Summary and Key Points: Defense analyst Christian D. Orr evaluates the Trump-class battleship, a 35,000-ton guided-missile behemoth designed to anchor the “Golden Fleet.”
-Equipped with the SLCM-N nuclear cruise missile, the USS Defiant (BBG-1) introduces a fourth dimension to the U.S. nuclear triad.
Copy negative of the US Navy (USN) Iowa Class (as built) Battleship USS NEW JERSEY (BB 62) firing a 21-gun broadside. Exact date shot unknown. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
USS Missouri Iowa-Class Battleship Broadside. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
-This report analyzes the ship’s 2026 weaponry, including a 32-megajoule electromagnetic railgun, 300kW high-energy lasers, and 12 Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) hypersonics.
-Orr explores the strategic “ambiguity” this creates for adversaries like China, while noting the fiscal risks posed by the lead ship’s projected $22 billion price tag.
Return of the Battlewagon: Why the Trump-Class BBG(X) Battleship is the Navy’s New 2026 “Nuclear Leg”
The U.S. nuclear strategic triad rests on air, land, and sea legs. The aerial leg depends on two U.S. Air Force strategic bombers, namely the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber and the septuagenarian B-52 Stratofortress.
The land-based leg comprises intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)— currently Minuteman IIIs and eventually the LGM-35A Sentinel.
The sea leg is the province of nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs)—currently the Ohio-class, and eventually the up-and-coming Columbia-class SSBNs.
Note that the seaborne component of the triad doesn’t include any surface warships. But if President Donald Trump gets his way, the Navy may soon indeed have a nuke-wielding surface vessel: the proposed Trump-class battleships, or BBG(X).
Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF): Battleship “Boomers?”
A key source of information is a December report from Defence Security Asia:
“Standing alongside the President, senior naval leadership confirmed that the Trump-class will for the first time in generations place nuclear-armed cruise missiles aboard U.S. surface combatants, a move that fundamentally alters the structure of American deterrence and injects a new layer of ambiguity into escalation ladders across the Indo-Pacific and beyond. …’For the first time in generations, we’ll have a new leg in America’s nuclear deterrence because the Trump-class battleship will carry the nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile,’ the Navy’s civilian leadership confirmed, underscoring the doctrinal significance of restoring nuclear strike capability to surface fleets.”
Battleship USS Iowa Logo 19FortyFive Image.
The report acknowledges that arming surface warships with nuclear weapons would raise concerns about escalation control and crisis stability. However, Defense Security Asia concludes, “In an era defined by renewed great-power competition, the return of the battleship—now armed with nuclear, hypersonic and directed-energy weapons—signals that the age of overwhelming sea power is far from over, and that the oceans will once again serve as the central arena where strategic destinies are contested.”
But What Specific Type of Nuke?
Most likely, the future battleship would carry the Surface-Launched Cruise Missile-Nuclear (SLCM-N) system.
A September 2025 report by National Security Technology Accelerator elaborates, “On August 22nd, 2025 Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC), Crane Division, and Navy Strategic Systems Programs (SSP), awarded the Nuclear-Armed Sea-Launched Cruise Missile (SLCM-N) prototype effort to five organizations tasked with developing missile prototype designs for the program.
Leidos, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman were awarded as prime contractors for flight system integration and missile development, while Florida Turbine Technologies [a subsidiary of Kratos] was awarded for missile technologies development.
Trump-Class Battleship. Image Credit: Creative Commons/White House.
Each prime contractor leads a team of traditional and non-traditional defense contractors that will spearhead the initial phase of SLCM-N flight system design.”
BBG(X) Conventional Weaponry Fallbacks
Even if the Trump-class battlewagons never are tasked with the nuclear doomsday mission, their planned conventional weapons would still be plenty devastating:
-A 32-megajoule electromagnetic railgun that hurls tungsten projectiles at Mach 6.
Though not as big in as the nine 16-inch guns of the World War II-era Iowa-class and North Carolina-class battleships, the sheer kinetic energy generated by these tungsten projectiles, along with the accuracy of their launching platforms, would presumably more than make up for their relative lack of bore size and quantity.
-A pair of 300kW lasers. Conceivably, these could be a seaborne version of the U.S. Army’s Indirect Fire Protection Capability-High Energy Laser program, which, as described by Army Recognition, “focuses on integrating high-energy laser technology into existing defence systems, enabling rapid response and precision engagement of incoming threats. It will improve the armed forces’ combat effectiveness by providing high-power lasers and greater warfighting capability.”
These lasers would be usable against rockets, artillery, mortars, unmanned aerial systems, and rotary and fixed-wing manned aircraft.
An aerial bow view of the battleship USS IOWA (BB 61) with its 15 guns (nine 16-inch and six 5-inch) firing a salvo off the starboard side.
USS Iowa Battleship. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
-128 x MK-41 vertical launch system (VLS) cells. The Mk 41 is described as “the only launching system that can simultaneously communicate with weapon control systems and missiles of every warfighting mission area: anti-aircraft, anti-surface, anti-submarine, ballistic missile, defense and land attack.”
-12 x Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) missiles; CPS pairs advanced hypersonic missiles with submarines and surface ships to strike high-value targets anywhere on the globe within minutes instead of hours.
Nuclear Time for Trump-Class?
Hopefully, such a collection of ordnance would prove sufficiently intimidating and render the use of SLCM-Ns unnecessary. But with nuclear-armed adversaries such as Russia, China, and North Korea still out there (hopefully Iran never will join that list), it is better to have those nukes and not need them than vice versa.
About the Author: Christian D. Orr, Defense Expert
Christian D. Orr is a Senior Defense Editor. He is a former Air Force Security Forces officer, Federal law enforcement officer, and private military contractor (with assignments worked in Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kosovo, Japan, Germany, and the Pentagon). Chris holds a B.A. in International Relations from the University of Southern California (USC) and an M.A. in Intelligence Studies (concentration in Terrorism Studies) from American Military University (AMU). He is also the author of the newly published book “Five Decades of a Fabulous Firearm: Celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the Beretta 92 Pistol Series.”
