Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Liberal YouTubers
Related: About this forumLet's talk about Trump and battleships that will never be.... - Belle of the Ranch
Well, howdy there Internet people. It's Belle again. So, today we're going to talk about Trump and the battleships that will never be.
So, Trump made another major announcement about another pet project that will of course be named after him. And immediately, defense analysts rolled their eyes with some outright mocking the effort. Trump announced the construction of up to 25 new warships. And with the questions that came in, I guess that's as good a place to start as any.
Belle, why are outlets putting the word battleship in scare quotes? Even military outlets are doing it. They're making fun of Trump. A battleship isn't just any warship. It's a specific type of warship like a cruiser or a destroyer. A battleship is a heavy armored ship with large caliber naval guns. The US hasn't built one since 1944. Not because the Navy went woke during World War II, but because battleships are obsolete. Currently, the US has no battleships in active service, though there are still a few afloat as museums.
Trump's pet project isn't a battleship by any traditional terminology, so they're putting it in quotes. This whole thing was foreshadowed back in September when Trump said, "The concept of battleship, nice 6-inch side, solid steel, not aluminum. Aluminum that melts if it looks at a missile coming at it, starts melting as the missile is about 2 miles away. No, those ships, they don't make them that way anymore. He then added, and I'm not joking, I'm not a fan of some of the ships you do. I'm a very aesthetic person, and I don't like some of the ships you're doing aesthetically.
But wait, there's more. At the same meeting, he said, "I look at those ships. They came with the destroyer alongside them. And man, nothing was going to stop them. Some people would say, "No, that's old technology." I don't know. I don't think it's old technology when you look at those guns.
Spoiler. The new ships don't have those guns because it's old technology. So, the US has decided to build a thing that isn't a battleship but call it a battleship. And it appears being aesthetically pleasing is super important. Instead of guns, they'll apparently have rail guns and nukes and hypersonic missiles and lasers. Again, I'm not joking.
So, the Dr. Evil class battleship will probably never actually come to be, at least not as depicted. There's currently no money in the appropriations for this project at all, much less the 25 battleships he says could be built. I'd like to remind everybody that the Navy has literally never had 25 battleships on the water. At its peak during World War II, I'm pretty sure the most it ever had was 23.
For the sailors watching or those familiar with the process of defense ship building, I have two more things for you to have a little laugh over. First, he reportedly has another planned project for his version of an aircraft carrier. I can't wait to see it. But while you may think that incorporating nuclear cruise missiles and rail guns into a surface ship battleship, that isn't is an amazing enough accomplishment on its own. Trump has said the Navy will take delivery of the first ship, which reportedly does not yet have any engineering plans, in two and a half years. I have a strong suspicion the Trump class battleship will go the way of the Montana class battleship.
Anyway, it's just a thought. Y'all have a good day.
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Let's talk about Trump and battleships that will never be.... - Belle of the Ranch (Original Post)
TexasTowelie
Tuesday
OP
The last US battleship was built in 1944, the Missouri, which has long been retired and has become a museum
Rhiannon12866
Tuesday
#1
Plus, how long does it take to build a "battleship?" The felon-in-chief will be long gone before it's barely started
Rhiannon12866
Wednesday
#2
New battleships named after Trump are 'bomb magnets' -- and will never sail: expert
LetMyPeopleVote
Yesterday
#4
Rhiannon12866
(249,471 posts)1. The last US battleship was built in 1944, the Missouri, which has long been retired and has become a museum
To symbolize the end of WWII. The felon-in-chief should consider joining it...
Rhiannon12866
(249,471 posts)2. Plus, how long does it take to build a "battleship?" The felon-in-chief will be long gone before it's barely started
LetMyPeopleVote
(174,482 posts)3. Here are some previews of trump's new "battleship"
The internet has been hard at work coming up with designs for trump's new battleships
Link to tweet













Link to tweet

LetMyPeopleVote
(174,482 posts)4. New battleships named after Trump are 'bomb magnets' -- and will never sail: expert
This battleship makes no sense and will never be built
New battleships named after Trump are 'bomb magnets' â and will never sail: expert
— (@bobshaw-28.bsky.social) 2025-12-26T21:50:29.523Z
www.rawstory.com/alternet-pos...
https://www.rawstory.com/alternet-posts/trump-battleship/
Donald Trump's much-hyped new battleship fleet, named after himself, "will never sail," a group of experts told CNBC in a new report, owing to the outdated design that will make them a "bomb magnet" in a real conflict.
Earlier this week, the president unveiled a new "Trump-class" of US Navy battleships, which he touted as "some of the most lethal surface warfare ships" and "the fastest, the biggest, and by far, 100 times more powerful than any battleship ever built." Despite his enthusiasm from Trump about maintaining "American military supremacy," CNBC on Friday noted the "glaring problem" putting them at odds with reality: "battleships have been obsolete for decades."
"The last was built more than 80 years ago, and the U.S. Navy retired the last Iowa-class ships nearly 30 years ago," CNBC explained. "Once symbols of naval might with their massive guns, battleships have long since been eclipsed by aircraft carriers and modern destroyers armed with long-range missiles."
The outlet conceded that Trump's labeling of these new ships with the outdated model name could be a "misnomer," and the actual ships might be more in line with modern sensibilities. Speaking to several experts about the ships, however, CNBC found that the "Trump-class" fleet is still out of step with naval realities, with Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, arguing that they "would take too long to design, cost far too much and run counter to the Navys current strategy of distributed firepower."
"A future administration will cancel the program before the first ship hits the water," Cancian said, also adding that "there is little need for said discussion because this ship will never sail."
Earlier this week, the president unveiled a new "Trump-class" of US Navy battleships, which he touted as "some of the most lethal surface warfare ships" and "the fastest, the biggest, and by far, 100 times more powerful than any battleship ever built." Despite his enthusiasm from Trump about maintaining "American military supremacy," CNBC on Friday noted the "glaring problem" putting them at odds with reality: "battleships have been obsolete for decades."
"The last was built more than 80 years ago, and the U.S. Navy retired the last Iowa-class ships nearly 30 years ago," CNBC explained. "Once symbols of naval might with their massive guns, battleships have long since been eclipsed by aircraft carriers and modern destroyers armed with long-range missiles."
The outlet conceded that Trump's labeling of these new ships with the outdated model name could be a "misnomer," and the actual ships might be more in line with modern sensibilities. Speaking to several experts about the ships, however, CNBC found that the "Trump-class" fleet is still out of step with naval realities, with Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, arguing that they "would take too long to design, cost far too much and run counter to the Navys current strategy of distributed firepower."
"A future administration will cancel the program before the first ship hits the water," Cancian said, also adding that "there is little need for said discussion because this ship will never sail."