13 ms·

Navy unveils DDG(X) warship concept with hypersonic missiles, lasers

38 points by drocer88 5y ago

arcticbull 5y ago
Ah yes I can now see why providing healthcare and canceling student debt didn't fit into the budget. :pew-pew:
- dragontamer 5y ago
  We kind of have this problem with Taiwan right now (and China is definitely taking advantage of it) because we've been on the Arleigh Burkes Destroyers for far too long. China has newer ships with more stealth and firepower than our set of older Destroyers. Fortunately, China has very few capital ships, but the huge mass of smaller ships (Destroyers, Frigates, Corvettes) that China is building is already outnumbering the US Navy.
  - ahelwer 5y ago
    There’ll always be something. When you have a presence and interests (???) in most countries of the world, along with a compliant domestic media willing to go along with whatever story you put out there about how our Capabilities have to be Augmented to Address the Emerging Threat, there will never be a time now or in the future when we can all agree that it is finally safe to massively decrease military funding. You just have to see the game for what it is (a giant scam) and opt out. The US military should be disarmed and turned into a purely domestically-defensive force.
    - dragontamer 5y ago
      So your solution is for Taiwan to be annexed by China? Do you think your computer chips (Apple M1, AMD Zen, etc. etc.) are going to be readily supplied from Taiwan under these conditions? Is this annexation good and proper for the world? Is it a benefit of US interests to let this happen? ---------- China has no ability to attack the USA domestically. The issue is what China can do in the Asian-sphere of influence, and whether or not that's net-benefit to us in general. Not just China either, North Korea almost certainly would flatten South Korea and take over it without the US military presence holding the DMZ. We've also been able to force a peace between Korea and Japan by outlawing Japan's military, and promising protection of Japan with our forces. A lot of our foreign influence and politics revolve around military strength, both the good and the bad. EDIT: Finally, pirate attacks are virtually nonexistent. Any pirate dumb-enough to try to take over a ship on the high-seas is obliterated by the US Navy. For better or for worse, we actually need a strong navy (with special ops units) to hunt down would-be pirates and discourage them from popping up.
      - ahelwer 5y ago
        Keep spinning those stories! Now I feel much better about paying hundreds of bucks a month in health insurance premiums to a company that would happily leave me to die in more excruciating pain than normal if it fit their bottom line. Any alternative must be foreclosed because $2022_STATE_DEPT_VILLAIN is on the verge of committing some dastardly deed! To single it out, the idea of NK desiring invasion of SK is utterly ridiculous. Tom Clancy tier ridiculous.
      - justicezyx 5y ago
        > China has no ability to attack the USA domestically I kind of getting tired of controlling myself about this type of comments that lacks the most basic understanding of the reality... For God's sake, China has nuclear ballistic missile in the 60s... What kind of sutpidity am I seeing...
        dodobirdlord 5y ago
        Nobody ever counts nuclear weapons when they’re talking about this, and for good reason.
      - littlestymaar 5y ago
        For starter, maybe the US doesn't need to be involved in both Ukraine, the middle East and Pacific at the same time don't you think? An army twice or thrice less big could easily fend off China's threat on Taiwan, but it cannot do so while threatening Iran and Russia at the same time… > Do you think your computer chips (Apple M1, AMD Zen, etc. etc.) are going to be readily supplied from Taiwan under these conditions? And how many computer do you think you're gonna make with those chips without all the other parts which overwhelmingly come from China?
        dragontamer 5y ago
        > For starter, maybe the US doesn't need to be involved in both Ukraine, the middle East and Pacific at the same time don't you think? So your plan is... to cede Ukraine to Russia, cede Taiwan to China, and let the Kurds get slaughtered and have Iran build a nuke? Sure, its annoying that there's problems all around the world, but we all know that no one else is going to step up to do something about it. If no one else is stepping up, then we should. That's about it. Letting Iran's nuclear program complete would seem like a major mistake. Letting North Korea's nuclear program progress + their space / ICBM program progress is also a mistake IMO. Etc. etc.
    - unclebucknasty 5y ago
      Not sure what you're envisioning as a "purely domestically-defensive force". For instance, would our Navy just guard our shorelines? An effective "defensive force" for a nation like the U.S. in today's world needs offensive capabilities. While degree is arguable, we certainly cannot simply ignore everything else that goes on in the world and expect to retain a viable domestic defense.
      - unclebucknasty 5y ago
