[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “I also don’t see how when it comes to defending carriers how it is superior to having four to six Burke class ships sailing with the carrier.” <<

In short, it reduces the required manpower.
.

[Rashputin]

I know the manpower argument and when you're talking one platform, magic or not, compared to a half dozen, manpower for a half dozen is required or the mission that half dozen would do isn't going to be done.

Carrier battle groups still require multiple ASW and AA platforms with them and from the way anti-ship weaponry is advancing will in fact need more protective ships to accompany them than is currently the norm.

The Navy with ships has the same tendency as the Air Force with aircraft which leads to things like this behemoth for the Navy and continuous attempts by the Air Force to scrap the not sexy workhorse A10 starting from the day they had to accept it because Congress forced it down their throat.

Ships so expensive that in the end twenty three admirals and eighty Captains to command five hundred seamen and other ranks aboard ten ships, ships that they'll desperately try to keep out of harms way, isn't going to work out.

Two of these and a dozen more updated Burkes might make sense but only to the extent that these ships actually do more than serve a plumb assignments for those who the brass know won't put them at risk doing anything more dangerous than bombarding Bimini or some such.

JMHo