During the Future Fleet Panel at SNA 2026, Chris Miller, the Executive Director at Naval Sea Systems Command, and Rear Admiral Derek Trinque, the U.S Navy Director of Surface Warfare (N96), Rear Admiral Brian Metcalf, and Rear Admiral Peter Small went in depth regarding the newly unveiled BBG(X) Trump-Class Battleships.
BBG(X) is meant to have significant command and control facilities, a capability in jeopardy amongst the USN surface force as the aging Ticonderoga-Class Cruisers are retired from service. The panel further elaborated that the Battleship is to serve as a centerpiece/command node in a surface force, in tandem with the offensive strike capability. However the panel clarified that this was a departure from both design and intended role last filled by the Iowa Class battleships which mainly functioned in the strike role exclusively.
“Battleships are obsolete. This is not us blowing the dust off the design of the Montana-class, which was to be a successor to the Iowa-class at the end of World War 2, and then we won World War 2, we didn’t need the Montana-class. It’s true we don;t need that class. This is a ship we do need.”
– RADM Derek Trinque, the U.S Navy Director of Surface Warfare (N96)
Slide from the Future Forces Panel Detailing the BBG(X) program. Naval News Image.
Hard figures surrounding the vessel’s armament were also somewhat solidified by the presentation, with the ship carrying 128 MK-41 VLS cells, 12 Conventional Prompt Strike missile rounds, 2 300kw or 600kw lasers, and 32 Megajoule Railgun with high-velocity rounds. It was confirmed that 128 MK-41 cells are split up between 3 blocks, with the stern VLS bank above the helicopter hanger being the largest, followed by the amidships and bow allotment. The figures will be firmly in place by selection of the design in 2028.
Physical figures peg the capital ship as being second only to the Nimitz and Ford-classes of carriers in terms of size, with a length of ~860 ft and a beam of ~110 ft. Speed requirements peg the +35,000 ton vessel at a maximum speed of 30 knots, raising questions about the type of power plant equipped, especially with the power draw present within the weapons systems and likely sensors on top of the energy required to get a large vessel up to speed.
Methods Behind the Madness
A notional design concept of how the next-generation DDG(X) destroyer might have appeared. U.S. Navy image.
In tandem with earlier remarks by RADM Trinque, it was made clear that the BBG(X) program and the requirements that shaped it were largely an evolution of the previous DDG(X) Next Genz
It was stated by RADM Trinque that BBG(X) came about due to spacing and capability concerns, as it was unlikely that the Navy could fit sufficient amounts of the MK-41 general purpose VLS, CPS, and a (rail) Gun into a singular vessel of a roughly 13,500 ton weight class. Fitting MK-41 in needed numbers and CPS would come at the cost of a gun, and fitting CPS, MK-41, and a gun would stipulate the almost halving of MK-41 cells, a cost the Navy could not accept.
“We wound up having conversations about how to do tradeoffs to fit CPS into some of the DDG(X) ships. We were not going to able to do that without either dropping a gun or cutting the VLS capacity in half. And those are terrible choices.”
– RADM Derek Trinque, the U.S Navy Director of Surface Warfare (N96)
The Navy’s stated requirements for significant striking power, battle management, and area-defense is shown in this armament, which needed culminated under the umbrella of a singular vessel. In addition to this, an increased focus on offensive firepower and other methods deterrence under the Trump administration drove the Navy towards the selection of the BBG(X) over alternatives.
Towards Cutting Steel
Two Ford-Class Carriers in various states of construction at Newport News Shipbuilding. The 35k ton BBG(X) could be assembled at a similar yard with the requisite size berths. HII Image.
It was acknowledged by the panel that the construction effort of BBG(X), a class of 15-25 vessels would be a monumental, but stated as not being a completely impossible undertaking, shaped by previously covered efforts to spearhead recapitalization of the maritime industrial base. Large shipbuilding capability was also highlighted, with the ongoing construction of the Ford class of carriers used as an example.
RDML Metcalf iterated that the building will be a highly collaborative effort, with the Navy seeking to leverage collaboration between multiple vendors, yards, and contractor of various sizes to assemble the components necessary to put the effort into the water. It was also stated that the involvement of foreign partners was on the table and being considered, but any forthcoming details were not available.
The sheer size of the knowledge base and amount labor needed to build a BBG(X) type of vessel was also acknowledged, with RDML Metcalf affirming the involvement of the shipbuilding industry’s design and construction capacity at every level. Construction and design procedures are also to be de-centralized with approval for certain shipbuilding matters left to lower levels.
