Navy Guided Missile Battleship (BBG[X]) Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Introduction

On December 22, 2025, the Trump Administration announced a proposed program to build a new classclass of guided missile battleships (BBG[X]s) for the Navy. BBG(X)s would be the first battleships procured by the Navy since World War II, and would be larger and more heavily armed than any cruiser or destroyer procured by the Navy since World War II. The first BBG(X) would reportedly be procured in the early 2030s. An issue for Congress is whether to approve, reject, or modify the Trump administration's proposal for building BBG(X)s.

Background

Terminology

In the designation BBG(X), BB means battleship, G means guided missile ship (i.e., a ship with a medium- or long-range air defense system), and (X) means the design of the ship has not yet been fully developed. Battleships are generally larger than cruisers and destroyers, which in turn are generally larger than frigates and corvettes (aka light frigates), which in turn are generally larger than patrol craft. The term surface combatant generally refers to all these ship types, and is sometimes defined to include aircraft carriers as well.

Program Overview

The BBG(X) program would comprise two initial ships, with a potential eventual classNavy envisages building a total of 2015 to 25 shipsBBG(X)s. BBG(X)s would be a centerpieceform a part of the Golden Fleet plan, a forthcoming Navy ship force-structure plan that is to replace the Navy's current 381-ship force-structure plan. The Navy on December 22, 2025, posted notices of two intended contract awards for design work on the BBG(X). The contracts have estimated periods of performance of 72 months (i.e., six years), which appears consistent with procuring the first BBG(X) in the early 2030s. Since each BBG(X) wouldcould each require several years to build, the first BBG(X), if procured in the early 2030s, would likelycould enter service in the late 2030s or around 2040. The Trump Administration intends for the first BBG(X) to be named Defiant, and for the class to be called the Defiant class (following the Navy's class-naming convention) or the Trump class.

The Navy states that BBG(X)s (Figure 1) would have a length of 840 feet to 880 feet andbe conventionally powered (i.e., "fossil-fueled") ships armed with a combination of missiles, guns, lasers, and other weapons that would be greater in aggregate than the combination of weapons on the Navy's current cruisers and destroyers. BBG(X)s would be 840 feet to 880 feet long and have a full load displacement of more than 35,000 tons. By comparison:

• The most recent battleships built for the Navy—the four Iowa (BB-61) class battleships, which were built induring World War II and incorporated large amounts of very thick and heavy armor plating—had a length of 887 feet andwere 887 feet long and had a full load displacement of about 57,000 tons.
• The Navy currently operates a few Ticonderoga (CG-47) class cruisers (567 feet, 10,150 tons), several dozen Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class destroyers (510 feet, 9,700 tons) and three Zumwalt (DDG-1000) class destroyers (610 feet, 16,000 tons). (For more on the DDG-51 and DDG-1000 programs, see CRS Report RL32109, Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.)
• The Navy has a program to develop and acquire a class ofbeen developing a next-generation destroyers called DDG(X)sdestroyer design called the DDG(X) as the successor to the DDG-51 destroyerdesign. The DDG(X)'s estimated full load displacement is about 14,500 tons, and the first DDG(X) is to be procuredNavy has envisaged procuring the first DDG(X) in the early 2030s. (For more on the DDG(X) program, see CRS In Focus IF11679, Navy DDG(X) Next-Generation Destroyer Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.) Some press reports have stated that the Navy intends to suspendThe Navy reportedly intends to suspend work on the DDG(X) program as a consequence of starting the BBG(X) program.

Figure 1. Rendering of BBG(X)

Source: Naval Sea Systems Command rendering posted at https://www.goldenfleet.navy.mil/.

Cropped version of Navy briefing slide shown at Surface Navy Association Symposium, January 15, 2026, provided to CRS by Navy Office of Legislative Affairs, January 16, 2026. The Navy reportedly plans to issue competitive awards to one or more shipbuilders to build BBG(X)s. U.S. shipyards capable of building BBG(X) include but are not necessarily limited to General Dynamics Bath Iron Works (GD/BIW) of Bath, ME, and Huntington Ingalls Industries Ingalls Shipbuilding (HII/Ingalls) of Pascagoula, MS—the two shipyards that have built all cruisers and destroyers procured for the Navy since FY1985—and Huntington Ingalls Industries Newport News Shipbuilding (HII/NNS) of Newport News, VA, which currently builds aircraft carriers and submarines, and in the past has built various types of surface ships for the Navy, including battleships.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the first BBG(X), if procured in FY2030 and with a displacement 35,000 tons, would have a procurement cost of $17.6 billion to $18.9 billion in FY2025 dollars, including nonrecurring detailed design costs for the class, and that subsequent BBG(X)s would have a procurement cost of $12.2 to $13.1 billion each in FY2025 dollars, depending on the procurement rate for the program and other factors. (It is a traditional Navy budgeting practice to include all or most of the nonrecurring detailed design costs for a new class of ship in the procurement cost of the first ship in the class.) By comparison, the procurement cost of a DDG-51 is currently about $2.7 billion when DDG-51s are procured at a rate of two per year, and CVN-81, an aircraft carrier that was procured in FY2019, has an estimated procurement cost in the Navy's FY2026 budget submission of about $15.2 billion.

