Bringing back the Battleship

[Rich]

DD(x) is going to have two 155mm howitzers which will be capable of firing 12 ERM per minute, per gun, to ranges out to 100 nm. Theres going to be a variety of munitions for the gun as they will be interchangeable with the armys 155mm system.

Theres no way anyone is even thinking about developing 16" shells to modern day specs. And no matter how much you refurbish a 60 yo BB its still a 60yo hull, and 30 years is considered about retirement time for a navy ship.

The two most used and feared anti-ship missiles in the world are both subsonic, Exocet and Harpoon. They may be slower but they are very difficult to fool, and work very well. There are hyper-sonic cruise missiles in the pipeline but they are very advanced and its take a long time, and a lot of money, to arm such a large navy with new missilry.

In our lifetimes??? There will never be a navy able to compete with the US for dominance of the worlds oceans. Lets face facts here.

 

[turin]

In our lifetimes??? There will never be a navy able to compete with the US for dominance of the worlds oceans. Lets face facts here.

A very bold statement considering todays normal lifespan of humans and the course of naval history.

I agree about the BB part. This has been discussed here quite for some time now but there is a really simple consideration and a question:
The world navies and the USN in particular are spending billions on developing and fielding new vessels. If such a proposal as of Defcon6 would offer any significant value and technical feasibility in one package, why is not one single navy seriously considering such developments? Because there is some conspiracy carried out by carrier fanatics? I dont think so.

 

[Defcon 6]

The problem with the Iowas is they were ancient history by the time they were launched. They served some purpose in Korea but since then, and after Regan reactivated them, they were nothing but big old ships with big guns that can be paraded around the worlds oceans. Its true their guns provide amphibious op firepower but name one battle since WW-ll where they were absolutly needed? In the end it comes down to economics. The Iowas just cost to much to man,upgrade,operate, for what they bring to the table.

Actually they don't. Reactivation including gun-powder replacement would cost quite possibly 2.5 B per ship, so 5 B for both. At the moment that would be about the same price as a DD(X).

The arsenal ships were a case of putting to many eggs in one basket in an age where cheap cruise missiles can take out any ship. Also what are the odds of something completly new and untested coming in on budget and only manned by 50 sailors. About zero I'd say. And they said the Titanic couldnt sink. Also you still wouldnt have guns on it.

The new Tactical Tomahawks are suppose to get down to around 550,000 as opposed to the previous generation at 750,000 dollars. So your idea of cheap is not "reality." They will always be expensive.

DD(x) is a family of three ships on two platforms correct? And even the DD and CV has been pared down to about the same size as current DDs. What we need are new designs, new ships, new technologys. What we dont need are 60 yo relics just because they look good going thru the Suez canal.

Unfortunately your theory falls flat since DD(X) sosts are sky rocketing. I however do show some support for the DD(X) since it is a pioneering technology. However I also believe they have little place in our navy at their current unit price somehwhere in the area of 3.3 B per ship on average to 5 B for the first ship.

The DD(X) is one ship. Not a family of anything. Your thinking about the 21st century fleet. By the way, the DD(X) is 16,000 tons. So it isn't the size of current destroyers, but instead it is roughly the size of a cruiser, and as a matter of fact it is larger than the planned CG(X).

 

[Defcon 6]

DD(x) is going to have two 155mm howitzers which will be capable of firing 12 ERM per minute, per gun, to ranges out to 100 nm. Theres going to be a variety of munitions for the gun as they will be interchangeable with the armys 155mm system.

It isn't a howitzer. Howitzer is an artillery term and couldn't be applied to the 155mm AGS system.

Theres no way anyone is even thinking about developing 16" shells to modern day specs. And no matter how much you refurbish a 60 yo BB its still a 60yo hull, and 30 years is considered about retirement time for a navy ship.

Actually I didn't even need to make an arguement since your completely wrong. The US researched and played around with advanced 16" munitions back in the 80's under the DARPA program.

Currently it's estimated that the Iowa's still have about 15-25 years on their hulls without a hull service life extension procedure.

The two most used and feared anti-ship missiles in the world are both subsonic, Exocet and Harpoon. They may be slower but they are very difficult to fool, and work very well. There are hyper-sonic cruise missiles in the pipeline but they are very advanced and its take a long time, and a lot of money, to arm such a large navy with new missilry.