        Not sure why this is controversial. The idea that we'd have a "purely domestically-defensive force" doesn't compute. What does that even mean—defensive weapons guarding the homeland and forces deployed to protect only our coastline/waterways, land masses, and airspace? Meanwhile China claims Taiwan and Russia re-annexes Ukraine and the rest of the former Soviet-bloc countries, etc.? Of course we need to project power in various spheres of influence in order to provide for our overall defense. And, of course, that means offensive capabilities as a deterrent.
    - jonnybgood 5y ago
      > The US military should be disarmed and turned into a purely domestically-defensive force. How would US specifically benefit from this?
      - ahelwer 5y ago
        There are a few ways: (1) Many people living in the US (myself included) would feel much relieved at their tax dollars not going toward bombing teenagers, weddings, or whatever other Enemy Combatants were yesterday identified with a High Degree of Certainty (2) The money currently flowing toward said bombing could be repurposed toward general domestic social good, for example in housing, healthcare, or education (3) Hard to overstate the whole "not continually murdering people on an industrial scale" thing but many people in the US are general humanists and would probably appreciate it
        myrandomcomment 5y ago
        The ability of the US to pay for all of this is a function of our ability to be the strongest kid on the block both economically and military. Your supposed return value of money would go up in a puff of smoke if the US did what you suggested. The dollars place as a reserve currency is key and moving away from that as you suggest would leave zero for the programs you suggest as the economy would collapse. I am not making a judgement on the value of greater investment in social wellbeing, which I generally support, however I am pointing out that our ability to do this is strongly linked to our place in the world order and can’t be so simply disconnected. Your moral outrage, correct or not, does not change the economy reality.
- hash872 5y ago
  The US already 'provides' healthcare now. In 2020 the government spent $769 billion on Medicare and $714 billion on the military- so, America spends more on healthcare for the elderly than the entire military budget. The government also spent $458 billion on Medicaid- combining the two, America spent 70% more on healthcare than the military. That's without getting into other social spending like Social Security, which alone is another 60% higher than the entire military budget. Despite the common misperception, the US spends way, way more on social welfare expenditures than defense! I am personally fine with that, I'm just fascinated that so many people believe otherwise when the government publishes its budget online for anyone to see https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57170 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57170
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    I would argue of course that a 50-50 split between medicare and the armed forces is totally irrational in the first place :) It's more an issue of value for money, of course, as US per capita expenditure on medical care is 2x what Canada pays, and still manages not to actually cover everyone. In theory the medicare + medicaid + VA budget should be enough to cover everyone, yet it only covers 40% of Americans.
    - sornaensis 5y ago
      The US spends more per capita because we don't control prices the same way other sane countries do; the military budget rhetoric is just a smokescreen to keep people voting in folks who are lining their own pockets. As if shrinking one would increase the effectiveness of the other. The money and resources are THERE they just don't get USED effectively.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        Indeed, and disinformation about alternative systems. [1] [1] https://www.npr.org/2020/06/27/884307565/after-pushing-lies-former-cigna-executive-praises-canadas-health-care-system https://www.npr.org/2020/06/27/884307565/after-pushing-lies-...
      - 5y ago
- philwelch 5y ago
  Cancelling student debt by itself is a stupid and fundamentally unsustainable idea. I’d be open to the idea if it was a one-time thing, coupled with an immediate abolition of subsidized student loans, making private student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy, or allowing lenders to make loans conditional on what you majored in. Just cancelling student debt by itself without fixing the root cause of the problem is just a one-time generational wealth transfer; millennials acting like boomers.
roughly 5y ago
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?
- dragontamer 5y ago
  A DDG is a smaller ship. It is in fact, the smallest combat ship worth tracking in most Navies.
  - greedo 5y ago
    Eh, no. Many navies have corvettes and frigates that are very lethal, and definitely something worth tracking. Modern DDGs are very large (the Arleigh Burke is 9k tons).
  - ranger207 5y ago
    This was true in the past, but in many modern navies the destroyer is the _only_ class. Some fleets with a single class call their ships frigates instead, even if they're about the same size as comparable destroyers. In navies that do use destroyers and frigates, destroyers are larger than frigates.
- greedo 5y ago
