US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Gloire_bb said:

This is a bold statement, considering that idea for Trump class didn't come from Trump, but rather from the USN itself... It's one thing to disagree, another one is to deny idea just b/c we consider it stupid.

There's not much to talk about until PLAN declares something, but denying it is against principles of PLA watching you yourself formalized many years ago.

Click to expand...

It came from the USN yes, however under the purview of the Trump administration and their DoD/DoW

We've always known that the USN was pursing a next generation surface combatant (DDGX), however if you believe that the 40k ton monstrosity that we see today was an independent USN led requirement rather than a reflection of current US political leadership's odd desires, then I'm not sure if we are seeing reality the same way.

A bold statement it is not, if anything it should be an opposite and I am shocked that you are taking the USNs "explanation" for its pursuit and rationale of the battleship class at face value.

Blitzo said:

It came from the USN yes, however under the purview of the Trump administration and their DoD/DoW

We've always known that the USN was pursing a next generation surface combatant (DDGX), however if you believe that the 40k ton monstrosity that we see today was an independent USN led requirement rather than a reflection of current US political leadership's odd desires, then I'm not sure if we are seeing reality the same way.

Click to expand...

Well, we may agree to disagree here.
But given the substantial US challenges in:
(1)fitting desired equipment into available hulls (even larger DDGx variants always had to choose);
(2)shipyard capacity(rather than capability; few US destroyer shipyards build fast, but they're limited by throughput);
(3)emergence of USV mass, pushing heavily towards the node-periphery model;
(4)desire to operate within China's denial bubbles, ahead of carriers.

I basically see the Trump class as a USN play to opportunistically play current leadership to get their dream ship. Yes, it's the Yamato strategy. Much like the original Yamato strategy wasn't inherently worthless, it's very wrong to say that this one is wrong, too.
And as such - PLAN may decide they need similar ships. Or, they may decide not to. We just can't know.

Gloire_bb said:

Well, we may agree to disagree here.
But given the substantial US challenges in:
(1)fitting desired equipment into available hulls (even larger DDGx variants always had to choose);
(2)shipyard capacity(rather than capability; few US destroyer shipyards build fast, but they're limited by throughput);
(3)emergence of USV mass, pushing heavily towards the node-periphery model;
(4)desire to operate within China's denial bubbles, ahead of carriers.

I basically see the Trump class as a USN play to opportunistically play current leadership to get their dream ship. Yes, it's the Yamato strategy. Much like the original Yamato strategy wasn't inherently worthless, it's very wrong to say that this one is wrong, too.
And as such - PLAN may decide they need similar ships. Or, they may decide not to. We just can't know.

Click to expand...

Well, one way in which the Trump class makes sense is if the USN has taken leave of its senses (fleet size requirement, shipbuilding capabilities, upfront and operating costs), and I for one prefer to see the USN as generally rational.

Which leads me to the belief that the whole concept and the USN's "rationale" for it is trying to appease the current White House and DoD/DoW while hoping some of the associated R&D can be applied for a resurrected/continued DDGX after this administration... And if it happens to result in a ship or two then they will deal with the consequences as best able, but I think the vast majority of observers expect the program to be cancelled after Trump leaves office.

Blitzo said:

Well, one way in which the Trump class makes sense is if the USN has taken leave of its senses (fleet size requirement, shipbuilding capabilities, upfront and operating costs), and I for one prefer to see the USN as generally rational.

Which leads me to the belief that the whole concept and the USN's "rationale" for it is trying to appease the current White House and DoD/DoW while hoping some of the associated R&D can be applied for a resurrected/continued DDGX after this administration... And if it happens to result in a ship or two then they will deal with the consequences as best able, but I think the vast majority of observers expect the program to be cancelled after Trump leaves office.

Click to expand...

Keeping a rational trajectory (especially one largely set 3 decades ago as a peace dividend one, as everything since then failed/failed badly) against a superior shipbuilding power is hardly rational.
It certainly fits PLAN, but expecting a surrender from US (which still are the rather than a superpower) is a step too far.

If Trump class gets cancelled after Trump leaves office, all for the better; I don't personally mind USN wasting even more years than they managed already. But my interests don't co-align with the US here.

