Following the controversial plan for the "Golden Dome," US President Donald Trump returns with an even more ambitious vision: a gleaming, "aesthetically superior" war fleet—compared to the current one—with a force of 300 ships that promises to make America the leading maritime power. He rejects the "ugly" designs of modern ships, talks about Iowa-class battleships, and promises a naval renaissance that harks back to the Cold War era.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Donald Trump is personally involved in preparing plans for the creation of an entirely new 300-ship American war fleet, which threatens to blow up the US budget, as the price tag for his plans is estimated at $1.3 trillion.
Complete renewal
"I'm not a fan of some of the ships you build. I am a man of aesthetics. I don't like some of your ships from an aesthetic point of view. They say, 'Oh, that's stealth.' But it's not. We don't necessarily have to build ugly ships for that," Trump said at a generals' conference in Virginia in September. Now, the shipbuilding industries are rubbing their hands with anticipation, as the President's critique of the design was not limited to that. Trump intends to substantially renew the US war fleet.
The idea is not new
The idea is not new: during his first presidential term, Trump had promised to increase the number of US warships from 284 to 355. At the time, these plans were mentioned towards the end of his term, and the Joe Biden administration subsequently abandoned the idea. Republicans, however, seem to be paying more attention to strengthening US naval power. Why?
The fear of China
The reason for these steps is the deterrence of China, which is rapidly evolving into a global naval power. According to a US Congressional report, China now has over 370 ships, including auxiliary vessels. By 2030, that number will reach 435. The United States currently has only 296.
Outpaces the US by 230 times
Furthermore, according to the BBC, China is approaching the US in terms of total tonnage—Washington has more large aircraft carriers. However, from 2019 to 2023, shipyards in Dalian, Guangzhou, Jiangnan, and Hudong-Zhonghua commissioned 39 warships with a total tonnage of 550,000 tons. For comparison, this is almost one and a half times more than the total tonnage of the British fleet—399,000 tons.
In terms of industrial capabilities, the picture for Washington is even worse. In the same report, the authors warn that, if we look at the relationship of "tonnage produced per unit of time," China outpaces the US by 230 times. It is noteworthy that the statistics include not only warships but also commercial vessels.
The fleet cannot cope
A cause for Trump's radical reforms is also dissatisfaction with the condition of the current fleet. According to Brian Clark, a former US Navy officer and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, the President is personally involved in the discussions, and some American admirals partially agree with his ideas.
"The US Navy has found that the fleet is struggling to cope with modern threats – for example, the Houthi attacks from Yemen in the Red Sea," Clark reports in the Wall Street Journal.
Washington's concern is understandable: if the aircraft carriers cannot handle the Houthis, how can they confront China?
What will be built?
In this context, the White House and the Pentagon are negotiating the construction of a new, next-generation ship with heavy armor. According to sources, this ship could weigh from 15,000 to 20,000 tons and carry more powerful weapons, including possibly hypersonic missiles, in greater quantity than current destroyers and cruisers.
However, Trump, speaking in Virginia, nostalgically recalled the Iowa-class battleships with a weight of over 50,000 tons. These were built for World War II and decommissioned in the 1990s, but experts are not sure that such ships would be useful today.
Oversized ships are not the right solution
"I am fully in favor of a radical overhaul of the fleet, but I'm not sure that oversized surface ships are the right solution," says Mark Montgomery, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and former US Navy officer. "The President's aesthetic perception is not the best approach for evaluating the tactical requirements of ships," Montgomery says.
The fact is that large battleships were designed and built for full naval battles, where the outcome was judged by the ships' gunnery. However, since the second half of the 20th century, the emphasis has shifted to other aspects.
Mass missile attacks
As Business Insider reports, when modeling combat scenarios, such as a war with China, it becomes clear that naval forces will face mass missile attacks. Battleships will hardly have anything to counter such threats. According to the Pentagon, the emphasis should be on measures against missiles and drones.
"China has had long-range anti-ship missiles for over a decade, capable of attacking US Navy ships from a distance of over 2,500 miles (over 4,000 kilometers). And Beijing produces such weapons – like the DF-26 ASBM ballistic missile – in large quantities," writes the National Security Journal.
Skepticism
The report expresses skepticism about the American President's ideas. "This is a romantic perception of naval power – big guns, thick armor, 'nothing stops them,' but it clashes with modern combat where missiles, drones, submarines, and networks decide who survives and who sinks," the authors state.
However, the now-discussed tonnage of 15,000-20,000 tons is one and a half to two times greater than the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and the Ticonderoga missile cruisers (which are less than 10,000 tons).
Unmanned ships
In addition to this, the construction of a large number of unmanned ships is planned. Specifically, this is necessary for the "Hellscape" strategy proposed by General Samuel Paparo, head of the US Indo-Pacific Command. In his opinion, placing thousands of drones, unmanned ships, and submarines in case of a conflict in the Taiwan Strait will allow Washington to buy time.
"I want to turn the Taiwan Strait into hell, using a series of classified capabilities," he said in an interview with the Washington Post in the summer of 2024. "To make their life absolutely unbearable for a month, and that will give me time for everything else," the American general said.
The enormous cost
Prior to Trump's statement, the program for the creation of a new destroyer, DDG(X), was actively discussed in the US. However, according to Clark, its future is now uncertain.
"To build a ship that can attack and defend, we need something even bigger, so that we have sufficient missile capacity or have ultra-long-range missiles that do not fit into the unit (vertical launch system). Any of these scenarios leads us to designing a new ship that is even larger than what is planned for the DDG(X)," Clark reports in Breaking Defense.
In this case, the new fleet may indeed prove to be "golden" for the United States budget. Each Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, as the report notes, costs Washington $2.5 to $3 billion. In the case of the new battleships, the amount will be even more significant.
According to Jonathan Page, a professor at the University of Michigan who has worked on various US Navy shipbuilding programs, each battleship will cost $4 to $4.5 billion. This means that the total cost of the project could reach from $1.2 to $1.35 trillion—more than the entire US military budget for 2026.
Given that Washington is simultaneously working on an even more ambitious program in the field of air defense—the "Golden Dome"—the Pentagon may face the traditional problem of the American defense industry, where the program vastly exceeds the budget and completion deadlines are constantly postponed.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών