At last the Navy figured out how to listen and think. The ZUMWALTS are actually CLG’s and will now be designated as an ARSENAL ship as envisioned back in the late 80’s.
The problem with arsenal ships fitted with 300-400 vls cells,is filling those vls.When missiles are now 2-8 millions each,it's just won't happen.And the production lines just aren't there.
@@sgt.grinch3299 There could be some economy of scale,but there still aren't a lot of companies building those missiles,only a few.If massive investments were to be done in the next few years tripling(or more)the production capacity,then i could see it being possible.For example,Canada has ordered the SM-2 mr block3c.100 units iirc.If we had a production line up here,that would be great,but we don't.So we will have to get them from the U.S. Same with the RAM block 2 and ESSM block 2.We may also get the tomahawk block 5,but we'll see if they get it.
@@camembert101 yes thanks to post cold war complacency and "restructuring" of the defense industry in the 90s. It went from like a hundred or close to that to like a dozen in a few years that meant much less competition and innovation. It's arguably much worse than what happened post-WWII because it lasted much longer and because of outsourcing/globalization. As bad as it is in the US of A its way worse here in Europe
The single function arsenal ship as proposed was stupid. It wouldn’t save money it just gathered hundreds of expensive missiles into one vulnerable vessel, losing billions of dollars in munitions and years of production as soon as it is hit.
This thing should be loaded with Mako hypersonic missiles Its should also have lasers and carry 4 Vertical takeoff f35. Maybe its good only 3 were made so the next ones can have an upgrade.
Zumwalt sailing with 3 or more LUSV could make sense, and it might be cheaper than a carrier strike group, but why when you have Gerald R Ford class coming off the production line?
New Zumwalt class with the CPSMs is the most devastating, advanced and capable ship that will sail the 7 seas. The only thing that is dragging DDG-1000 down is her lack of Aegis system, and even more important, the accompanying SM-6 missile.. Although there are some ideas in the work to arm the Zummy with the SM-6.. Also the ship of Zumwalt's size (15 000) should have more than 80 VLS missiles given that the less than 10 000 tonne Ticonderoga cruiser has 122 VLS tubes I can't wait for all 3 of the incredible Zumwalt class destroyers to sail the oceans with hypersonics on board... And again the short sightness of certain Pentagon "visionaries" capped the number of hulls from 36 to 3. This goes to the greatest blunders list, right up there with Sec Def Gates' decision to cancel the production of Raptors at 187 jets since "There was no need to build more Raptors given that there were no potential near peer adversaries US could face in the forseable future".. Mind you, this decision was made in 2012 and Robert Gates didn't see China as a potential near peer adversary, despite the fact they were already flying multiple prototypes of their J-20 stealth jets? What an idi**..
I did not understand why the AGS is not able to use cheap ammo! It had a caliber of 155mm. Reading that I thoght it could use 155 atillery shels and the new super ammo.
It could use standard naval 155 which is not the same as the 155 used by land forces. In service it was supposed to use a guided round variant that was the expensive one quoted, expensive because it was never produced in volume and the special order price for small lots is going to be expensive on top of the expense for the guidance. It is possible that they used standard unguided 155 to save costs which would sacrifice some performance. Hypersonic missiles will be much more expensive but also have much more capability.
@@stupidburp Cool! Thanks for the answer! Now the whole thing makes sense! I mean you can use that new super ammo if it counts AND you have a cheap mass produced round! Well, there is always something that escapes notice unless you are a real expert!
Those arsenal ships could render the aircraft carrier obsolete, especially if it has a radar that can pick up planes and drones out to 500mi and pickup enemy launched missiles. I don't think it needs to be that large. Also maybe borrow the narco sub concept.
It's called CPS (Conventional Prompt Strike). US Army already received their version LRHW/Dark Eagle since October 2021 and had already gone a successful live fire test. Twice the range and speed compared to DF-21/YJ-21. Dark Eagle is also light enough to be transported by C-17s.
I fail to see how an Arsenal ship would cost only $500 million, thats 500 VLS alone each with a missile or quad packed and some of those missiles costing over a million each, that has to take the cost per ship into the billion dollar+ mark. The NAVY needs to own the copyright on weapons or shells to prevent defence contractors trying to fleece them per unit. The DoD already pays large sums to companies in the design phase, why can't they just make it so that what they design belongs to the govt and should the designer not be able to manufacture such ammunition within budget, then the govt reserves the right to outsource it manufacture to another company.
Is a refit of the Zumwalt class of ships going to follow the same torterous and rediculously high cost path of the Ticonderoga class ships? Hundreds of millions of dollars over budget, years behind on refit schedules, and because of Congressional budget constraints, unlikely to see any sort of functional deployment before the mid 2030's! The numerical size and capabilitiy of the US Navy's shipping seems to be shrinking by the month, with causes as yet having more to do with battles between US Congress and Navy than through adversarial engagement.
At 3:42, it states that Johnson took over from Dalton? Dalton was the Secretary of the Navy. Admiral Boorda was the CNO that “committed suicide” If you’re gonna propaganda- get the storyline right.
Well, the shells from the rail gun- yeah those did, but don’t exist anymore. The hypersonic missiles though, on the other hand- well, they’re very much real now
It’s always been a stupid concept. In a surface Navy centered on carrier task forces where was there ever a need for a stealth platform? The Navy already fields stealth platforms…they’re called submarines. The whole idea of major combatants as littoral platforms was also an utter disaster with the crappy little ships unable to meet deployment requirements or maintenance minimums.
With the retirement of the Iowa class, the idea was to provide another low cost solution for shore bombardment. Submarine launched cruise missiles are anything but “low cost.” Unfortunately, the AGS wasn’t low cost either as it turned out.
What on earth is going on with some Western navies, before the Zumwalt disaster the UK RN commissioned 6 Dragon class air superior destroyers, turned out a cheap engine design had been fitted that couldn't handle the heat in the middle east environs, all six engines had to be replaced. UK owns two large aircraft carriers, WHY, a medium sized european island nation doesn't need them, its 6th in GDP, so the sea lanes don't need its offerins, so why ?
Actually the Type 45's are actually named the Daring Class Destroyer, not the Dragon Class Destroyer and the Royal Navy does need aircraft carriers we've had aircraft carriers for years and we was the first country that invented the aircraft carrier. :)
This is not about stealth, it is about adding more missiles to the defense of the carrier strike group. This is the US Navy's recognition that _the Navy cannot protect itself from drone swarms_ becuase 500 FH-97 type high stealth drones would be enough to deplete all of the surface to air missiles carried by the existing stike group escorts. China can build 500 FH-97s (a drone about the same size and performance as the XQ-58, which Kratos says could cost as little as $2 Million each) for the cost of one squadron of F-35Cs. China is also moving quickly to produce an MD-22 type Mach 7 hypersonic drone. It was simply quicker to modify this ship than build a new ship. The fact that it is intended to carry so many missiles would lead a logical person that follows this kind of thing to believe that they understand that the US Navy can no longer be expected to project power in a radius of perhaps 2000 miles of the Chinese coast. The drones have to be intercepted because while their warheads are small, a couple of hits could remove a carrier from service for at least a short time. This is where the MD-22 Hypersinics come in. They would follow the FH-97. They can carry larger warheads, but the kenetic energy damage alone would likely make a carrier withdraw to major overhaul ports for extended repairs (I do not think a hypersonic strike would sink a carrier, but it would likely set it afire and do enormous damage). This is why the Navy is doing what it is doing. Many commentors in these videos just seem to get lost in the grass when they should be looking at the big picture, and the big picture is that the US Navy is in trouble, and it knows it. The updated ship is a thumb in the dyke. The reality is that saturation drone warfare is the future of naval warfare, and for a highly industrialized country like China, if they chose to do so, can make enough drones to overwhelm the US Navy becase we can't build enough ships to defend against them.