  The chain of thought works like this: 1. Navies still rely on surface vessels for many roles/tasks. While subs are the most lethal killers afloat, there's a lot of roles they can't fulfill. 2. Surface vessels are hard to automate. The attempts to reduce staffing costs led to debacles like the LCS, and contributed to issues with the Ford CVN class. 3. Smaller surface vessels (as shown with the LCS) can't really stay on station as long, transit long distances as well, and deal with the same weather conditions. Additionally, they can't carry as many munitions, limiting their ability to fight. And some weapons simply won't fit on small ships (the hypersonic missiles mentioned in the article, as well as larger VLS based weapons). 4. While a greater number of small ships seems to increase your survivability, the lower capability of these small ships don't make the tradeoff worthwhile. 5. Studies have shown that larger ships (especially large carriers) are generally more effective dollar for dollar than smaller ships. I think this translates to surface combatants as well as carriers. 6. Automated surface combatants have issues if they're not "managed" by a controlling ship that has personnel that can do maintenance as well as deter people from screwing with them. Ships require continual maintenance, not just the electronics etc, but the ship itself. Otherwise you end up with rust buckets that don't last through their planned service life.
bigodbiel 5y ago
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. Having defensive measures certainly help level off the disparity, but active defense is always harder than offense.
- greedo 5y ago
  Not really. For countries trying to deter the US, yes; it provides a measure of concern. For the US, hypersonics give faster strike times. If you can decrease the interval between target detection and strike, you make it more difficult for your opponents. The US will use hypersonics in anti ship roles (though it's arguable that the SM6 already provides this), but more importantly, hypersonics will fulfill the desire for Global Strike.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  China has "hypersonic missiles" to kill our ships, because our ships can shoot down subsonic missiles and supersonic missiles. China has no missile-defense platform. If we want to kill their ships, we'll just shoot much cheaper tomahawks (aka: subsonic missiles) at them.
  - greedo 5y ago
    The PLAN's ships are armed with the equivalent of the USN's Aegis missile system. They're quite capable of shooting down subsonic (and supersonic) missiles and aircraft. Don't underestimate what they're building. It's quite impressive considering where they started.
- kcb 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_055_destroyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_055_destroyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_052D_destroyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_052D_destroyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_052C_destroyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_052C_destroyer That's a lot of ships being built for a country that supposedly believes hypersonic missiles obsolete surface warship fleets.
SkyMarshal 5y ago
Hypersonic missiles (and possibly anti-ship ballistic missiles) are making surface ships like this obsolete, similar to how carriers made battleships obsolete in WWII. 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. 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. 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. 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.
- nradov 5y ago
  I doubt that satellites will be survivable in any future high-end conflict. They can't really be hidden or protected and have very limited maneuverability. Anti-satellite weapons are improving rapidly. Militaries will probably have to shift to large numbers of smaller, cheaper satellites along with a prompt launch system that can quickly replace attrition losses.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  > 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. I argue the opposite. All those satellites will be obliterated the minute war starts. Satellites are on obvious, stable paths with almost no means of propulsion. We know where all of China's satellites are, and China knows where all of our satellites are. Once Satellites are down, the question comes down to whose navy has more Radar than the other. Big ships with bigger radar units is a big advantage. Eyes in the sky (aka: F35 or E2 Hawkeye) is another advantage, especially if those eyes have a degree of stealth (aka: F35).
ahi 5y ago
The Navy just spent $22.5B on 3 destroyers that have non-functional main guns.
- fithisux 5y ago
  This is just not true.
  - rektide 5y ago
    Yeah, there's guns & they work. But at $800k+ a round, the Navy decided they couldn't afford the ammunition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer#Advanced_Gun_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer#Advanc... As of April 2021, the Navy announced they were going to try to replace the guns with 12x hypersonic missiles. Lots of details: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_61-62_ags.php http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_61-62_ags.php It's hard to imagine, but the future 2x 0.6MW lasers (not in the initial plans for this new DDG(X)) actually sound like a possible cost saver. Different use though: "slow" moving 83 mi 155mm projectile has much different uses than a fast moving but much more limited range/power laser.
  - ranger207 5y ago