No. Exocet's are outdated rather small missiles, theres nothing to fear from them. In fact the U.S.S STARK was struck by two Exocets and it managed to go back to port under its own power. And it was just a frigate.

Two missiles far more dangerous than your examples-
SS-N-19
SS-N-22

In our lifetimes??? There will never be a navy able to compete with the US for dominance of the worlds oceans. Lets face facts here.

Unfortunately that has nothing to do with the Iowa reactivation issue or my BB(X) theory. If we labored under such a guise we wouldn't have much of a military today.

 

[turin]

No. Exocet's are outdated rather small missiles, theres nothing to fear from them. In fact the U.S.S STARK was struck by two Exocets and it managed to go back to port under its own power. And it was just a frigate.

So what? The Sheffield was hit by only one Exocet and it burned. Also on the Stark only one out of two missiles did explode. So its up to you wether the ship would have been able to return if both Exocets had hit it right.

I dont wish to be rude but this statement is ridiculous. I have come across one or two navy members and their view of current exocet missiles is one of a very dangerous AShM. Its extremely manouverable making it difficult to intercept. Its warhead obviously is up to the task as it did prove in a planned attack carried out by a well trained agressor against an alarmed target. The USS Stark was very lucky even to survive the one hit it took.

I truly wonder why aguably more experienced people still develop, procure and use missiles such as Exocet or Harpoon if there would be "nothing to fear from them".
They are dangerous _because_ they are small. Their warhead by the way isnt so small after all. And being light means being agile, their agility cannot be matched by any supersonic missile simply because of the laws of physics. Additionally both missiles reportedly offer a significant amount of ECCM capabilities.
Even the Soviets recognized such issues and developed the SS-N 25.

I dont want to cast unnecessary doubt on the russian AShM, their features certainly sound impressive. But thats the problem, these missiles did not prove themselves in the same way Exocet already did.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'm wondering why this thread is back up when it was locked some time ago?

This has been discussed ad nauseum on here, and on Warships1.

IIRC the Warships1 mods blocked the thread in the end as well. (and some of their mods are weapons engineers, nuke propulsion engineers and shipwrights.)

If this is just going to become a repeat of prev posts it runs the real risk of getting locked.

 

[Defcon 6]

Big Battleship Doctrine

Alright, I originally made a thread called this months and months ago, in short I didn't know enough to make the arguement work. So I decided to travel to military forums wide and far and now here I am again to finish the debate I orignally devised.

Now, to let everyone know there is a thread in this forum called "Bringing back the Battleships" that addresses the topic of Iowa reactivation. This thread is to dicuss modern uses for battleships and the design idea of a new one. I originally called my idea for such a ship a BB(X) and I still promote the idea in general even after hearing every possible arguement against it.

I will offer two points that forum members may address in this thread.
A.) Iowa Battleship Reactivation (Although I prefer it go to the other thread I already mentioned)
B.) BB(X) and future battleship applications

I will make some concrete statements now-
A.) Battleships are still of use for NSFS
B.) Battleships in general could offer more affordable NSFS capability
C.) Battleships would be able to provide fire support from outside hostile territory.
D.) Provide significant VLS cell increases.
E.) 16" round with increased range and guided capabilities would need to be designed.
F.) New AGS systems need to be designed for the 16" guns.

 

[Defcon 6]

I don't see a good reason to lock it just because it's been discussed before on other forums.

At any rate I'll try to hash out new ideas and arguements here if that will keep the mods happy. The same with my other thread i created.

EDIT: Hmm. I'm not sure I understand you GF. Warships 1 has an entire forum devted t activation called "Should battleships be back in service"

 

[Defcon 6]

So what? The Sheffield was hit by only one Exocet and it burned. Also on the Stark only one out of two missiles did explode. So its up to you wether the ship would have been able to return if both Exocets had hit it right.

Doubt it. Since the other hit near the bridge. I can't be sure but I thought they both exploded. At any rate, if the second didn't explode it was probably because it compacted on impact.

I dont wish to be rude but this statement is ridiculous. I have come across one or two navy members and their view of current exocet missiles is one of a very dangerous AShM. Its extremely manouverable making it difficult to intercept. Its warhead obviously is up to the task as it did prove in a planned attack carried out by a well trained agressor against an alarmed target. The USS Stark was very lucky even to survive the one hit it took.

