[US Media: Chinese Military Analysts Are Eagerly Watching America's 'Battleship Era']
According to a September 3, 2026 report by Defense News: Over the past few months, the U.S. Navy has faced several major setbacks—from the destroyer power outage incident in the South China Sea to morale issues aboard the USS Lincoln aircraft carrier. Nevertheless, there is broad recognition within the United States that the shipbuilding industry has long been neglected, and the current administration appears to have various innovative maritime strategic visions, including a completely new vision for the fleet, which has brought some revitalization to the U.S. Navy.
Among these visions, the most controversial is the proposed "Trump-class" battleship.
Supporters argue that this new capital ship will deliver concentrated combat power through advanced high-tech weapons and a massive ammunition capacity, enabling it to operate independently and withstand heavy damage in combat. Furthermore, due to its planned use of nuclear propulsion, these massive vessels could conduct prolonged patrols without refueling.
Critics, however, have challenged the project’s extremely high cost and questioned the feasibility of what they describe as an overly ambitious design proposal.
In this intense debate, examining a radically different perspective is enlightening: How are the Chinese viewing this project? An article published on August 21 in China's Defense Daily initially reveals how America's primary global competitor assesses this potential major shift in the U.S. Navy’s surface fleet.
The article published in the official PLA newspaper indeed points out that such a warship may possess certain advantages: “Large vessels can continue executing specific combat missions even when communications are disrupted, and their hulls exhibit greater resistance to damage compared to smaller and medium-sized platforms.” The article notes that smaller, more dispersed platforms might be overly “dependent on stable data links.” Notably, the analysis also mentions that the planned U.S. battleships would be nuclear-powered and potentially carry nuclear-armed missiles.
Yet, echoing many Western assessments, the Chinese analysis is filled with deep skepticism.
If 15 “Trump-class” battleships are to be built between 2028 and 2056, the total cost would reach $275 billion, with the first ship alone costing as much as $23.4 billion. The report states that transitioning from conventional to nuclear power increases costs by 55%, calling this price “excessive.” To demonstrate some understanding of nuclear issues, the analysis further adds that the $275 billion estimate “does not include costs for nuclear waste disposal or decommissioning of the vessels after retirement.”
“Unproven design and insufficient technological maturity” have also been flagged as potential major problems likely to cause delays and cost overruns. This criticism seems quite justified, given that the ship is expected to potentially carry electromagnetic railguns, hypersonic weapons, and laser systems. As the PLA assessment puts it: “This approach—building the platform first, then installing equipment—may increase risks.” The article cites the Zumwalt-class destroyer and Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) as recent examples of problematic projects.
Notably, this Chinese article also keenly identifies a possible paradigm shift in the U.S. Navy’s fundamental operational doctrine.
The article comments: “This design differs significantly from the U.S. Navy’s recent push toward ‘Distributed Maritime Operations’—a concept emphasizing dispersing detection, command, and strike capabilities across multiple nodes… to mitigate the impact of damage to a few large vessels on the entire formation.”
On a closely related point, the PLA article also raises concerns about whether large surface combatants are overly vulnerable to quiet submarines, hypersonic missiles, and “drone swarms.”
Evidently, Chinese military experts are fully aware of the serious challenges facing American shipbuilding. Their assessment adds that America’s leading shipyards “currently face average delays of five years, with the delivery cycle for individual ships extending from around five years in the early 2000s to approximately eleven years today.”
The article warns that the new battleship program could trigger ripple effects on other high-priority U.S. Navy projects and concludes: “The assembly of nuclear-powered battleships… could further slow down the construction pace of aircraft carriers and submarines.” These Chinese strategists undoubtedly recognize that such delays would further affect the naval balance of power in the Asia-Pacific region.
China itself has previously expressed interest in nuclear-powered surface vessels. Therefore, they have thoroughly examined Russia’s recently refitted nuclear-powered missile cruiser Admiral Nakhimov.
However, given the numerous shipbuilding challenges confronting the U.S. Navy and the inevitable fiscal tightening ahead, investing in such an ambitious platform would be extremely foolish. Perhaps some U.S. allies might consider testing this new battleship concept. But for the U.S. Navy, a wiser course would be returning to its proven strengths—particularly in undersea warfare—and embracing emerging domains like unmanned systems.
Overall, America’s maritime power must align its force structure with a new strategy suited to a multipolar world, meaning reduced costly “presence missions” and a greater embrace of more cost-effective “hedging” strategies.
This likely means surface combatants will play a more low-key role, acknowledging the stark reality that the “Trump-class” battleship may never actually be built.
Naturally, this Chinese military article suggests that at least some Chinese strategists are eager for the U.S. to pursue this extravagant, wasteful project, knowing full well it is a foolish endeavor that would weaken Beijing’s main rival.
[Follow this Toutiao account for more military news]
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1875357327303691/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) alone.