    Well, it is true. The Advanced Gun System on the three Zumwalt class destroyers don't have any ammo and are useless. The problem is that Congress mandated that the Zumwalts have guns so they could perform naval gunfire (a concept that's been obsoleted since precision guided missiles or aircraft could be launched from several times the range of any gun), then Congress cut the Zumwalt class from 32 ships to 3 (which was probably a good thing, but they really should've planned on about 3 testbed ships in the first place), which drove up the cost of ammo for the few remaining guns, which Congress then balked at and cancelled as well.
- trasz 5y ago
  Hey, it's just a bit over two James Webb telescopes.
lionkor 5y ago
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. 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)?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  > 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. Both sides had poison gas in WWII, but nobody used it. It's good to be able to counter China without having to go to nukes to do so. Is any threat from China fabricated? Depends. Are we going to defend Taiwan, or not? If we are, then it's China who's "fabricating" the threat.
- trasz 5y ago
  You need to transfer all those money into military companies that politically support you _somehow_; building a ship is a convenient way to do this.
- ranger207 5y ago
  Mutually assured destruction isn't assured to happen. Generals have always believed that sub-nuclear conflicts were possible. The current generally accepted theory is that MAD would come when one side's survival as a state is in danger, probably as a result of a chain of escalation. In a potential Taiwan conflict, when would either side use nukes? China wouldn't use them unless they believe they can't successfully take Taiwan without them, but who would they use them against? Nuking Taiwan makes their newly-captured territory worthless, while nuking the US will start a chain of nuclear escalation that probably ends in MAD. The US wouldn't use nukes unless they believed that they couldn't defend Taiwan without nukes, but Taiwan and the US have been investing heavily (as evidenced by this new ship) in making Taiwan defensible, and besides that, Taiwan's value (like its cities, chip fabs, etc) are vulnerable enough that they can be destroyed without nukes. Neither side wants a nuclear war.
littlestymaar 5y ago
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?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kcb 5y ago
  It's not really feasible to put some advanced heat shield on every surface of a missile, plane, or ship.
  - littlestymaar 5y ago
    You don't need it on “every surface” though, merely on the front.
- ranger207 5y ago
  No reflective material is perfectly reflective, and any scratches or soot or whatever will increase the amount of heat transferred from the laser to the missile. Heat shields are more effective, but it's unlikely that missiles can carry enough to resist lasers while still remaining effective, similarly to how missiles could carry armor against CIWS, but then they'd be too heavy.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  Theory of Combined Arms: All weapons are countered by a kind of armor. All armor is countered by a different kind of weapon. The goal is not to build an uncounterable weapon. The goal is to have a variety of weapons that force contradictory responses. > wouldn't for instance a heat shield coated with a highly reflective material completely neglect its effect? Good job negating the laser. Except the warship also has AI-guided missiles who will lock onto your highly-reflective paint way easier. Combined Arms: by defending yourself against one weapon, you made yourself vulnerable to another. You're not trying to survive against a laser, you're trying to survive against a DDG warship. The DDG has lasers, homing missiles, and guns. Your anti-DDG weapon needs to survive all three of them to be effective.
kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
Unplug the right laptop in the bridge and it’s dead in the water. Shhhhh, don’t tell the enemy.
kcb 5y ago
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.
- dogma1138 5y ago
  The US seem to have had some blunders lately in regards to ship design, both Zumwalt and the LCS projects were pretty much a failure.
  - greedo 5y ago
    Lately is being too kind. The USN squandered decades since the end of the Cold War. Failures to replace the FFG-7 frigates, early decommissioning of the Spruance DD class, DD-21 program failure, failure to build CG-X, etc. The list is horrifically long. And if you tie this into selling off naval shipyards, now we're stuck with just a few vendors even capable of servicing/maintaining surface combatants. It's been thirty years of shame for the USN and unfortunately, ship building takes a long time and if you lose building capacity, that compounds the issue.
    - kcb 5y ago
      At least FFG(X)/Constellation seems to be going smoothly. Maybe that's a good sign.
      - sofixa 5y ago
        That's because the US navy finally accepted they're not that unique and asked for a proven foreign design. It's a subsidiary of an Italian shipbuilder building on the platform of a Franco-Italian design. Of course it should be going smoothly.
        greedo 5y ago
krapp 5y ago
How is this going to answer the ever-looming threat of UAP drone-swarms from Atlantis?