Menuverable? And that matters why? Last time I checked the Exocet used a straight flight path. Not capable of dodging anything really

I truly wonder why aguably more experienced people still develop, procure and use missiles such as Exocet or Harpoon if there would be "nothing to fear from them".
They are dangerous _because_ they are small. Their warhead by the way isnt so small after all. And being light means being agile, their agility cannot be matched by any supersonic missile simply because of the laws of physics. Additionally both missiles reportedly offer a significant amount of ECCM capabilities.

Because they are cheap. Exocets are *dangerous* but that doesn't make them effective. However they are obsolete by todays terms. In fact lets review their warheads-
Exocet:165 kg HE @ Mach 0.93
SS-N-19: 750 kg HE @ Mach 2+

Even the Soviets recognized such issues and developed the SS-N 25.

I dont want to cast unnecessary doubt on the russian AShM, their features certainly sound impressive. But thats the problem, these missiles did not prove themselves in the same way Exocet already did.

But thats just the thing. The STARK wasn't the only US ship to survive an exocet attack. Really all they've proven is that french missiles fail to get the job done. Not to mention their range isn't all that impressive. :nutkick

 

[Rich]

""""The DD(X) is one ship. Not a family of anything. Your thinking about the 21st century fleet. By the way, the DD(X) is 16,000 tons. So it isn't the size of current destroyers, but instead it is roughly the size of a cruiser, and as a matter of fact it is larger than the planned CG(X)."""""

No, its not. The program was re-structured and the eventual DD is going to come in in the area of 12,000 tons. DD-21, the first ship is going to displace around 16,000 but its a technology demonstrator as much as anything. A comparison could be seen in the Seawolf/Virginia class SSBN evolution. There's going to be a DD, a CG, and a littoral craft based on DD(x) technology. While initial and development costs are high hopefully costs will be cut when the program is fully in production. But the bottom line is I think nobody knows exactly how the program is going to end up.

DD(x) is going to be the most capable warship to ever float. If it was up to me I'd bring back the two BBs ,and, give DD(x) full steam. But if its a toss up I vote "New designs". And regardless of "research" it didnt make sense to pour money into building advanced 16" munitions when the only guns they would be used for were on 50+ year hulls.

I agree on the Exocet. I would never underestimate that missile.

 

[Defcon 6]

""""The DD(X) is one ship. Not a family of anything. Your thinking about the 21st century fleet. By the way, the DD(X) is 16,000 tons. So it isn't the size of current destroyers, but instead it is roughly the size of a cruiser, and as a matter of fact it is larger than the planned CG(X)."""""

No, its not. The program was re-structured and the eventual DD is going to come in in the area of 12,000 tons. DD-21, the first ship is going to displace around 16,000 but its a technology demonstrator as much as anything. A comparison could be seen in the Seawolf/Virginia class SSBN evolution. There's going to be a DD, a CG, and a littoral craft based on DD(x) technology. While initial and development costs are high hopefully costs will be cut when the program is fully in production. But the bottom line is I think nobody knows exactly how the program is going to end up.

There are currently 7 DD(X)'s that have been funded. Please give your source saying that its going to be reduced in tonnage.

as for what ships are part of the 21st century fleet:
Theres going to be a-
DD(X)
CV-21
CG(X)
LCS

DD(x) is going to be the most capable warship to ever float. If it was up to me I'd bring back the two BBs ,and, give DD(x) full steam. But if its a toss up I vote "New designs". And regardless of "research" it didnt make sense to pour money into building advanced 16" munitions when the only guns they would be used for were on 50+ year hulls.

Most capable? Possibly, I'll give you that one. We'll have to wait and see. And thats just the thing Rich, it isn't toss up because this is really all politics. Iagree that they should bring the Iowa's back, at least until the mitigate the NSFS mission requirements properly. Advanced 16" munitions wouldn't be too costly seeing as DARPA already invested a good bit in it in the 80's

I agree on the Exocet. I would never underestimate that missile.

I'm going to have to disagree on this one.

 

[Rich]

Defcon the changes in the program were made like 5 years ago. As far as I know there is only one being built and thats DD-21, the 16,000 tonner. Please post your sources there are more 16,000 ton DD(x)'s being funded.

Going back into 16" projectile advanced development?? Boy thats a tough sell with only two 60yo BBs capable of using the stuff, and LASM and T-Tomhawk already loaded? DD(x) in the pipeline? and all that old 16" stuff laying around?