Large Navy Surface Combatants Since World War II

Navy battleships, cruisers, and similar ships with full load displacements of more than 15,000 tons that have been operated or proposed since World War II include the following:

• One Iowa-class battleshipsbattleship remained in service until 1955. The other three were removed from service in 1948-1949, returned to service in 1950-1951 for the Korean War, and remained in service until 1957-1958. One was returned to service in 1968-1969 for the Vietnam War. All four were modernized and returned to service in 1982-1988 and remained in service until 1990-1992.
• One nuclear-powered cruiser (CGN)—the 721-foot, 17,500-ton Long Beach (CGN-9)—was procured in FY1956, and served from 1961 to 1995. The Navy subsequently procured eight smaller CGNs (the CGN-25, CGN-35, CGN-36, and CGN-38 classes) with full load displacements of about 8,600 tons to about 11,000 tons.
• In the 1970s, the Navy considered three design options for its planned Aegis cruiser program: a 666-foot, 17,000-ton nuclear-powered strike cruiser (CSGN), a 588-foot, 12,000-ton variant of the CGN-38 design, and a variant of the conventionally powered 563-foot, 8,000-ton Spruance (DD-963) class destroyer design. For affordability reasons, the Navy selected the third option, resulting in the 567-foot, 10,150-ton CG-47 design.
• In March 1996, the Navy and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) initiated a program to develop and procure about six large and relatively low-cost Navy surface ships called arsenal ships or Maritime Fire Support Demonstrators (MFSDs), each of which would be armed with about 500 missiles. In October 1997, the Navy announced that it had decided to terminate the program. The ship's design was not fully refined prior to the program's cancellation, but conceptual designs had full load displacements ranging from about 20,000 tons to about 40,000 tons. (The arsenal ship/MFSD program was covered in now-archived CRS reports 97-455 F of April 18, 1997 and 97-1044 F of December 10, 1997.)
• As noted earlier, the Navy operates three Zumwalt (DDG-1000) class destroyers (610 feet, 16,000 tons). The ships were procured in FY2007-FY2009.

Issues for Congress

In considering whether to approve, reject, or modify the Trump administration's proposal for building BBG(X)s through authorization and appropriations legislation, bill report language, or other oversight activities, Congress may consider several potential issues, including the following:

• Why has the Trump Administration decided to propose the acquisition of a new class of battleships? What sort of analysis—such as an Analysis of Alternatives (AOA)—informed that decision? Would developing and procuring a 35,000-ton BBG(X) design tothe proposal to acquire a new class of surface combatants substantially larger than the previously planned DDG(X)? What other options did the analysis examine, and how did these options compare analytically to the option of a new class of surface combatants substantially larger than the DDG(X)? Would developing and procuring the proposed class of BBG(X)s as a complement other existing and planned Navy ships be the most cost-effective course of action? What steps in the DOD acquisition process, if any, were set aside to enable the initiation of the BBG(X) program in December 2025?
• How would BBG(X)s fit into the Navy's forthcoming Golden Fleet plan? Would BBG(X)s be consistent with the Navy's Distributed Maritime Operations (DMO) concept, which calls for spreading the Navy's sensors and weapons across a wider array of ships and aircraft, so as to avoid "putting too many eggs into one basket"? (For more on DMO, see CRS In Focus IF12599, Defense Primer: Navy Distributed Maritime Operations (DMO) Concept, by Ronald O'Rourke.)
• What impact would designing and procuring BBG(X)s have on available funding for other Navy program priorities?
• Does the Navy intend to suspend work on the DDG(X) program as a consequence of starting the BBG(X) program? What would be the net impact on future Navy capabilities and funding requirements of developing and acquiring BBG(X)s instead of DDG(X)s?
• WillHow much program-execution risk (i.e., risk of cost growth, schedule delay, or technical challenges) would a program to develop and acquire BBG(X)s have? Would new technologies that the Navy states are to be incorporated into the BBG(X) design, and which require further development—including an electromagnetic railgun and higher-power lasers—be mature enough by the early 2030s to be incorporated into BBG(X)s?