And that proves what? Please explain to me why I should use an ultra-heavy missile for ANY engagement? Why are they obsolete today, when the overwhelming part of warship force consists of rather small ships (in WW2 terms) not even crossing the line of 10,000 ts and being unarmored. Exocet clearly demonstrated it was able to get the job done in the Falklands.
Exocets are generally carried by aircraft. Nevertheless your assumption about the shipwreck is incorrect since only the Kirov class battlecruisers carry them. And theres only one of those operational. Thus it actually does make sense if you had to engage a super carrier.
Why were missiles like Exocet and Harpoon developed in the first place? To destroy aircraft carriers or BBs? If you think so then you are missing a point here that has to do with real threat assessment by NATO forces. Is there a credible target for such a heavy missile employed by western forces today. The answer is more than obvious.
The ShipWreck is a russian missile, and I believe it is properly thought out considering the supercarriers used by the U.S.
Feel free to give some information about these other ships. I am not aware of any such incident.
Sorry, I meant to say other ship from foreign nations.
Actually there is no DDG(X) at all, but you posted the naval forces mix already, being DD(X)+CG(X)+LCS (besides CVN, LHA etc.). From the last official pictures I have seen the CG(X) is the exact same design as the DD(X), featuring roughly the same displacement, but dropping one of the AGS in exchange for increased missile capacity. Thats why they are talking about the DD(X)-family evolved out of the DD-21. Most of these specs can be found at
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/dd-x-program.htm
I'm afraid they dont have CG(X)-pictures yet.
Actually I am completely right and you are completely wrong.
The DD(X) is not going to replace the burkes. The DDG(X) is.
Evidence for what I have said comes from the U.S NAVY's 313 ship plan that can be found here:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6985&sequence=0
The 313 ship plan is an official report that was released last month (dec 05) from the
United States Congressional Budget Office and gives in-depth detail to the most likely fleet plan that the USN will use.
The following is from page 7, paragraphs 2,3 and 4:
The Navy’s plan would buy seven DD(X) destroyers at a rate of one per year starting
in 2007. Press reports indicate that the Navy hopes to reduce the cost of the
first two ships of that class to $3.1 billion, with subsequent ships costing about
$2.0 billion. CBO estimates that the cost of the first ship would be $4.7 billion
and that the average cost for a seven-ship class of DD(X)s would be $3.7 billion
(see Table 2).
In addition, the Navy intends to begin buying a new missile-defense surface combatant,
the CG(X) cruiser, in 2011. CBO assumes that a CG(X) would use the
same hull—and cost about the same—as a DD(X) destroyer. However, the
CG(X)s would have a lower average cost than the DD(X)s because more of them
would be bought (19 between 2011 and 2023) and because some CG(X)s would
be purchased at a rate of two per year, reducing their unit cost.
The Navy’s 313-ship plan would also maintain a fleet of 62 Arleigh Burke class
destroyers (DDG-51s). CBO assumes that those ships would be modernized and
would serve for about 35 years, which is consistent with the Navy’s plan. Under
that assumption, the first replacement for the DDG-51s—a DDG(X)—would need
to be purchased in 2020.
11 For this analysis, CBO assumed that the new DDG(X)
would be somewhat larger than existing DDG-51s but smaller than DD(X) destroyers
(since it would be unlikely to carry the advanced gun systems that DD(X)s
have). In particular, CBO assumed the DDG(X) would displace about 11,000 tons
at full load. In CBO’s projection, those replacement destroyers cost an average of
about $2.2 billion apiece—the same cost per thousand tons as today’s Arleigh
As you can see they very clearly state that there is both a DD(X) and a DDG(X). The difference is that the DDG(X) is replacing the Burkes and the DD(X) isn't. The DDG(X) is also as I said before, smaller than the DD(X). They very clearly state such. Furthermore they clearly indicate that there will be a CG(X) and if you take the time to download and read that report they affirm what I have said to Rich about only 7 DD(X)'s being funded, which will not be operational until 2013 at the soonest.
As you can see my information is far more up to date and accurate than globalsecurity.
@Wookie:
Trust me, I got some idea about that. But why developing a missile which should do that when there is no respective target? And that was the whole point in my response to defcons assessment and his very general dismissal of the Exocent and Harpoon being "nothing to fear about". How long do you think it would take to develop and field an appropriate missile in order to penetrate said armor. Now compare how long it takes to actually design and build the respective BB. In the end you got a very big very expensive and very dead BB.
There is a reason behind todays warships not fielding any significant armor protection anymore.
And any other ship in the world would also be just as dead. nevertheless armor is helpful against some weapons. At any rate I already explained this to the poster.