38 points by drocer88 5y ago

arcticbull 5y ago

Ah yes I can now see why providing healthcare and canceling student debt didn't fit into the budget. :pew-pew:

dragontamer 5y ago
We kind of have this problem with Taiwan right now (and China is definitely taking advantage of it) because we've been on the Arleigh Burkes Destroyers for far too long. China has newer ships with more stealth and firepower than our set of older Destroyers. Fortunately, China has very few capital ships, but the huge mass of smaller ships (Destroyers, Frigates, Corvettes) that China is building is already outnumbering the US Navy.
- ahelwer 5y ago
  There’ll always be something. When you have a presence and interests (???) in most countries of the world, along with a compliant domestic media willing to go along with whatever story you put out there about how our Capabilities have to be Augmented to Address the Emerging Threat, there will never be a time now or in the future when we can all agree that it is finally safe to massively decrease military funding. You just have to see the game for what it is (a giant scam) and opt out. The US military should be disarmed and turned into a purely domestically-defensive force.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    So your solution is for Taiwan to be annexed by China? Do you think your computer chips (Apple M1, AMD Zen, etc. etc.) are going to be readily supplied from Taiwan under these conditions? Is this annexation good and proper for the world? Is it a benefit of US interests to let this happen? ---------- China has no ability to attack the USA domestically. The issue is what China can do in the Asian-sphere of influence, and whether or not that's net-benefit to us in general. Not just China either, North Korea almost certainly would flatten South Korea and take over it without the US military presence holding the DMZ. We've also been able to force a peace between Korea and Japan by outlawing Japan's military, and promising protection of Japan with our forces. A lot of our foreign influence and politics revolve around military strength, both the good and the bad. EDIT: Finally, pirate attacks are virtually nonexistent. Any pirate dumb-enough to try to take over a ship on the high-seas is obliterated by the US Navy. For better or for worse, we actually need a strong navy (with special ops units) to hunt down would-be pirates and discourage them from popping up.
    - ahelwer 5y ago
      Keep spinning those stories! Now I feel much better about paying hundreds of bucks a month in health insurance premiums to a company that would happily leave me to die in more excruciating pain than normal if it fit their bottom line. Any alternative must be foreclosed because $2022_STATE_DEPT_VILLAIN is on the verge of committing some dastardly deed! To single it out, the idea of NK desiring invasion of SK is utterly ridiculous. Tom Clancy tier ridiculous.
    - justicezyx 5y ago
      > China has no ability to attack the USA domestically I kind of getting tired of controlling myself about this type of comments that lacks the most basic understanding of the reality... For God's sake, China has nuclear ballistic missile in the 60s... What kind of sutpidity am I seeing...
      - dodobirdlord 5y ago
        Nobody ever counts nuclear weapons when they’re talking about this, and for good reason.
    - littlestymaar 5y ago
      For starter, maybe the US doesn't need to be involved in both Ukraine, the middle East and Pacific at the same time don't you think? An army twice or thrice less big could easily fend off China's threat on Taiwan, but it cannot do so while threatening Iran and Russia at the same time… > Do you think your computer chips (Apple M1, AMD Zen, etc. etc.) are going to be readily supplied from Taiwan under these conditions? And how many computer do you think you're gonna make with those chips without all the other parts which overwhelmingly come from China?
      - dragontamer 5y ago
        > For starter, maybe the US doesn't need to be involved in both Ukraine, the middle East and Pacific at the same time don't you think? So your plan is... to cede Ukraine to Russia, cede Taiwan to China, and let the Kurds get slaughtered and have Iran build a nuke? Sure, its annoying that there's problems all around the world, but we all know that no one else is going to step up to do something about it. If no one else is stepping up, then we should. That's about it. Letting Iran's nuclear program complete would seem like a major mistake. Letting North Korea's nuclear program progress + their space / ICBM program progress is also a mistake IMO. Etc. etc.
  - unclebucknasty 5y ago
    Not sure what you're envisioning as a "purely domestically-defensive force". For instance, would our Navy just guard our shorelines? An effective "defensive force" for a nation like the U.S. in today's world needs offensive capabilities. While degree is arguable, we certainly cannot simply ignore everything else that goes on in the world and expect to retain a viable domestic defense.