Better off buying $16,000 toilet seats. Thank you for an interesting and civil discussion......... ........Rich

 

[Defcon 6]

Defcon the changes in the program were made like 5 years ago. As far as I know there is only one being built and thats DD-21, the 16,000 tonner. Please post your sources there are more 16,000 ton DD(x)'s being funded.

Going back into 16" projectile advanced development?? Boy thats a tough sell with only two 60yo BBs capable of using the stuff, and LASM and T-Tomhawk already loaded? DD(x) in the pipeline? and all that old 16" stuff laying around?

Better off buying $16,000 toilet seats. Thank you for an interesting and civil discussion......... ........Rich

No, I'm pretty sure your confusing the DD(X) with the DDG(X). Two different ships. The DD(X) has remained at 16,000 tons as far as I know while the CG(X) is less and the DDG(X) is a lot less.

And it's 2 ships but theres 18 barrels that can use it. 7 DD(X)'s = 14. So technically it makes sense.

 

[Defcon 6]

looks like it's 14,150 tons currently according to globalsecurity. So about 16,000 at capacity.

 

[Defcon 6]

Re: Big Battleship Doctrine

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7_Sabot_pic.jpg

Concept for a 16" guided assisted munition. I think it was one of the darpa projects.

 

[Wooki]

So what? The Sheffield was hit by only one Exocet and it burned. Also on the Stark only one out of two missiles did explode. So its up to you wether the ship would have been able to return if both Exocets had hit it right.

I dont wish to be rude but this statement is ridiculous. I have come across one or two navy members and their view of current exocet missiles is one of a very dangerous AShM. Its extremely manouverable making it difficult to intercept. Its warhead obviously is up to the task as it did prove in a planned attack carried out by a well trained agressor against an alarmed target. The USS Stark was very lucky even to survive the one hit it took.

I truly wonder why aguably more experienced people still develop, procure and use missiles such as Exocet or Harpoon if there would be "nothing to fear from them".
They are dangerous _because_ they are small. Their warhead by the way isnt so small after all. And being light means being agile, their agility cannot be matched by any supersonic missile simply because of the laws of physics. Additionally both missiles reportedly offer a significant amount of ECCM capabilities.
Even the Soviets recognized such issues and developed the SS-N 25.

I dont want to cast unnecessary doubt on the russian AShM, their features certainly sound impressive. But thats the problem, these missiles did not prove themselves in the same way Exocet already did.

Do you have any idea of the armor and design of an Iowa class BB? I strongly doubt a harpoon anti shipping missile would scratch the hull, let alone an Exocet. I think it was the Mo that was struck by a kamikaze in WW2 with a warhead roughly the same size as a harpoon and all they had to do was use a few tins of paint to repair the site of impact.

I was surprised by this thread and defon's 6 thought process of using extended range technologies for the 16" shell. It would be extremely easy to make a FSDS round, as was used in the high altitude tests mentioned before.

I think in fact those tests used two 16" 55 caliber gun tubes end to end though. But the sabot itself was made of wooden blocks.

Anyway, I say surprised, as I had thought a BB(x) was not a viable concept until the rail gun technology was perfected, giving the platform intercontinental reach. But an extended range 16" gun, makes me reconsider the whole deal.

Its an attractive concept because it would be relatively cheap to do (despite what many have posted here). It is far easier to modernize and reinstate an existing vessel then to build a new platform.

As for guided munitions, an Inertial guidance module (IGM) costs as little as 300 USD and can fit in the palm of your hand now. Accelerations in the 55 caliber tube, I find hard to be an issue and if they were you could de- rate the amount of powder used to create a gun that is truly relevant to land warfare, as opposed to the AGS proposed for the DD(x) (It just doesn't have the reach at circa 150km to justify the hype). And being a gun, it is cheaper to deliver ordinance than a missile on any given day of the week.

I think it is a valid concept, but what really needs to be done is a cost benefit analysis of how much life you could get out of the barrels before they were done. As once the barrels are done, then the vessel becomes redundant.

Replacing the armament with WW2 16" technology would not be possible, but you know, perhaps the rail gun tech would be ready by then and the platform would have a new mission.

Final note about 60 year old platforms. Not relevant to a battle wagon because it is so heavily over-engineered and what structural fatigue there is can be readily repaired. And most of that was done before they were brought back in the 80's.

Thanks

 

[Defcon 6]

Do you have any idea of the armor and design of an Iowa class BB? I strongly doubt a harpoon anti shipping missile would scratch the hull, let alone an Exocet. I think it was the Mo that was struck by a kamikaze in WW2 with a warhead roughly the same size as a harpoon and all they had to do was use a few tins of paint to repair the site of impact.

