At the heart of this shift is a plan to spread hypersonic Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) missiles across surface combatants and submarines, turning a small handful of ships into a broader, long‑range strike network.
A fleet built around speed and reach
At the 2026 Surface Navy Symposium, Rear Admiral Derek Trinque, the US Navy’s Director of Surface Warfare, confirmed that CPS hypersonic missiles are no longer an experiment reserved for niche vessels. They are being written into the architecture of the future fleet.
Today, the US surface navy has no operational, ship‑launched hypersonic strike weapon. Long‑range conventional attacks are handled mostly by subsonic Tomahawk cruise missiles and carrier‑launched aircraft. CPS is intended to change that by giving surface ships and submarines the ability to hit targets at very high speed and from stand‑off range, before an opponent can react or disperse.
CPS is being treated as a core capability for future surface combatants, not a bolt‑on gadget reserved for a few elite hulls.
Trinque described service leaders wrestling with an uncomfortable trade-off on the planned next‑generation destroyer, DDG(X): keep a large battery of standard vertical launch cells, or carve away that space for CPS hypersonic tubes and guns. That design headache has now pushed the Navy toward bigger hulls with more volume for weapons.
From DDG(X) to a new battleship-style combatant
The Navy’s answer is a family of much larger surface ships that can carry everything at once: traditional missiles, hypersonics, next‑generation guns and directed‑energy systems. One of the flagship concepts is the so‑called Trump‑Guided Missile Battleship, labelled BBG(X).
Early design studies show each BBG(X) reserving space in the bow for 12 CPS missiles, carried in four launch cells with three rounds per cell. That is only part of the punch. The same ship is planned to host:
- About 128 Mk 41 vertical launch system (VLS) cells for air defence, anti‑ship and land‑attack missiles
- At least one electromagnetic railgun for very long‑range kinetic fire
- Mounts for high‑energy lasers or other directed‑energy weapons for close‑in defence
- Conventional close‑in weapon systems as a backup
The first of these large combatants, tentatively named USS Defiant, is modelled as the lead Trump‑Guided Missile Battleship. If funded and built as envisioned, it would function as a floating missile magazine and command node, able to support carrier groups or operate as a stand‑alone strike asset.
Future large surface combatants are being designed around weapon volume—missile tubes, power for lasers, and deck space for new launchers.
➡️ The flower that improves nearby plant resilience without competing
➡️ This is the easiest way to keep drawers from turning into chaos
➡️ Your favourite colour says a lot about your personality, according to psychology
➡️ Homebodies Share These 3 Personality Traits
➡️ What happens to your body when you walk just 20 minutes a day for one week
Zumwalt-class becomes the first hypersonic surface platform
Before the battleships appear, the Navy is turning to an existing but underused asset: the stealthy Zumwalt‑class destroyers.
USS Zumwalt (DDG‑1000) is on track to become the first US Navy ship of any type to carry CPS hypersonic missiles. The ship is undergoing a major refit that removes its two 155mm Advanced Gun Systems (AGS), which never received affordable ammunition and were effectively sidelined.
In their place, the forward turret space is being converted into four CPS launch cells, holding a total of 12 hypersonic rounds. The aft gun position will be reallocated for other uses, likely a mix of sensors, command spaces, or future weapons.
| Ship | Class | CPS fit | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|
| USS Zumwalt (DDG‑1000) | Zumwalt-class destroyer | 12 CPS missiles forward | Refit completing around 2026 |
| USS Lyndon B. Johnson (DDG‑1002) | Zumwalt-class destroyer | Same configuration planned | Refit following Zumwalt |
| USS Michael Monsoor (DDG‑1001) | Zumwalt-class destroyer | Same configuration planned | Drydock refit expected from 2027 |
All three Zumwalt‑class ships are slated to receive this standard CPS upgrade, turning a once‑questioned destroyer design into a testbed and early operational platform for hypersonic surface warfare.
Submarines: the quiet pillar of hypersonic strike
While the surface navy grabs the headlines, the submarine force is quietly being wired into the same strategy. The Block V Virginia‑class attack submarines will be the next CPS carriers.
These boats feature the Virginia Payload Module (VPM), a hull section that inserts four large payload tubes into the submarine. Each tube can hold multiple missiles, drones or future payloads, including CPS.
The second Block V boat, the future USS Oklahoma, was laid down in 2022 and is expected to join the fleet around 2028. She and her sister ships will give the US Navy a stealthy, undersea hypersonic option that is harder to track and target than surface combatants.
Hypersonic strike from submarines adds a layer of uncertainty for rivals, forcing them to account for rapid attacks from unexpected directions.
Balancing missile cells, guns and new technologies
The central design challenge for all these platforms is simple: space. Modern warships juggle demands for large missile magazines, advanced radars, survivability features, crew accommodation and massive electrical power for lasers and sensors.
On DDG(X), planners found themselves choosing between keeping a dense field of Mk 41 VLS cells or installing CPS and a major gun system on a hull that was starting to grow beyond practical limits. That sort of either‑or decision is what pushed the conversation toward larger “battleship‑like” hulls and smarter distribution of roles across the fleet.
Instead of every destroyer doing everything, the Navy appears to be aligning toward a mix of specialised ships: some optimised for air and missile defence, some for long‑range strike, and some for undersea or unmanned operations, all wired together through data links.
What makes a missile ‘hypersonic’ – and why it matters
Hypersonic weapons travel at speeds above Mach 5, or five times the speed of sound. CPS is designed as a boost‑glide system: a rocket booster launches a glide body to high altitude and extreme speed, and that glide body then manoeuvres toward its target.
The combination of speed and manoeuvrability makes interception extremely difficult. Traditional ballistic missiles are fast but follow predictable arcs. Conventional cruise missiles can manoeuvre but are much slower and easier to track. CPS aims to sit between these categories, arriving quickly while retaining the ability to adjust course.
For the Navy, that offers a way to strike key targets ashore or at sea early in a conflict: air defence nodes, command centres, missile launchers or high‑value ships operating inside heavily defended zones.
Risks, responses and escalation questions
With that capability come risks. Hypersonic weapons compress decision‑making time for both sides. A commander under attack from a missile that may arrive in minutes has less scope to check sensors, consult allies or de‑escalate.
There are also concerns about misinterpretation. A fast‑moving long‑range missile might be mistaken for a nuclear‑armed system by an adversary, even if CPS is strictly conventional. That raises escalation questions that US planners are acutely aware of and are likely discussing with allies and competitors through military‑to‑military channels.
On the technical side, these are complex systems to build and maintain. They require advanced materials that can withstand high temperatures, precise guidance systems and launch infrastructure that takes up significant space on ships and submarines.
How this changes day‑to‑day naval operations
If CPS spreads across the fleet as planned, a US carrier strike group could sail with several hypersonic‑armed units: a Zumwalt‑class destroyer, a large battleship‑style combatant and one or more Virginia‑class submarines lurking below.
In a crisis near a contested coastline, those ships could launch near‑simultaneous strikes from different directions, forcing an adversary’s air defences to track multiple, extremely fast threats at once. Commanders would gain more options: disabling key nodes early, or holding them at risk as leverage during negotiations.
For sailors and officers, that means new training pipelines, new fire‑control concepts and more tightly integrated planning with the Air Force and Army, which are also working on hypersonic systems. Joint operations will need clear rules for who targets what, and how to avoid redundancy or friendly interference in contested airspace.
For readers following defence issues, CPS represents less a single silver‑bullet missile and more a signpost of where naval warfare is heading: larger, more heavily armed ships, backed by stealthy submarines, all built around the idea that speed and reach decide who gets the first credible shot.
Originally posted 2026-02-10 20:32:32.