    - unclebucknasty 5y ago
      Not sure why this is controversial. The idea that we'd have a "purely domestically-defensive force" doesn't compute. What does that even mean—defensive weapons guarding the homeland and forces deployed to protect only our coastline/waterways, land masses, and airspace? Meanwhile China claims Taiwan and Russia re-annexes Ukraine and the rest of the former Soviet-bloc countries, etc.? Of course we need to project power in various spheres of influence in order to provide for our overall defense. And, of course, that means offensive capabilities as a deterrent.
  - jonnybgood 5y ago
    > The US military should be disarmed and turned into a purely domestically-defensive force. How would US specifically benefit from this?
    - ahelwer 5y ago
      There are a few ways: (1) Many people living in the US (myself included) would feel much relieved at their tax dollars not going toward bombing teenagers, weddings, or whatever other Enemy Combatants were yesterday identified with a High Degree of Certainty (2) The money currently flowing toward said bombing could be repurposed toward general domestic social good, for example in housing, healthcare, or education (3) Hard to overstate the whole "not continually murdering people on an industrial scale" thing but many people in the US are general humanists and would probably appreciate it
      - myrandomcomment 5y ago
        The ability of the US to pay for all of this is a function of our ability to be the strongest kid on the block both economically and military. Your supposed return value of money would go up in a puff of smoke if the US did what you suggested. The dollars place as a reserve currency is key and moving away from that as you suggest would leave zero for the programs you suggest as the economy would collapse. I am not making a judgement on the value of greater investment in social wellbeing, which I generally support, however I am pointing out that our ability to do this is strongly linked to our place in the world order and can’t be so simply disconnected. Your moral outrage, correct or not, does not change the economy reality.
hash872 5y ago
The US already 'provides' healthcare now. In 2020 the government spent $769 billion on Medicare and $714 billion on the military- so, America spends more on healthcare for the elderly than the entire military budget. The government also spent $458 billion on Medicaid- combining the two, America spent 70% more on healthcare than the military. That's without getting into other social spending like Social Security, which alone is another 60% higher than the entire military budget. Despite the common misperception, the US spends way, way more on social welfare expenditures than defense! I am personally fine with that, I'm just fascinated that so many people believe otherwise when the government publishes its budget online for anyone to see https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57170 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57170
- arcticbull 5y ago
  I would argue of course that a 50-50 split between medicare and the armed forces is totally irrational in the first place :) It's more an issue of value for money, of course, as US per capita expenditure on medical care is 2x what Canada pays, and still manages not to actually cover everyone. In theory the medicare + medicaid + VA budget should be enough to cover everyone, yet it only covers 40% of Americans.
  - sornaensis 5y ago
    The US spends more per capita because we don't control prices the same way other sane countries do; the military budget rhetoric is just a smokescreen to keep people voting in folks who are lining their own pockets. As if shrinking one would increase the effectiveness of the other. The money and resources are THERE they just don't get USED effectively.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      Indeed, and disinformation about alternative systems. [1] [1] https://www.npr.org/2020/06/27/884307565/after-pushing-lies-former-cigna-executive-praises-canadas-health-care-system https://www.npr.org/2020/06/27/884307565/after-pushing-lies-...
    - 5y ago
philwelch 5y ago
Cancelling student debt by itself is a stupid and fundamentally unsustainable idea. I’d be open to the idea if it was a one-time thing, coupled with an immediate abolition of subsidized student loans, making private student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy, or allowing lenders to make loans conditional on what you majored in. Just cancelling student debt by itself without fixing the root cause of the problem is just a one-time generational wealth transfer; millennials acting like boomers.

