The cover article in Defense News this week concerns supposedly huge changes to the US Navy’s ship-buying plans. To be frank, much of what's called dramatic in the article has been predictable for some time. This paragraph was singularly underwhelming:
It is not clear, however, whether the Navy wants to sanction a redesign of the DDG 51 to accommodate more missile launch tubes, a more powerful engineering plant or a much bigger radar. Several sources said the service was directing design studies to hold to the 51's existing dimensions, but others said those improvements would mean lengthening or otherwise enlarging the hull.
From the standpoint of the ultimate customer, the people running the US government, the one thing that the US Navy's air defense ships do not need is more missile tubes. Just about every other design around the world stops at 48 missiles, and only a few go up to 64. Designing the vertical launch versions of the Ticonderogas with 128 was done when the threat was regimental-sized raids of Tupolev-22s ("Backfires") against carrier groups in the North Atlantic.
Time was, the officers of the US Navy lived for that stuff. Not so much today. Now, the only reason for a bigger engineering plant would be a bigger radar, and the only reason for a bigger radar would be sea-based midcourse missile defense. Otherwise, the requirement is a non-starter, as the current government is seriously unlikely to pay for it. That’s not a commentary on its importance, just its importance to those in power. Without the overwhelming need for a missile defense mission, the planned future cruiser—the CG(X)—need be nothing more than a Arleigh Burke Batch III with a flag suite. It’s not recommendable that any shipbuilder, radar-maker, or weapons supplier plan otherwise.
Comments