President Donald Trump says he has been seriously talking with Navy Secretary John Phelan about adding “battleships” with gun-centric armament and heavily armored hulls back into America’s naval force structure. There are immediate questions about the feasibility and practicality of the Navy fielding any sort of battleship, a type of vessel the service has not had in its active inventory since 1992. At the same time, Trump’s comments do touch on real questions about the future of naval guns for major surface warships, especially amid ongoing work globally on railguns, and the potential value of added armor to respond to threats, including cruise missiles and drones.
Trump talked about the prospect of a new battleship for the Navy at an unprecedented all-hands meeting of top U.S. military officers at the Marine Corps’ base in Quantico, Virginia, yesterday. War Secretary Pete Hegseth had called for the gathering and had addressed the attendees first.
“I think we should maybe start thinking about battleships,” Trump said, adding that he had spoken to Secretary Phelan on the matter. “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.”
“It’s something we’re actually considering, the concept of battleship, nice, six-inch side, solid steel. Not aluminum, aluminum that melts. If it looks at a missile coming at it, [it] starts melting as the missile’s about two miles away,” he continued. “Now those ships, they don’t make them that way anymore, but you look at it, your Secretary [Phelan] likes it, and I’m sort of open to it. And bullets are a lot less expensive than missiles.”
“It’s something we’re seriously considering,” he reiterated.
It is unclear if Trump was talking about attempting to recommission any of the four ex-Iowa class battleships, which are preserved as museum ships at various locations around the United States, or building new ones. How seriously the Navy is or isn’t looking at a future battleship force of any kind is also not clear.
“The Navy is committed to maintaining a modern and effective fighting force. An updated Battle Force Ship Assessment and Requirements review has been initiated in alignment with the forthcoming National Defense Strategy,” a Navy official told TWZ when asked for more information. “This work is about fielding the right capabilities, with the right numbers and in the right theater. Once force structure decisions are finalized, they will be announced publicly and executed with speed. Until then, internal deliberations will not be previewed.”
The Navy uses the term “Battle Force” to collectively refer to its fleets of aircraft carriers, submarines, major surface combatants, and amphibious warfare ships, as well as combat logistics vessels and some other types of auxiliaries.
In response to additional queries on the matter, the Office of the Secretary of War also redirected us to the Navy.
This is not the first time that Trump has put forward a version of the battleship proposal. A decade ago, speaking from the deck of the former USS Iowa, then-candidate Trump raised the prospect of recommissioning that ship into service should he be elected. Trump won that election, but Iowa remained berthed in the Port of Los Angeles in California, where it still sits today.
On a level, the idea of recommissioning the Iowas reflects past precedent. These were the last battleships built for the Navy, and their main armament initially consisted of nine 16-inch guns, three in each of three turrets, which could hit targets up to around 23 miles away. Each one also had 20 five-inch guns spread across multiple turrets, along with other weapons. The four ships in the class – the USS Iowa, USS New Jersey, USS Missouri, and USS Wisconsin – were first commissioned into service between 1943 and 1944, and they all served during World War II in the Pacific.
Iowa, New Jersey, and Wisconsin were then decommissioned between 1948 and 1949 as part of post-war drawdowns. Two more ships in the class that were still under construction when Japan surrendered were scrapped entirely.
The Navy recommissioned Iowa, New Jersey, and Wisconsin between 1950 and 1951 to serve in the Korean War. All three of those battleships, along with the USS Missouri, were subsequently decommissioned before 1960. New Jersey briefly returned to service once more between 1968 and 1969, taking part in the Vietnam War.
In the 1980s, under President Ronald Reagan, the four Iowas were put through a deep overhaul and upgrade program before being recommissioned yet again. The modifications most notably included launchers for as many as 32 Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles and up to 16 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, something worth emphasizing in light of Trump’s remark that “bullets are a lot less expensive than missiles.” At that time, the ships also received new radars, electronic warfare systems, and other improvements, including Mk 15 Phalanx close-in defensive gun systems.
Whether it means battleship-like protection or not, there is a case to be made for renewed focus on passive armoring of surface warships as the maritime threat ecosystem continues to expand and evolve. A modern take on the armor belts of traditional battleships could provide valuable additional layers of defense against anti-ship cruise missiles, including types with specially designed penetrating warheads.
Even more limited additional armor could also provide useful extra protection against attacks involving lower-tier weapons, especially one-way attack drones, which are in increasing use, even by non-state actors. Iranian-backed Houthi militants in Yemen have shown how dangerous drones can be to ships at sea, especially if they are layered in with cruise and ballistic missiles and other munitions. The Houthis have also demonstrated how much pressure this puts on the missile magazines on modern warships. Those threats would only be magnified in higher-volume attacks in any future high-end conflict, such as one on the Pacific against China.
Added battleship-like armor may be effective in shrugging-off many types of anti-ship missile attacks, but it would still have its limits, especially against anti-ship ballistic missiles capable of drilling down into hardened targets from directly above just as a byproduct of the high speeds they reach in the terminal phase of their flights. Any extra armoring would require many design trades and considerations. The added mass would require larger propulsion and mechanical support systems, which would then push the ship to be even larger and more complex. Speed requirements could be relaxed although presumably the ship would have to keep-up with a carrier strike group, which would require it to meet or exceed the speeds of other ships designed to do so.
The U.S. Navy is in the process now of devising the requirements for its next surface warship, a future destroyer currently referred to as DDG(X). There are few things more central to the design of a naval vessel than what armament it should have and what materials should be used in its construction.
At the very end of last year, the Navy turned some heads with pictures from a ceremony marking the end of Capt. Matt Schroeder’s time as head of the DDG(X) program office, and Mr. Jim Dempsey’s taking over of that role. A cake at the event featured a rendering of the ship with no main gun at all on the bow, something that had been present in previous official artwork. Though it was just a cake, there is no indication that the source image came from an unofficial source. The Navy also does not appear to have clarified since then whether or not this reflects a design concept currently under consideration.
“All of our programs are a mess, to be honest,” Secretary Phelan told members of Congress during a hearing back in June. “Our best-performing one [program] is six months late and 57 percent over budget.”
The Trump administration and Congress have pushed to try to reverse these trends in recent years, including by working to incentivize U.S. shipbuilders and exploring how foreign companies might be able to assist. The Navy has also put increasing emphasis on acquiring larger numbers of smaller vessels, including multiple tiers of uncrewed types, to help bolster its capabilities and operational capacity, while also maximizing available resources. In the meantime, China, in particular, has been surging ahead in naval warship production, as well as the expansion of its capacity to build those vessels, something TWZ has been sounding the alarm on for some time now.
It’s also important to remember that Trump often makes grand pronouncements about potential future military acquisition efforts that do not come to fruition.
Still, while the idea of the Navy operating battleships again is extremely remote, Trump’s influence could emerge in other ways in the Navy’s shipbuilding plans, especially as DDG(X) evolves.
