The... price fluctuations
However, the price of Trump-class battleships has experienced price fluctuations since the December announcement, with the revised cost being higher by about 6 billion compared to the initial estimate. Based on published estimates regarding size and nuclear propulsion, the CBO calculated that a full-displacement 35,000-ton nuclear battleship would cost around 18 billion dollars per vessel over the duration of the program. However, the cost per vessel would increase by 16% if displacement increased to 41,000 tons, bringing the total cost to nearly 528 billion dollars.
The ship is expected to be the most heavily armed surface warship ever built by the US Navy. It is slated to be equipped with 128 Mark 41vertical launch cells, an upgraded version of the Navy's AN/SPY-6 integrated air and missile defense radar, an electromagnetic railgun, and four hypersonic missiles tubes. "If built to these specifications, the ship will be the largest surface warship in the world and larger than any surface warship built for the Navy since World War II," the report states. "It will be more than 3.5 times the size of the Navy's Arleigh Burke class guided-missile destroyer and more than double the size of the Zumwalt class guided-missile destroyer." "Other elements will include high-energy laser beams, an electromagnetic railgun, and a variety of defensive systems, such as guns, smaller missiles, decoys, and dazzler-type optical systems aimed at countering and disrupting unmanned aerial systems.
If some of these technologies are not available when construction begins, the Navy could still build the ship while reserving space and power for their later installation," the report further adds, explaining the scope of development. Apart from these, the addition of nuclear weapons will cause a further sharp cost escalation, as noted in the CBO report. "The BBGN will add notable firepower to the Navy fleet. The Navy has stated that the ship will be equipped to carry the sea-launched nuclear-armed cruise missile, or SLCM-N. The number of nuclear cruise missiles the ship will carry is unknown, but will likely be small given the Navy's descriptions of the nuclear cruise missile program. Nevertheless, carrying nuclear weapons would give the battleship greater firepower than any ship in the fleet, except for the Navy's 14 Ohio class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines." The CBO emphasizes that the exact cost estimates remain difficult to pin down precisely. "These estimates are extremely uncertain and are based on CBO assessments regarding the ship's design and the overall battleship program. Other factors could also make costs higher or lower than CBO estimates," the report says. For instance, constructing a conventionally propelled battleship program would be about 13% cheaper than a nuclear one, but a nuclear battleship would have reduced operating and maintenance costs. 
The estimate is based on three assumptions: the lead ship being ordered in 2028, as seen in Navy budget documents; a total of 15 ships being built at the rate projected in the 2027 shipbuilding program; and final assembly occurring at one shipyard, with others producing sections in shipyard construction. The report warns that the construction of large surface combatants would need to increase by 60% by 2058, which "could pose a challenge for the shipbuilding industry." By 2035, shipyards would also need to produce 12% more fleet tonnage under the 2027 plan compared to the 2025 version, due to the shift away from smaller surface combatants. Notably, the latest report comes a few months after the CBO estimated in January 2026 that the first Trump-class battleship could cost up to 21 billion dollars if ordered in January 2026 and 22 billion dollars if ordered in 2030. Furthermore, it stated that the cost per vessel for subsequent ships could range from 9 billion to 13 billion dollars if orders are placed then, or from 10 billion to 15 billion dollars if the first ship order is delayed until 2030 under the revised procurement schedule. The latest report makes these earlier estimates look much more conservative, even though the astronomical price tag has faced criticism ever since the project was announced despite budget projectionsfor military spending.
Trump's battleships are too expensive for the US Navy
Experts argue that large, heavy battleships like the USS Defiant will be vulnerable, noting that despite carrying nuclear and hypersonic weapons, the ship's size and displacement would make it a "bomb magnet." They have repeatedly questioned the viability of the program, arguing it conflicts with the US Navy's doctrine of distributed firepower. The Navy's distributed doctrines prioritize dispersing sensors, shooters, and risk across multiple networked platforms, such as destroyers, frigates, and unmanned systems. This increases the number of "nodes," which are intended to complicate enemy targeting, improve overall fleet survivability, and multiply existing sources of lethality.
Conversely, a few heavy high-value targets create concentrated points of failure and reduce the total number of platforms the fleet can field for a given budget. Retired Indian Navy Rear Admiral Girish Kumar Garg told the EurAsian Times: "This is simply a crazy price for a warship, whatever its capabilities may be. Even if America can afford them, it is a colossal waste of taxpayer money. Especially considering that, in my opinion, similar tasks can be performed just as effectively by warships costing less than a quarter of this price. Furthermore, the future of warfare is shifting toward unmanned warfare across all three naval domains – air, surface, and sub-surface. Such a massive expenditure on a warship is therefore not prudent." Additionally, the ship's cost may not justify the vulnerability, shipyard strain, and operational complexity of deployment.
Retired Admiral James Stavridis, former NATO commander, criticized the wisdom of funneling valuable dollars into a project that is clearly vulnerable. "Does it make sense to put so many expensive weapons and so many sailors into a single, potentially vulnerable platform?" wrote Admiral Stavridis, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, in a Bloomberg op-ed. "Given today's drone swarms, stealth submarines, hypersonic missiles, advanced torpedoes, and offensive cyber weapons, putting many eggs in a few large baskets does not make much sense," Stavridis wrote.
More expensive than an aircraft carrier
Meanwhile, others have pointed out that the Trump-class battleship will cost more than an aircraft carrier, the price of which has seemingly concerned US Navy leadership regarding overall warship costs. Former Secretary of the US Navy John Phelan stated earlier this year that the Navy is re-evaluating design and costs, hinting that canceling future versions of carrier designs is not off the table. He said the goal of the review was to examine "the costs of plans and systems to ensure they make sense and possess all the systems and requirements we want in the future" for naval design. Interestingly, the USS Gerald R. Ford cost approximately 13.3 billion dollars, significantly less than the ambitious Trump-class battleship aircraft carrier cost. 
In May 2026, a report by the Cato Institute characterized the battleship as unnecessary and ineffective. "We haven't used this since World War II," Ben Giltner, policy analyst at the Cato Institute, told Fortune at the time, "because aircraft could eliminate it on the ocean." Furthermore, he emphasized in his Fortune interview, "we could do something as simple as helping pay off the debt, the interest on the debt right now, which is absolutely enormous." Notably, disclosures regarding the cost of the Trump-class battleship coincide with Pentagon cutsacross the board being executed by the Trump administration affecting the defense budget. As Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat from Oregon and ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, stated following the publication of the CBO report: "While we continue to see far too many Pentagon programs burdened by cost overruns, delays, and unrealistic promises that fail to meet reality, Congress cannot afford to commit to another massive military fiasco that will do nothing more than line the pockets of the military-industrial complex."
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών