Posted on 10/04/2009 10:02:21 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
The U.S. government, encouraged by the high success rate (83 percent) of U.S. Navy Aegis equipped ships using SM-3 missiles to shoot down ballistic missiles, has decided to expand the number of SM-3 equipped ships. Just this year, the navy completed equipping 18 ships with the Aegis anti-missile system, and that number may soon more than triple.
This is part of a larger trend. Last year, the navy cancelled its expensive new DDG-1000 class of destroyers, partly because these ships were built to support amphibious and coastal operations, and did not have a radar that could easily be converted to use SM-3 anti-missile missiles. The DDG-1000 also cost 2-3 times more than Aegis destroyers. With missile defense seen as a higher priority than providing new amphibious and coastal combat capability, the DDG-1000 was killed, and the money saved could be used to build more Aegis destroyers, and convert more current destroyers and cruisers to use SM-3.
With that in mind, the navy is already converting three more Aegis ships to fire anti-missile missiles. This costs about $12 million a ship, mainly for new software and a few new hardware items. This is seen as a safe investment. To knock down ballistic missile, Aegis uses two similar models of the U.S. Navy Standard anti-aircraft missile, in addition to a modified version of the Aegis radar system, tweaked to also track incoming ballistic missiles.
(Excerpt) Read more at strategypage.com ...
Yup, wow,.... when 83 percent represents a failure
Their sailors were given a tour of an aegis missle destroyer.... CNC room.... taking pictures of other sailors...... yet you could tell from the footage they were taking pictures of all the equipment... I was screaming at my TV...
I remember that too.
A bit of braggadocio maybe. Tests of course are highly staged, and without decoys or real world complications.
Its a start, but inadequate and not as capable as a fixed land based installation.
I disagree.
Adm Mullen—the schmuck at the top of the JCS now—was the prime mover of sucking up to the Chinese. They had free run of carriers, Pearl, and you name it.
So the fifth missile shot at it sinks it?
The Russians have also been aboard the Ageis cruisers... The same thing happened too.
Eighty-three percent should be good enough if the incoming have a success rate of about 17 percent.
>>>But the idiots democrats in congress cut the funding to buy a bunch more of that last generation crap
Not precisely. The program cost overruns were ruinous. At program termination the cost had risen to $2.5 billion per ship. That’s close to the cost of a carrier without even the guarantee the destroyer would be a successful design. The older destroyer design may indeed be last generation, but hardly crap. They work well and are affordable.
Let’s be fair to the Navy. The original program called for the development costs for the DDG-1000 to be spread over a nine-ship class. Congress said two, but just recently added a third DDG-1000. You spread a nine-ship development costs over 2 or three ships and it WILL look like cost over-runs. Congress does their typical two-step...
Look at the Seawolf class submarines as compared to the Virginia class. The three ship Seawolf class was deemed to expensive at $2.2 billion each. Now the Virginia class is around $2.2 billion each. Gee, Congress does it again.
Remember, Congress does not care about keeping a 350 ship Navy, they are happy to see it at 275, as long as the c**k-sucking Senators, Reps and Hill staffers keep the home States and Districts awash in DoD cash. It’s a jobs program which helps the Navy slowly decline as did the Royal Navy since WWII.
dvwjr
You should enjoy horseshoes.
Is that the Mobile Bay or is that 63 not 53?
It's meant to be unfair to have an asymmetric technological and tactical advantage. Everyone knows this.
This is not true. The number of planned ships has been steadily whittled down and now stands at three. That's insufficient for our navy but it is not correct to say that the class has been destroyed.
Why are they doing this instead of keeping the Navy fighting strong?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.