Kazmikaze's aren't effective anti-ship weapons. They travel in the vicinity of 300 mph and to be quite honest ww2 fighter planes just aren't effective anti-ship weapons.

Anti-ship missiles are capable of penetrating Iowa armor. Besides, most missiles would hit above the armor belt.

I was surprised by this thread and defon's 6 thought process of using extended range technologies for the 16" shell. It would be extremely easy to make a FSDS round, as was used in the high altitude tests mentioned before.

Problem is there currently aren't any guided round in production.

I think in fact those tests used two 16" 55 caliber gun tubes end to end though. But the sabot itself was made of wooden blocks.

I remember that. Unfortunately that is a bad example. A much better example would be the experimental 16"/52 gun that was developed in the late 20's early 30's but never used since the Mark 7 16"/50 was a better gun.

Anyway, I say surprised, as I had thought a BB(x) was not a viable concept until the rail gun technology was perfected, giving the platform intercontinental reach. But an extended range 16" gun, makes me reconsider the whole deal.

yeah.

Its an attractive concept because it would be relatively cheap to do (despite what many have posted here). It is far easier to modernize and reinstate an existing vessel then to build a new platform.

The Iowa reactivation could prove useful, but ultimately they are outdated and would need to be replaced.

As for guided munitions, an Inertial guidance module (IGM) costs as little as 300 USD and can fit in the palm of your hand now. Accelerations in the 55 caliber tube, I find hard to be an issue and if they were you could de- rate the amount of powder used to create a gun that is truly relevant to land warfare, as opposed to the AGS proposed for the DD(x) (It just doesn't have the reach at circa 150km to justify the hype). And being a gun, it is cheaper to deliver ordinance than a missile on any given day of the week.

JDAM tail kits cost roughly 24,000 USD and use GPS or Intertial guidance. So thats the actual price for such an idea.

I think it is a valid concept, but what really needs to be done is a cost benefit analysis of how much life you could get out of the barrels before they were done. As once the barrels are done, then the vessel becomes redundant.

It's already known for the Mark 7 gun. about 290 shots of barel life.

Replacing the armament with WW2 16" technology would not be possible, but you know, perhaps the rail gun tech would be ready by then and the platform would have a new mission.

Don't need rail guns. When they are perfected then it's quite possible that guns will gain possible uses against tactical targets.

Final note about 60 year old platforms. Not relevant to a battle wagon because it is so heavily over-engineered and what structural fatigue there is can be readily repaired. And most of that was done before they were brought back in the 80's.

The hull life could be extended but why bother. Reactivate the Iowa's until the DD(X) are operational in 2013. Then worry about replacing the Iowas.

 

[Wooki]

Kazmikaze's aren't effective anti-ship weapons. They travel in the vicinity of 300 mph and to be quite honest ww2 fighter planes just aren't effective anti-ship weapons.

Anti-ship missiles are capable of penetrating Iowa armor. Besides, most missiles would hit above the armor belt.



Problem is there currently aren't any guided round in production.



I remember that. Unfortunately that is a bad example. A much better example would be the experimental 16"/52 gun that was developed in the late 20's early 30's but never used since the Mark 7 16"/50 was a better gun.



yeah.



The Iowa reactivation could prove useful, but ultimately they are outdated and would need to be replaced.



JDAM tail kits cost roughly 24,000 USD and use GPS or Intertial guidance. So thats the actual price for such an idea.



It's already known for the Mark 7 gun. about 290 shots of barel life.



Don't need rail guns. When they are perfected then it's quite possible that guns will gain possible uses against tactical targets.



The hull life could be extended but why bother. Reactivate the Iowa's until the DD(X) are operational in 2013. Then worry about replacing the Iowas.

Ooooooh Kaaaaay

Normally one doesn't assume a contrary stance when a third party is basically supporting your argument.

But given the 290 shots per gun, unless there was a way to extend that life by a factor of 4 to 6, the project is not worth it.

As brand new you are talking 958 000 USD per round to be launched (as is) without the money being spent on extended range technologies and production of new projectiles.

That is not to say you couldn't do it, but it is where the focus on this debate should be directed.

 

[Temoor_A]

Bringing back battle-ship in to Navy is not a bad idea as they are more reliable for close range naval engagements then destroyers.

