Burke Flight III destroyers.
There is no mention of ASW or, at least, self-defence against submarines. While the defensive loadout against surface and air threats is ‘to the teeth’, the lack of elaboration on other defensive capabilities leaves many questions to be asked. A heavyweight torpedo launched from submarines can easily knock out even the large-sized ships with a few hits.
Everything summed up, it can be said that the “BBG” proposal is rooted in the core philosophy of a generic battleship with a large weapons load, including technologies yet to be matured, and the spice of conventional/nuclear deterrent weaponry.
Another Zumwalt Moment on Horizon?
While the chief officials -the President, Secretary of Defence, and Secretary of the Navy- made bold claims, the cost factor before everything else renders the whole proposal in doubt.
A close example is the Zumwalt-class destroyers, which were presented with an all-new VLS, extravagant stealth characteristics through a sharply profiled upper hull, and 155 mm AGS naval guns for extended range compared to 127 mm guns. While the ships featured many new technologies, most of them drove up the cost per ship to the $ billions range. This resulted in the scale-down of the orders from 32 ships to just three over the years, not to mention the abandonment of the expensive LRMP long-range rounds that were supposed to make 155 mm AGS guns stand out. The fact that these battleships are proposed with far more weapons load and some immature technologies can be said to scream a cost per unit more than the already astronomical cost of Zumwalt’s.
It is also noteworthy that this is not the first time super-heavy surface combatants have been proposed and cancelled without making it to the shipyard, for obvious cost and complement issues.
The recent cancellation of the Constellation-class frigates with an identical number of orders is also not very reassuring when it comes to the credibility of the plans for up to 25 oversized and armed-to-teeth battleships.
Author: Kaan Azman
Editor: Özgür Ekşi
