[Jim Noble]

It's only a little destroyer, for heaven's sake.

And, like USN ships, it's so expensive you only get a few.

As soon as China figures out how to sink these babies, the mistake will be realized, too late.

[Vanders9]

Its actually a pretty big destroyer...at 8000tons plus its basically the size of a WW2 medium sized cruiser.

I take your point about numbers though. I too think we would probably be better off with larger numbers of smaller warships. The only problem with such a strategy is that individually such ships are much more vulnerable to attack and therefore advserse publicity - which seems to be almost more important than actual fighting in this information age.

[Jeff Head]

Well, the UK is buidling a smaller and smaller Navy. They will have some neat technology, and very capable ships once they get them fully outfitted...but small numbers. Ultimately two carriers, one at sea all the time with a small group...and one or two SAGs at sea, and mayby a Phibron.

We will have over fifty very capable and modern AEGIS destroyers and 24 AEGIS cruisers with 11-12 Carrier battle groups and 11-12 Phibrons. In addition, if the LCS can actually get into production, we will end up with fifty plus very capable frigate sized vessels.

Not to mention well over fifty very capable nuclear attack subs.

Those are still formidable numbers in today's world.

Just the same, your point is well taken. The Chinese are rapidly developing and building their own new ships in numbers and ultimately, the numbers game can tell.

IMHO, we need to get back to Ronald Reagan's vision of a 600 ship Navy with well over half of them being major surface (and sub-surface combatants).