Is Trump’s Call For Putting Battleships Back In The Navy’s Fleet Even Feasible?

[rangerrebew]

Is Trump’s Call For Putting Battleships Back In The Navy’s Fleet Even Feasible?
Trump wants battleships back in the Navy's inventory, and that may be far-fetched, but his remarks do highlight real deliberations around the future of surface combatants.
Joseph Trevithick, Tyler Rogoway, Howard Altman

Updated Oct 1, 2025 6:21 PM EDT
 

The TWZ Newsletter

Weekly insights and analysis on the latest developments in military technology, strategy, and foreign policy.
 

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.

https://www.twz.com/sea/is-trumps-call-for-new-battleships-even-feasible

[rangerrebew]

It seems to me, every time Trump wants to generate lots of discussion about a topic, he comes up with outlandish plan sure to roil democrats, the MSM, and rinos and he gets all he needs.  As an example, he may not even be interested in battleships, but raising the possibility may lead to something he does want to have discussions about like democrats standing in the way of some project he does want.

[Timber Rattler]

Stupid idea in the age of drones and missiles.  So who's going to run and maintain those ship's 1940s' vintage engines and aim and fire those big 16-inch guns?  Those sailors retired and/or died a long time ago.

And without any ammo?

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a23202/do-you-know-what-to-do-with-15000-battleship-shells/

[catfish1957]

I thought with modern technology and drones, that floating hardware like this was less needed. 

[DefiantMassRINO]

They tried this in the 1980s/1990s with the USS New Jersey.  Dreadnoughts are antiquated technology and large combustible targets.  Money is better spent on items that will not be used by the enemy for target practice.

[Timber Rattler]

They tried this in the 1980s/1990s with the USS New Jersey.  Dreadnoughts are antiquated technology and large combustible targets.  Money is better spent on items that will not be used by the enemy for target practice.

It also takes between 1,000 and 1,500 sailors and officers to operate those battlewagons.

True story:  When the mothballed New Jersey was re-activated in 1968 for the Vietnam War, it's initial shore bombardment was poorly conducted because the younger sailors had no idea how to properly aim, load, and operate the big guns.  So the Navy had to hire a bunch of World War II gunnery veterans to come aboard and handle the gunnery and ordnance.  She was quickly decommissioned again the following year because of that failure.

[The_Reader_David]

Can someone persuade Trump to actually consult relevant experts before proposing things?  I think whoever it is will have to pretend to believe that Trump really is always the smartest person in the room, and take the tack that being the smartest person in the room doesn't mean having the most expertise in every possible domain relevant to the running of the executive branch or proposals for legislation.

[jafo2010]

World War II proved decisively that battleships were obsolete.  They serve ZERO PURPOSE as a war making asset.  ZERO!!!

They make nice museums, and that is where they should remain.  ANd constructing a new battleship, an all new design would be cost prohibitive and provide an asset with very limited combat function.  It would be the quintesential example of squandering taxpayer dollars.  But then again, government pukes with military fat *sses may just give Trump what he wants.  It is spending money, and they have proven to be good at that, particularly the wasting it along the way.

We need to continue to develop our ability to generate hundreds of thousands of drones, air drones, robotic ground drones that kill with little to no human intervention.  We need to get to the Cyberdyne level of machines(as in the movie Terminator series) designed to kill mankind, without losing control of the machines.  That is the next level of war making.

[MeganC]

I've had this stupid discussion with other people in the past so bear with me and anyone responding to me with idiocy? You've been warned that I will have zero tolerance for you. 

"Trump talked about the prospect of a new battleship for the Navy"

NEW

So like how the US Navy has modern frigates and destroyers in 2025 the Navy can also have modern battleships.

Maybe they would have some big guns? Maybe they'll just have missiles. Maybe they'd be nuclear powered?

In any case the proposal is for a new capital ship. Not a new construction of a 1940's ship with crank telephones, optical range finders, steam engines, and etc.

Naval weapons in this day and age are designed to destroy the lightly armored ships that prevail these days.

A modern battleship with six-inch modern armor and modern defenses would be a force multiplier. It would also brush off most of the modern weaponry in use now. Most important is it could be designed to withstand drone attacks. 

It is an idea worth considering.

[libertybele]

I've had this stupid discussion with other people in the past so bear with me and anyone responding to me with idiocy? You've been warned that I will have zero tolerance for you. 

"Trump talked about the prospect of a new battleship for the Navy"

NEW

So like how the US Navy has modern frigates and destroyers in 2025 the Navy can also have modern battleships.

Maybe they would have some big guns? Maybe they'll just have missiles. Maybe they'd be nuclear powered?

In any case the proposal is for a new capital ship. Not a new construction of a 1940's ship with crank telephones, optical range finders, steam engines, and etc.

Naval weapons in this day and age are designed to destroy the lightly armored ships that prevail these days.

A modern battleship with six-inch modern armor and modern defenses would be a force multiplier. It would also brush off most of the modern weaponry in use now. Most important is it could be designed to withstand drone attacks. 

It is an idea worth considering.

 

[MeganC]

An idea of what a modern, stealthy battleship could look like...

[Timber Rattler]

An idea of what a modern, stealthy battleship could look like...

Here's the problem though, Megan.  The U.S. no longer has the industrial base nor the shipbuilding capacity to build new modernized battleships.  Bethlehem Steel, which manufactured the heavy armor, closed in 2003 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethlehem_Steel) and the Washington Naval Gun Factory (https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/museums/nmusn/explore/photography/washington-navy-yard/manufacturing/wwii-1962.html) where the big guns were made, closed in 1962.  There's literally nobody left who can build new battleships much less operate and maintain them.

And like I posted above, all 16,000 16-inch shells have been destroyed by the Army.  So there's no more ammo for them either.  And the Scranton ordnance works is already overloaded with building 155mm shells for the U.S. Army (and Ukraine).  The defense drawdfowns of the 1990s are now biting us squarely on the butt.

See also:  https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/the-great-u-s-navy-battleship-comeback-will-never-happen/

[Smokin Joe]

I've had this stupid discussion with other people in the past so bear with me and anyone responding to me with idiocy? You've been warned that I will have zero tolerance for you. 

"Trump talked about the prospect of a new battleship for the Navy"

NEW

So like how the US Navy has modern frigates and destroyers in 2025 the Navy can also have modern battleships.

Maybe they would have some big guns? Maybe they'll just have missiles. Maybe they'd be nuclear powered?

In any case the proposal is for a new capital ship. Not a new construction of a 1940's ship with crank telephones, optical range finders, steam engines, and etc.

Naval weapons in this day and age are designed to destroy the lightly armored ships that prevail these days.

A modern battleship with six-inch modern armor and modern defenses would be a force multiplier. It would also brush off most of the modern weaponry in use now. Most important is it could be designed to withstand drone attacks. 

It is an idea worth considering.

Thank you. I don't know why people skip over key words and run straight to the movies (Battleship).

Combat survivability just might still be relevant, and that comes with armor, decks that can take a hit, and defensive systems that can interdict attacking forces, manned or otherwise. Automation and modern systems would reduce crew needs, and its possible to cut down on other problems that were present with WWII tech.