If China started producing FH-97s in 2025, and can build 500 a year (which Kratos has said it can build with the XQ-58), then in 3 years, they would have enough drones to overwhelm 3 carrier tasks forces, If they build 30 MD-22s, they would have more than enough Hypersonics to follow up for the kill. From the point that China starts mass producing FH-97s, the US Navy has a 3 year shelf life for a way to defend Taiwan (a war that I don't actually think we will fight because even in the current environment, the best think tank estimates way we will loose three carriers, 200 aircraft, and 10,000 servicemembers, and still not be assured of stopping Taiwan from evengually taking control of Taiwan).
@@shenmisheshou7002Several defense analysts believe it’ll take about 5 years for China to deploy the FH-97A at scale, and the MD-22 is a tech demonstrator, not a weapon itself. By 2030, both the US and China are going to be fielding some crazy stuff and nobody can really put their finger on what exactly either nation is going to field. And if drone swarms are truly a possibility- microwave weapons are already showing some serious promise worldwide Regardless, Neither of these are going to be available in high enough numbers by 2025 like you say. The only reality right now for next year would probably be a few B-21 6th generation strategic bombers (already in low rate initial production) flying pretty much undetected over the Chinese mainland, dropping precision guided munitions on any threat China puts forward. But that’s only if war happens with China next year- which most likely isn’t gonna happen. The US Navy is definitely not untouchable, and there are growing threats to it worldwide, but china’s got a whole lot more to worry about than just a few carrier groups.
@Fold-103 The Navy has no choice but to convert these ships into missile carriers. They don't have time to build new ships if China starts mass producing somethin like the FH-97. 500 of those would overwhelm the current air defenses of a carrier strike force, and there is little else that they can do with this ship.
@@shenmisheshou7002 They’re not gonna be ready for another 5 years, and by then the US air force’s own loyal wingman program will be in service. And the MD-22 is not an anti ship missile. I don’t think the Chinese are as far ahead as people think
Hypersonic weapons are expensive shiny toys and their bite isn't worth the cost. Supersonic low observable cruise missiles are a better, cheaper option. Generals and Admrals never met a flashy weapon that didn't like.
Oh, they are worth the cost, but I agree with you that the lower cost cruise missiles are the key. China is in rapid development of the FH-97, which is similar in concept to the US XQ-58. It will have about 2000 mile range, and while not supersonic, it is high steath. Kratos says that in mass production, they could build 500 of these a year at $2 Million apiece. I would guess that if China wanted to, they could build doublet this amount for even less. What this ship is designed to counter is the threat that China will indeed mass produce the FH-97, and considering they can build 7000 of them for the cost of one year of F-35 production, they don't need to be supersonic. It would only take 500 of them to deplete all of the surface to air missiles carried by all of the escort ships in the carrier group (500 would cost less than a naval squadron of F-35Cs.) Why are the Hypersonics worth the cost? Drones with this kind of range have limited payloads. These could perhaps do enough damage to take a carrier out of service for repairs, but not for very long. The hypersonics do far more damage because of the kenetic energy. A strike anywhere on a carrier by an MD-22 (rumored to enter service in a refined version called the MD-25) will do enough damage that the ship will have to undergo prolonged repairs. This is why the Navy is doing this though. They know that if China starts mass producing the FH-97, the current escorts can't carry enough missles to defend the carrier task force. They have no choice but to find a quick solution, and modifhing an existing ship is much faster then building a new one. The FH-97s have to be fired on, but the problem is that there won;'t be anything left to protect against the hypersonics, and they can do far more damage. Drones are cheap, and building more ships is easily countered by building more drones. The future of naval warfare in the waters around China will be one based on drone satuturation warfare and hypersonics. If China is agressive, the US naval fleet will be incapable of acting against them in a war over Taiwan.
@@rickbase833 You miss the point. The point is that ships take a long time to build and are extremely expensive. For the cost of one year production of F-35s, China could build 7000 drones. For the cost of a nuclear submarine, between $3 Billion and $5 Billion, the Chinese could build 10,000 drones. This is like World War II. The Sherman Tank was not an equal to the better German tanks, but the US built 45,000 of them, and the US built 300,000 military aircraft. Now it is reversed. China can out-manufacture us 10 fold.
@@rickbase833 You miss the point. The point is that ships take a long time to build and are extremely expensive. For the cost of one year production of F-35s, China could build 7000 drones. For the cost of a nuclear submarine, between $3 Billion and $5 Billion, the Chinese could build 10,000 drones. This is like World War II. The Sherman Tank was not an equal to the better German tanks, but the US built 45,000 of them, and the US built 300,000 military aircraft. Now it is reversed. China can out-manufacture us 10 fold.
@shenmisheshou7002 I get the point. I'm a USN vet, and I've been working in the defense contracting industry since 1995, with 23 of those years at Northrop. I'm very familiar with the USG procurement process and also know that senior officers want gold plated weapon systems when they should be looking to the future, which is not shiny, expensive weapons when smaller cost effective systems can get the job done.
At last the Navy figured out how to listen and think. The ZUMWALTS are actually CLG’s and will now be designated as an ARSENAL ship as envisioned back in the late 80’s.
they are gonna need an arsenal ship in the Pacific
The problem with arsenal ships fitted with 300-400 vls cells,is filling those vls.When missiles are now 2-8 millions each,it's just won't happen.And the production lines just aren't there.
If you built 12 Arsenal Ships the missiles prices would come down because of the purchase scale.
@@sgt.grinch3299 There could be some economy of scale,but there still aren't a lot of companies building those missiles,only a few.If massive investments were to be done in the next few years tripling(or more)the production capacity,then i could see it being possible.For example,Canada has ordered the SM-2 mr block3c.100 units iirc.If we had a production line up here,that would be great,but we don't.So we will have to get them from the U.S.
Same with the RAM block 2 and ESSM block 2.We may also get the tomahawk block 5,but we'll see if they get it.
@@camembert101 yes thanks to post cold war complacency and "restructuring" of the defense industry in the 90s. It went from like a hundred or close to that to like a dozen in a few years that meant much less competition and innovation. It's arguably much worse than what happened post-WWII because it lasted much longer and because of outsourcing/globalization. As bad as it is in the US of A its way worse here in Europe
The single function arsenal ship as proposed was stupid. It wouldn’t save money it just gathered hundreds of expensive missiles into one vulnerable vessel, losing billions of dollars in munitions and years of production as soon as it is hit.
A very good move!
This should make the Zumwalts much more practical and useful!
This thing should be loaded with Mako hypersonic missiles
Its should also have lasers and carry 4 Vertical takeoff f35.
Maybe its good only 3 were made so the next ones can have an upgrade.
Zumwalt sailing with 3 or more LUSV could make sense, and it might be cheaper than a carrier strike group, but why when you have Gerald R Ford class coming off the production line?
Zumwalt class has always been a technology testbed, for better or worse.
New Zumwalt class with the CPSMs is the most devastating, advanced and capable ship that will sail the 7 seas. The only thing that is dragging DDG-1000 down is her lack of Aegis system, and even more important, the accompanying SM-6 missile.. Although there are some ideas in the work to arm the Zummy with the SM-6..
Also the ship of Zumwalt's size (15 000) should have more than 80 VLS missiles given that the less than 10 000 tonne Ticonderoga cruiser has 122 VLS tubes
I can't wait for all 3 of the incredible Zumwalt class destroyers to sail the oceans with hypersonics on board... And again the short sightness of certain Pentagon "visionaries" capped the number of hulls from 36 to 3. This goes to the greatest blunders list, right up there with Sec Def Gates' decision to cancel the production of Raptors at 187 jets since "There was no need to build more Raptors given that there were no potential near peer adversaries US could face in the forseable future".. Mind you, this decision was made in 2012 and Robert Gates didn't see China as a potential near peer adversary, despite the fact they were already flying multiple prototypes of their J-20 stealth jets? What an idi**..
They'll 1st need to pair SPY-6 with its SPY-3. Supposedly it was SPY-4 but was cancelled due to budget constraints.
Money always dictates over logic eventually!
I'm sure the same glowing speeches were given for the original design, hold your ink!
So... how much are the missiles each?
Something tells me, we are not saving money.
I did not understand why the AGS is not able to use cheap ammo! It had a caliber of 155mm. Reading that I thoght it could use 155 atillery shels and the new super ammo.
It could use standard naval 155 which is not the same as the 155 used by land forces. In service it was supposed to use a guided round variant that was the expensive one quoted, expensive because it was never produced in volume and the special order price for small lots is going to be expensive on top of the expense for the guidance. It is possible that they used standard unguided 155 to save costs which would sacrifice some performance. Hypersonic missiles will be much more expensive but also have much more capability.
@@stupidburp Cool! Thanks for the answer!
Now the whole thing makes sense! I mean you can use that new super ammo if it counts AND you have a cheap mass produced round! Well, there is always something that escapes notice unless you are a real expert!
most Modern Warships Player using Zumwalt Destroyer in Ranked Mode, i still like Zumwalt with 2 Railguns
Those arsenal ships could render the aircraft carrier obsolete, especially if it has a radar that can pick up planes and drones out to 500mi and pickup enemy launched missiles.
I don't think it needs to be that large.
Also maybe borrow the narco sub concept.
Johnson should have never got a ship after his debacle with the navy and Israel.
Its so powerful I like it
What hypersonic missile? We don't have any at the moment. This is really just a refit for a bunch of vertical launch tubes.
Dark Eagle
Mako hypersonic missiles
It's called CPS (Conventional Prompt Strike). US Army already received their version LRHW/Dark Eagle since October 2021 and had already gone a successful live fire test. Twice the range and speed compared to DF-21/YJ-21. Dark Eagle is also light enough to be transported by C-17s.
REPURPOSING oil tanker designs are the fastest way for arsenal ships ... that can stage behind a front line....and send hurt 🤔😮
Good news
I fail to see how an Arsenal ship would cost only $500 million, thats 500 VLS alone each with a missile or quad packed and some of those missiles costing over a million each, that has to take the cost per ship into the billion dollar+ mark.
The NAVY needs to own the copyright on weapons or shells to prevent defence contractors trying to fleece them per unit. The DoD already pays large sums to companies in the design phase, why can't they just make it so that what they design belongs to the govt and should the designer not be able to manufacture such ammunition within budget, then the govt reserves the right to outsource it manufacture to another company.
Is a refit of the Zumwalt class of ships going to follow the same torterous and rediculously high cost path of the Ticonderoga class ships?
Hundreds of millions of dollars over budget, years behind on refit schedules, and because of Congressional budget constraints, unlikely to see any sort of functional deployment before the mid 2030's!
The numerical size and capabilitiy of the US Navy's shipping seems to be shrinking by the month, with causes as yet having more to do with battles between US Congress and Navy than through adversarial engagement.
The word is littoral not literal. Does anybody review this stuff?
At 3:42, it states that Johnson took over from Dalton? Dalton was the Secretary of the Navy. Admiral Boorda was the CNO that “committed suicide”
If you’re gonna propaganda- get the storyline right.
The ship that fires shells and missles that don't exist. What a scam.
Well, the shells from the rail gun- yeah those did, but don’t exist anymore.
The hypersonic missiles though, on the other hand- well, they’re very much real now
US Army already received their version LRHW/Dark Eagle since October 2021 and had already gone a successful live fire test.
It’s always been a stupid concept. In a surface Navy centered on carrier task forces where was there ever a need for a stealth platform? The Navy already fields stealth platforms…they’re called submarines. The whole idea of major combatants as littoral platforms was also an utter disaster with the crappy little ships unable to meet deployment requirements or maintenance minimums.