Gloire_bb said:

Keeping a rational trajectory (especially one largely set 3 decades ago as a peace dividend one, as everything since then failed/failed badly) against a superior shipbuilding power is hardly rational.
It certainly fits PLAN, but expecting a surrender from US (which still are the rather than a superpower) is a step too far.

If Trump class gets cancelled after Trump leaves office, all for the better; I don't personally mind USN wasting even more years than they managed already. But my interests don't co-align with the US here.

Click to expand...

I never said I expect the USN to surrender (I genuinely don't understand how you got that from anything I wrote).

However I do expect the USN to try and pursue a rational ship class in a rational force structure commensurate with its shipbuilding capabilities. The Trump class does not meet any of those characteristics.

This will be my last post on the matter. However I hope you can understand how my views on the Trump class are entirely consistent with my principles of PLA watching.

lcloo said:

It is simply Trump's egoism at work, thus the "Trump class" cruiser, or what he called "Battleship".

Click to expand...

I don't think that a super cruiser more expensive than Ford Class would be affordable in any country.......

hkvaryag said:

I don't think that a super cruiser more expensive than Ford Class would be affordable in any country.......

Click to expand...

Drop the numbers, make them core of manned-unmanned teams, try to get them as survivable as possible.

They aren't cruisers, they're in fact battleships - aka, local sea superiority ships, able to force action(for example, amphibious) through contested sea.
In my opinion, they're a far more ambitious form of new British CCV.

As such, funny or not, I am really not sure the idea should (and will) be dismissed, or considered and implemented by China.

I've moved various posts to the US military thread so the next gen surface combatant thread for the PLAN is not derailed.

Gloire_bb said:

Drop the numbers, make them core of manned-unmanned teams, try to get them as survivable as possible.

They aren't cruisers, they're in fact battleships - aka, local sea superiority ships, able to force action(for example, amphibious) through contested sea.
In my opinion, they're a far more ambitious form of new British CCV.

As such, funny or not, I am really not sure the idea should (and will) be dismissed, or considered and implemented by China.

Click to expand...

You are steelmanning the concept there.

Heck, for all the issues with the RN's CCTV concept at least they had introduced a whole series of USVs intended to operate alongside it.

The idea of the Trump class conceived as being at the center of a USV force would be a bit more reasonable if the USN had a more well thought out family of USVs which required the Trump class to exist as it's raison d'etre.


Instead all we have seen is the idea of the Trump class as a major surface combatant, initially replacing the DDGX, and now possibly meant to operate alongside DDGX, all with unrealistic timetables and unclear industry ability to deliver for the Trump class.


And all this for a concept that came out of the blue while the Trump administration has been in power without any years of past inkling of a ship of such size and configuration being something the USN was interested in.


So yes, in theory we are obliged to entertain the idea that the USN is playing some sort of 5D chess masterstroke (the likelihood of greater than zero), but it is overwhelmingly far more likely that this was a project more or less foisted upon them and they are trying to do their best to make sure the R&D is not entirely wasted (e.g. able to be applied for a future revived DDGX) and to give this administration their shiny toy to keep them occupied even if the ship itself may well never get delivered in anything resembling its intended order size (possibly having no ship delivered at all).

Gloire_bb said:

This is a bold statement, considering that idea for Trump class didn't come from Trump, but rather from the USN itself... It's one thing to disagree, another one is to deny idea just b/c we consider it stupid.

Click to expand...

Within the US military, there exists a certain beloved breed of officers, civilian officials and even SNCOs known as the :


They are universally admired and adored by the rank and file for conjuring up proposals and programs that appear perfect in powerpoints, appeal to senate confirmed higher ups, and even aggrandize the egos of elected officials, only to be proven entirely impractical — if not effectively infeasible — and a complete and utter PITA downstream.

Family office manager turned Secretary of the Navy John Phelan — who the Trump class BBG(X), , concept to our great and glorious leader and its namesake, President Donald J. Trump — is unsurprisingly now a of the .


Unfortunately for , outdoing your own boss, Pete Hegseth, in turned out to be after all.