roughly 5y ago

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?

dragontamer 5y ago
A DDG is a smaller ship. It is in fact, the smallest combat ship worth tracking in most Navies.
- greedo 5y ago
  Eh, no. Many navies have corvettes and frigates that are very lethal, and definitely something worth tracking. Modern DDGs are very large (the Arleigh Burke is 9k tons).
- ranger207 5y ago
  This was true in the past, but in many modern navies the destroyer is the _only_ class. Some fleets with a single class call their ships frigates instead, even if they're about the same size as comparable destroyers. In navies that do use destroyers and frigates, destroyers are larger than frigates.
greedo 5y ago
The chain of thought works like this: 1. Navies still rely on surface vessels for many roles/tasks. While subs are the most lethal killers afloat, there's a lot of roles they can't fulfill. 2. Surface vessels are hard to automate. The attempts to reduce staffing costs led to debacles like the LCS, and contributed to issues with the Ford CVN class. 3. Smaller surface vessels (as shown with the LCS) can't really stay on station as long, transit long distances as well, and deal with the same weather conditions. Additionally, they can't carry as many munitions, limiting their ability to fight. And some weapons simply won't fit on small ships (the hypersonic missiles mentioned in the article, as well as larger VLS based weapons). 4. While a greater number of small ships seems to increase your survivability, the lower capability of these small ships don't make the tradeoff worthwhile. 5. Studies have shown that larger ships (especially large carriers) are generally more effective dollar for dollar than smaller ships. I think this translates to surface combatants as well as carriers. 6. Automated surface combatants have issues if they're not "managed" by a controlling ship that has personnel that can do maintenance as well as deter people from screwing with them. Ships require continual maintenance, not just the electronics etc, but the ship itself. Otherwise you end up with rust buckets that don't last through their planned service life.

bigodbiel 5y ago

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. Having defensive measures certainly help level off the disparity, but active defense is always harder than offense.

greedo 5y ago
Not really. For countries trying to deter the US, yes; it provides a measure of concern. For the US, hypersonics give faster strike times. If you can decrease the interval between target detection and strike, you make it more difficult for your opponents. The US will use hypersonics in anti ship roles (though it's arguable that the SM6 already provides this), but more importantly, hypersonics will fulfill the desire for Global Strike.
dragontamer 5y ago
China has "hypersonic missiles" to kill our ships, because our ships can shoot down subsonic missiles and supersonic missiles. China has no missile-defense platform. If we want to kill their ships, we'll just shoot much cheaper tomahawks (aka: subsonic missiles) at them.
- greedo 5y ago
  The PLAN's ships are armed with the equivalent of the USN's Aegis missile system. They're quite capable of shooting down subsonic (and supersonic) missiles and aircraft. Don't underestimate what they're building. It's quite impressive considering where they started.
kcb 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_055_destroyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_055_destroyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_052D_destroyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_052D_destroyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_052C_destroyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_052C_destroyer That's a lot of ships being built for a country that supposedly believes hypersonic missiles obsolete surface warship fleets.

SkyMarshal 5y ago

Hypersonic missiles (and possibly anti-ship ballistic missiles) are making surface ships like this obsolete, similar to how carriers made battleships obsolete in WWII. 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. 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. 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. 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.

nradov 5y ago
I doubt that satellites will be survivable in any future high-end conflict. They can't really be hidden or protected and have very limited maneuverability. Anti-satellite weapons are improving rapidly. Militaries will probably have to shift to large numbers of smaller, cheaper satellites along with a prompt launch system that can quickly replace attrition losses.
dragontamer 5y ago
> 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. I argue the opposite. All those satellites will be obliterated the minute war starts. Satellites are on obvious, stable paths with almost no means of propulsion. We know where all of China's satellites are, and China knows where all of our satellites are. Once Satellites are down, the question comes down to whose navy has more Radar than the other. Big ships with bigger radar units is a big advantage. Eyes in the sky (aka: F35 or E2 Hawkeye) is another advantage, especially if those eyes have a degree of stealth (aka: F35).

ahi 5y ago

The Navy just spent $22.5B on 3 destroyers that have non-functional main guns.

fithisux 5y ago
This is just not true.
- rektide 5y ago
  Yeah, there's guns & they work. But at $800k+ a round, the Navy decided they couldn't afford the ammunition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer#Advanced_Gun_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer#Advanc... As of April 2021, the Navy announced they were going to try to replace the guns with 12x hypersonic missiles. Lots of details: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_61-62_ags.php http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_61-62_ags.php It's hard to imagine, but the future 2x 0.6MW lasers (not in the initial plans for this new DDG(X)) actually sound like a possible cost saver. Different use though: "slow" moving 83 mi 155mm projectile has much different uses than a fast moving but much more limited range/power laser.
- ranger207 5y ago
  Well, it is true. The Advanced Gun System on the three Zumwalt class destroyers don't have any ammo and are useless. The problem is that Congress mandated that the Zumwalts have guns so they could perform naval gunfire (a concept that's been obsoleted since precision guided missiles or aircraft could be launched from several times the range of any gun), then Congress cut the Zumwalt class from 32 ships to 3 (which was probably a good thing, but they really should've planned on about 3 testbed ships in the first place), which drove up the cost of ammo for the few remaining guns, which Congress then balked at and cancelled as well.
trasz 5y ago
Hey, it's just a bit over two James Webb telescopes.

lionkor 5y ago

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. 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)?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
> 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. Both sides had poison gas in WWII, but nobody used it. It's good to be able to counter China without having to go to nukes to do so. Is any threat from China fabricated? Depends. Are we going to defend Taiwan, or not? If we are, then it's China who's "fabricating" the threat.
trasz 5y ago
You need to transfer all those money into military companies that politically support you _somehow_; building a ship is a convenient way to do this.
ranger207 5y ago
Mutually assured destruction isn't assured to happen. Generals have always believed that sub-nuclear conflicts were possible. The current generally accepted theory is that MAD would come when one side's survival as a state is in danger, probably as a result of a chain of escalation. In a potential Taiwan conflict, when would either side use nukes? China wouldn't use them unless they believe they can't successfully take Taiwan without them, but who would they use them against? Nuking Taiwan makes their newly-captured territory worthless, while nuking the US will start a chain of nuclear escalation that probably ends in MAD. The US wouldn't use nukes unless they believed that they couldn't defend Taiwan without nukes, but Taiwan and the US have been investing heavily (as evidenced by this new ship) in making Taiwan defensible, and besides that, Taiwan's value (like its cities, chip fabs, etc) are vulnerable enough that they can be destroyed without nukes. Neither side wants a nuclear war.

littlestymaar 5y ago

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?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kcb 5y ago
It's not really feasible to put some advanced heat shield on every surface of a missile, plane, or ship.
- littlestymaar 5y ago
  You don't need it on “every surface” though, merely on the front.
ranger207 5y ago
No reflective material is perfectly reflective, and any scratches or soot or whatever will increase the amount of heat transferred from the laser to the missile. Heat shields are more effective, but it's unlikely that missiles can carry enough to resist lasers while still remaining effective, similarly to how missiles could carry armor against CIWS, but then they'd be too heavy.
dragontamer 5y ago
Theory of Combined Arms: All weapons are countered by a kind of armor. All armor is countered by a different kind of weapon. The goal is not to build an uncounterable weapon. The goal is to have a variety of weapons that force contradictory responses. > wouldn't for instance a heat shield coated with a highly reflective material completely neglect its effect? Good job negating the laser. Except the warship also has AI-guided missiles who will lock onto your highly-reflective paint way easier. Combined Arms: by defending yourself against one weapon, you made yourself vulnerable to another. You're not trying to survive against a laser, you're trying to survive against a DDG warship. The DDG has lasers, homing missiles, and guns. Your anti-DDG weapon needs to survive all three of them to be effective.

kwertyoowiyop 5y ago

Unplug the right laptop in the bridge and it’s dead in the water. Shhhhh, don’t tell the enemy.

kcb 5y ago

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.

dogma1138 5y ago
The US seem to have had some blunders lately in regards to ship design, both Zumwalt and the LCS projects were pretty much a failure.
- greedo 5y ago
  Lately is being too kind. The USN squandered decades since the end of the Cold War. Failures to replace the FFG-7 frigates, early decommissioning of the Spruance DD class, DD-21 program failure, failure to build CG-X, etc. The list is horrifically long. And if you tie this into selling off naval shipyards, now we're stuck with just a few vendors even capable of servicing/maintaining surface combatants. It's been thirty years of shame for the USN and unfortunately, ship building takes a long time and if you lose building capacity, that compounds the issue.
  - kcb 5y ago
    At least FFG(X)/Constellation seems to be going smoothly. Maybe that's a good sign.
    - sofixa 5y ago
      That's because the US navy finally accepted they're not that unique and asked for a proven foreign design. It's a subsidiary of an Italian shipbuilder building on the platform of a Franco-Italian design. Of course it should be going smoothly.
      - greedo 5y ago

krapp 5y ago

How is this going to answer the ever-looming threat of UAP drone-swarms from Atlantis?