New Stealth Destroyer canceled because its basically defenseless
Two weeks ago, the Navy canceled plans to build the rest of its hulking stealth destroyers. At first, it looked like the DDG-1000s' $5-billion-a-copy
price tag was to blame. Now, it appears the real reason has slipped out: The Navy's most advanced warship is all but defenseless against one
of its best-known threats.
We already knew that the older, cheaper, Burke-class destroyers are better able to fight off anti-ship missiles -- widely considered the most deadly (and most obvious) hazard to the American fleet. Specifically, the old Burkes can shoot down those missiles using special SM-3 interceptors; the new DDG-1000 cannot.
But now, a leading figure in the Navy, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (and Vice-Admiral) Barry McCullough, is saying that the DDG-1000 "cannot perform area air defense" at all.
Never mind the SM-3; the ship isn't designed to fire any kind of long-range air-defense missile, whatsoever.
It's presumably limited to the same last-ditch "point defense" systems (think Phalanx guns and short-range interceptors, like the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles) that cargo ships, aircraft carriers and even Coast Guard cutters carry in case a missile slips past their screening Burkes. Those point defenses can't intercept ballistic missiles at all -- and when they destroy sea-skimming missiles, the debris can still strike and severely damage the ship.
In other words, the world's most expensive surface warship can't properly defend itself or other ships from an extremely widespread threat.
That, needless to say, is a problem.
Not only is the DDG-1000 vulnerable to the ballistic anti-ship missiles that countries such as China are developing, it wouldn't even be particularly effective at protecting fleets against common weapons in the arsenals of everyone from Russia to Iran. And it's not like this was some kind of new threat; these missiles have been around, in one form or another, since World War II.
More on the link
http://blog.wired.com/defen...
By netchicken:
posted on 5-8-2008
We already knew that the older, cheaper, Burke-class destroyers are better able to fight off anti-ship missiles -- widely considered the most deadly (and most obvious) hazard to the American fleet. Specifically, the old Burkes can shoot down those missiles using special SM-3 interceptors; the new DDG-1000 cannot.
But now, a leading figure in the Navy, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (and Vice-Admiral) Barry McCullough, is saying that the DDG-1000 "cannot perform area air defense" at all.
Never mind the SM-3; the ship isn't designed to fire any kind of long-range air-defense missile, whatsoever.
It's presumably limited to the same last-ditch "point defense" systems (think Phalanx guns and short-range interceptors, like the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles) that cargo ships, aircraft carriers and even Coast Guard cutters carry in case a missile slips past their screening Burkes. Those point defenses can't intercept ballistic missiles at all -- and when they destroy sea-skimming missiles, the debris can still strike and severely damage the ship.
In other words, the world's most expensive surface warship can't properly defend itself or other ships from an extremely widespread threat.
That, needless to say, is a problem.
Not only is the DDG-1000 vulnerable to the ballistic anti-ship missiles that countries such as China are developing, it wouldn't even be particularly effective at protecting fleets against common weapons in the arsenals of everyone from Russia to Iran. And it's not like this was some kind of new threat; these missiles have been around, in one form or another, since World War II.
More on the link
http://blog.wired.com/defen...
