Replies

. . . a mission kill.

Ah, but that's precisely the point. A mission kill is not a sunk ship. The point of the article is that armor can stop an adversary from getting a 'cheap kill' and all the propaganda value that implies.

This also addresses the nuclear attack argument. If an adversary is willing to go nuclear, then any ship can be sunk, but the deterrent to that is an equivalent counter threat, not armor.

One of the key changes in naval armament since WWII is the total elimination of armor-piercing weapons. No one has big guns. No one really has armor-piercing bombs. It would be so difficult to sink a well-armored ship that there would be no USS Panay / USS Liberty excuses. It would be an strident and unambiguous act of war.

So, is there a place for that sort of ship in areas where the adversary wants to deny us freedom of the seas? Perhaps. It's not an obvious 'no' in any event.