How many submarines carry 500 VLS.
The concept makes sense to me.
With the retirement of the Iowa class, the idea was to provide another low cost solution for shore bombardment. Submarine launched cruise missiles are anything but “low cost.” Unfortunately, the AGS wasn’t low cost either as it turned out.
What a waste of $$$! I’m so glad they canceled the CGX program 🙄
What on earth is going on with some Western navies, before the Zumwalt disaster the UK RN commissioned 6 Dragon class air superior destroyers, turned out a cheap engine design had been fitted that couldn't handle the heat in the middle east environs, all six engines had to be replaced.
UK owns two large aircraft carriers, WHY, a medium sized european island nation doesn't need them, its 6th in GDP, so the sea lanes don't need its offerins, so why ?
Actually the Type 45's are actually named the Daring Class Destroyer, not the Dragon Class Destroyer and the Royal Navy does need aircraft carriers we've had aircraft carriers for years and we was the first country that invented the aircraft carrier. :)
This is not about stealth, it is about adding more missiles to the defense of the carrier strike group. This is the US Navy's recognition that _the Navy cannot protect itself from drone swarms_ becuase 500 FH-97 type high stealth drones would be enough to deplete all of the surface to air missiles carried by the existing stike group escorts. China can build 500 FH-97s (a drone about the same size and performance as the XQ-58, which Kratos says could cost as little as $2 Million each) for the cost of one squadron of F-35Cs. China is also moving quickly to produce an MD-22 type Mach 7 hypersonic drone. It was simply quicker to modify this ship than build a new ship. The fact that it is intended to carry so many missiles would lead a logical person that follows this kind of thing to believe that they understand that the US Navy can no longer be expected to project power in a radius of perhaps 2000 miles of the Chinese coast. The drones have to be intercepted because while their warheads are small, a couple of hits could remove a carrier from service for at least a short time. This is where the MD-22 Hypersinics come in. They would follow the FH-97. They can carry larger warheads, but the kenetic energy damage alone would likely make a carrier withdraw to major overhaul ports for extended repairs (I do not think a hypersonic strike would sink a carrier, but it would likely set it afire and do enormous damage). This is why the Navy is doing what it is doing. Many commentors in these videos just seem to get lost in the grass when they should be looking at the big picture, and the big picture is that the US Navy is in trouble, and it knows it. The updated ship is a thumb in the dyke. The reality is that saturation drone warfare is the future of naval warfare, and for a highly industrialized country like China, if they chose to do so, can make enough drones to overwhelm the US Navy becase we can't build enough ships to defend against them.
If China started producing FH-97s in 2025, and can build 500 a year (which Kratos has said it can build with the XQ-58), then in 3 years, they would have enough drones to overwhelm 3 carrier tasks forces, If they build 30 MD-22s, they would have more than enough Hypersonics to follow up for the kill. From the point that China starts mass producing FH-97s, the US Navy has a 3 year shelf life for a way to defend Taiwan (a war that I don't actually think we will fight because even in the current environment, the best think tank estimates way we will loose three carriers, 200 aircraft, and 10,000 servicemembers, and still not be assured of stopping Taiwan from evengually taking control of Taiwan).
@@shenmisheshou7002Several defense analysts believe it’ll take about 5 years for China to deploy the FH-97A at scale, and the MD-22 is a tech demonstrator, not a weapon itself. By 2030, both the US and China are going to be fielding some crazy stuff and nobody can really put their finger on what exactly either nation is going to field. And if drone swarms are truly a possibility- microwave weapons are already showing some serious promise worldwide
Regardless, Neither of these are going to be available in high enough numbers by 2025 like you say. The only reality right now for next year would probably be a few B-21 6th generation strategic bombers (already in low rate initial production) flying pretty much undetected over the Chinese mainland, dropping precision guided munitions on any threat China puts forward. But that’s only if war happens with China next year- which most likely isn’t gonna happen.
