China’s Military Experts Eagerly Anticipate New Era of U.S. Navy Battleships

In recent times, the U.S. Navy has faced several challenges, including a power outage on a destroyer navigating the South China Sea and morale issues on the USS Lincoln aircraft carrier. Despite these issues, there is a renewed national consensus on the need to prioritize shipbuilding, supported by innovative maritime strategies from the current government, which include a new vision for the naval fleet.

A particularly divisive topic has been the introduction of the proposed Trump-class battleship.

Supporters of this new class of capital ship argue that it would provide formidable fighting capabilities, equipped with advanced weaponry and substantial ammunition storage, capable of operating independently and enduring significant damage during combat. The ship is planned to be nuclear-powered, allowing it to operate for long periods without the need for refueling.

However, the project has been criticized for its massive costs and the ambitious nature of its design.

Looking at the international perspective, particularly from China, an article from the China National Defense News on August 21 offers some insights into how America’s primary global competitor views this significant shift in the U.S. Navy’s approach to surface warfare.

The Chinese publication recognizes potential advantages of larger ships, such as their ability to continue missions even when communications are compromised and their enhanced durability compared to smaller vessels. The article also points out that smaller, more distributed platforms might depend excessively on stable data connections. It acknowledges that the proposed U.S. battleship would have nuclear propulsion and might also be equipped with nuclear weapons.

Yet, the Chinese critique, like many Western analyses, is laden with skepticism.

For the construction of 15 Trump-class battleships between 2028 and 2056, the costs are projected to reach $275 billion, with the lead ship alone costing $23.4 billion—a 55% increase attributed to the switch from conventional to nuclear propulsion. The analysis also highlights that costs related to nuclear waste disposal and ship decommissioning have not been included in this estimate.

Concerns about unfinalized designs and technological immaturity leading to potential delays and cost overruns are highlighted. The battleship is expected to feature rail guns, hypersonic weapons, and lasers. The PLA’s assessment notes that this approach of building the platform before fully developing the technology could pose increased risks, citing the Zumwalt-class destroyer and the Littoral Combat Ship as examples of problematic programs.

The Chinese article also scrutinizes potential shifts in the U.S. Navy’s combat doctrine, contrasting the battleship’s design with the Distributed Maritime Operations concept that emphasizes dispersing capabilities across multiple platforms to reduce the risk to major vessels.

Further, the article questions the vulnerability of large surface combatants to modern threats like quiet submarines, hypersonic missiles, and drone swarms. It also notes that key American shipyards are experiencing significant delays, with the production timeline for new ships now substantially longer than in the past.

The publication concludes that prioritizing nuclear-powered battleships could delay other critical projects like aircraft carriers and submarines, affecting the naval balance in the Asia-Pacific region.

China is also exploring nuclear-powered vessels, as evidenced by their interest in the renovated Russian battle cruiser Admiral Nakihimov.

Given the myriad challenges in U.S. shipbuilding and broader budget constraints, it might be more prudent for U.S. allies to explore new battleship concepts. The U.S. Navy should instead focus on its proven strengths in undersea and drone warfare, aligning its force structure with a strategy suited to a multipolar world that moves away from costly presence missions towards more financially sustainable approaches.

This shift will likely result in a less prominent role for surface combatants, suggesting that the Trump-class battleship may never be realized.

The analysis from Chinese strategists seemingly encourages the U.S. to continue with the costly project, likely because it would strain U.S. resources, aligning with Beijing’s strategic interests.

Lyle Goldstein is director of the China Initiative at Brown University’s Watson School and concurrently serves as director of the Asia Program at the think-tank Defense Priorities.