But Battle-ships should be fitted with Cruise Missile Launchers, have helipads and also have partial ABM systems to counter modern threats. Thus it will make an ideal warship.

Also their is less loss in loosing a battle-ship, rather then a large Aircraft Carrier. As battle-ships can be used for defending Aircraft Carriers!

 

[turin]

Doubt it. Since the other hit near the bridge. I can't be sure but I thought they both exploded. At any rate, if the second didn't explode it was probably because it compacted on impact.

"At 2109 on the night of May 17, the port bridge wing lookout sighted a glow that appeared inbound from the horizon. The seaman called, "Missile inbound, missile inbound," on the sound powered circuit. This information was passed into the bridge and the JL phone talker in CIC, but not to the tactical action officer (TAO) in CIC. The junior officer of the deck (JOOD) also sighted the missile just before it struck the portside of Stark below the bridge at frame 110. General quarters was sounded almost simultaneously with the first hit. The JOOD then observed a second missile inbound, grabbed the 1MC and announced, "Inbound missile, port side." At 2110, the second Exocet missile hit Stark in the same location as the first. The first missile which did not detonate, instead disintegrated, parts of which passed through the starboard side of the ship at frame 172. The warhead was found later on the second deck at frame 171. The second missile exploded about three feet inside the skin of the ship. Smoke quickly filled the spaces from the bow aft to frame 212 and flames reached the port bridge wing. The ammunition topside at the bridge was jettisoned to prevent cook-off in the intense heat."

from an official Navy-Site:
http://www.dcfp.navy.mil/mc/museum/STARK/Stark3.htm

Not one source I am aware of claims that both missiles exploded. As for the reason why it did not explode thats up to speculation. But I wouldnt underestimate the importance of proper handling and maintenance, some thing which the iraqi forces were not quite known for.
But even when we are saying that in this special case the failure was due to poor quality of the warhead the missile still proved to be effective in hitting the target and sinking it in mentioned Falkland incident.
So what? That may be a sign to improve warhead quality but is certainly no argument against the light subsonic missile itself. In fact thats pretty much the same situation which naval forces encountered in early WW2 with their torpedo troubles.

Because they are cheap. Exocets are *dangerous* but that doesn't make them effective. However they are obsolete by todays terms. In fact lets review their warheads-
Exocet:165 kg HE @ Mach 0.93
SS-N-19: 750 kg HE @ Mach 2+

And that proves what? Please explain to me why I should use an ultra-heavy missile for ANY engagement? Why are they obsolete today, when the overwhelming part of warship force consists of rather small ships (in WW2 terms) not even crossing the line of 10,000 ts and being unarmored. Exocet clearly demonstrated it was able to get the job done in the Falklands.

Why were missiles like Exocet and Harpoon developed in the first place? To destroy aircraft carriers or BBs? If you think so then you are missing a point here that has to do with real threat assessment by NATO forces. Is there a credible target for such a heavy missile employed by western forces today. The answer is more than obvious.

But thats just the thing. The STARK wasn't the only US ship to survive an exocet attack. Really all they've proven is that french missiles fail to get the job done. Not to mention their range isn't all that impressive. :nutkick

Feel free to give some information about these other ships. I am not aware of any such incident.

No, I'm pretty sure your confusing the DD(X) with the DDG(X). Two different ships. The DD(X) has remained at 16,000 tons as far as I know while the CG(X) is less and the DDG(X) is a lot less.

Actually there is no DDG(X) at all, but you posted the naval forces mix already, being DD(X)+CG(X)+LCS (besides CVN, LHA etc.). From the last official pictures I have seen the CG(X) is the exact same design as the DD(X), featuring roughly the same displacement, but dropping one of the AGS in exchange for increased missile capacity. Thats why they are talking about the DD(X)-family evolved out of the DD-21. Most of these specs can be found at
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/dd-x-program.htm

I'm afraid they dont have CG(X)-pictures yet.


@Wookie:

Do you have any idea of the armor and design of an Iowa class BB?

Trust me, I got some idea about that. But why developing a missile which should do that when there is no respective target? And that was the whole point in my response to defcons assessment and his very general dismissal of the Exocent and Harpoon being "nothing to fear about". How long do you think it would take to develop and field an appropriate missile in order to penetrate said armor. Now compare how long it takes to actually design and build the respective BB. In the end you got a very big very expensive and very dead BB.
There is a reason behind todays warships not fielding any significant armor protection anymore.