The US Navy is definitely not untouchable, and there are growing threats to it worldwide, but china’s got a whole lot more to worry about than just a few carrier groups.
Arsenal ships aren’t a good idea
@Fold-103 The Navy has no choice but to convert these ships into missile carriers. They don't have time to build new ships if China starts mass producing somethin like the FH-97. 500 of those would overwhelm the current air defenses of a carrier strike force, and there is little else that they can do with this ship.
@@shenmisheshou7002 They’re not gonna be ready for another 5 years, and by then the US air force’s own loyal wingman program will be in service. And the MD-22 is not an anti ship missile. I don’t think the Chinese are as far ahead as people think
were you get the super sonic missiles from you dont have any
you must have poor research skills
Does it still come with its dedicated tug?
Will it venture far from port??
It wasnt called The Dummwalt for nothing......
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Hypersonic weapons are expensive shiny toys and their bite isn't worth the cost. Supersonic low observable cruise missiles are a better, cheaper option. Generals and Admrals never met a flashy weapon that didn't like.
Oh, they are worth the cost, but I agree with you that the lower cost cruise missiles are the key. China is in rapid development of the FH-97, which is similar in concept to the US XQ-58. It will have about 2000 mile range, and while not supersonic, it is high steath. Kratos says that in mass production, they could build 500 of these a year at $2 Million apiece. I would guess that if China wanted to, they could build doublet this amount for even less. What this ship is designed to counter is the threat that China will indeed mass produce the FH-97, and considering they can build 7000 of them for the cost of one year of F-35 production, they don't need to be supersonic. It would only take 500 of them to deplete all of the surface to air missiles carried by all of the escort ships in the carrier group (500 would cost less than a naval squadron of F-35Cs.) Why are the Hypersonics worth the cost? Drones with this kind of range have limited payloads. These could perhaps do enough damage to take a carrier out of service for repairs, but not for very long. The hypersonics do far more damage because of the kenetic energy. A strike anywhere on a carrier by an MD-22 (rumored to enter service in a refined version called the MD-25) will do enough damage that the ship will have to undergo prolonged repairs. This is why the Navy is doing this though. They know that if China starts mass producing the FH-97, the current escorts can't carry enough missles to defend the carrier task force. They have no choice but to find a quick solution, and modifhing an existing ship is much faster then building a new one. The FH-97s have to be fired on, but the problem is that there won;'t be anything left to protect against the hypersonics, and they can do far more damage. Drones are cheap, and building more ships is easily countered by building more drones. The future of naval warfare in the waters around China will be one based on drone satuturation warfare and hypersonics. If China is agressive, the US naval fleet will be incapable of acting against them in a war over Taiwan.
@shenmisheshou7002 Build more subs that have high capacity for missiles. The Ohio SSGN is an example.
@@rickbase833 You miss the point. The point is that ships take a long time to build and are extremely expensive. For the cost of one year production of F-35s, China could build 7000 drones. For the cost of a nuclear submarine, between $3 Billion and $5 Billion, the Chinese could build 10,000 drones. This is like World War II. The Sherman Tank was not an equal to the better German tanks, but the US built 45,000 of them, and the US built 300,000 military aircraft. Now it is reversed. China can out-manufacture us 10 fold.
@@rickbase833 You miss the point. The point is that ships take a long time to build and are extremely expensive. For the cost of one year production of F-35s, China could build 7000 drones. For the cost of a nuclear submarine, between $3 Billion and $5 Billion, the Chinese could build 10,000 drones. This is like World War II. The Sherman Tank was not an equal to the better German tanks, but the US built 45,000 of them, and the US built 300,000 military aircraft. Now it is reversed. China can out-manufacture us 10 fold.
@shenmisheshou7002 I get the point. I'm a USN vet, and I've been working in the defense contracting industry since 1995, with 23 of those years at Northrop. I'm very familiar with the USG procurement process and also know that senior officers want gold plated weapon systems when they should be looking to the future, which is not shiny, expensive weapons when smaller cost effective systems can get the job done.
Propaganda.