Replies

I believe we are scaling the total procurement of DDX back to twelve anyway.

Twelve pocket battleships is plenty if they are mounting the new railgun

EM gun on the brink of fruition for land and sea applications(range:500km)

Some very interesting commentary about the firepower of a DDX with railguns is more than an Iowa class BB. One of these with each carrier group (12) would allow naval gunfire support up to 500km range.

If the rail gun does finally appear I agree with you. But I don't want to see a DD(X) built till we have the rail gun ready to deploy. The AGS ($15K/round) is a waste of money, and to build a 2 billion dollar DD(X) around it is a waste.
That is why the DD(X) keeps getting put off. Rummy has taken the money for the DD(X) and put it into the LCS and other valid systems like UAVs. The DD(X) is just not ready for prime time. We have much greater needs right now. The only, repeat ONLY thing the DD(X) has is a big gun system which we have not had in many years, and still won wars.
According to the last budget I saw, the USN has money for 1 DD(X), scheduled for 2011 delivery. By then we will have built 12 LCS vessels at about the same cost.
Tactically they do not belong with a CBG, they belong with an Amphib Group, and in fact, IMHO, they should be mounted on the newest Amphib ships the LHA(R), since they go where the Marines go. If we took that approach the DD(X) would be unnecessary.