Hypersonic missiles (and possibly anti-ship ballistic missiles) are making surface ships like this obsolete, similar to how carriers made battleships obsolete in WWII.<p>Hypersonic missiles, submarines, and satellites (sensors, C&C, directed energy weapons, EMP, rods from god, etc) I think will be the critical force components of this century. If any war breaks out, those components working in concert will take out surface ships and stationary bases first.<p>The US Navy has a history of being slow to recognize and adapt to these inflection points. Prior to WWII a few forward-looking admirals were warning about, and demonstrating the efficacy and game-changing nature of, carrier warfare. At least one wargame ~10yrs prior to WWII showed Pearl Harbor was vulnerable to a simulated carrier-based attack. But Navy leadership wasn't convinced until actual Pearl Harbor.<p>Part of the problem is that to maintain the ability to manufacture mega-projects like aircraft carriers, at least one needs to always be in production. Once you repurpose those production lines, it's difficult to restart them.<p>But I hope they start figuring this out soon, and planning to fight the next war, not the last one, or the US won't have enough credible deterrent to prevent another war.
This is something the US navy does need. It's crazy that we're still building a ship design from the 1980s. Letting the Ticonderoga's age out without a replacement was also extremely short sighted as they fill a vital role in the defense of a carrier group. Hopefully lessons learned from the Zumwalt are taken to heart.
The whole doctrine behind “hypersonic maneuverable missiles” is anti-surface warship fleets, more specifically anti-US naval hegemony. This is why China and Russia have leapfrogged the Pentagon.<p>Having defensive measures certainly help level off the disparity, but active defense is always harder than offense.
That's really neat! I do wonder why, though - I understand any threat from e.g. China is fabricated, as any real war would be mutually assured destruction as both/all sides have nukes.<p>So, am I wrong to assume this will, if at all, only be used against defenseless targets, such as political/civilian targets, as show-of-strength to justify the massive budget and "whoa thats cool"-factor (which, to be fair, it has)?
Is there a strategic purpose to large ships like this in an age of automated systems? Is there some way in which this is superior to several small ships?
I'm really puzzled with the army's enthusiasm for lasers, wouldn't for instance a heat shield coated with a highly reflective material completely neglect its effect?