USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000)

Cool Ship; What’s it for, Again?

Defense Tech’s Noah Shachtman points out his Popular Mechanics article. Go check it out.

Incidentally, now that the Navy has desiganted the DD(X) DDG 1000, couldn’t we start calling it DD(M)? Just wondering.

Also, if you’ve missed the DD(X) vs. BB debates in the comments sections, check out the latest one. 73 comments and counting…

Comments

  1. And a missile hit to the superstructure of a BB leaves a blind ship. DD(X) solution is perfectly adequate for the USMCs fire support role. The GRAND PLAN is this: Combined USAF and USN airpower and cruise missiles launch a massive assault on enemy fixed target, armored divisions, and command centers. Secondary assaults or even some of the primary ones will take out air defense, airfields, and land based anti-ship missiles. Once this is all done, the enemy will be hurt bad. (thats an understatement) Then, the USAF and USN will continue attacking everything down the list. The USAF and USN shoots down the entirety of the enemy’s air force thanks largely to F-15Cs, F-22As, and F/A-18E/Fs. Then, after ALL that, the USMC moves in and begins hitting targets that are relavent to a landing. MV-22s drop Marines behind the beach. Maybe the 82nd or 101st is dropped further inland. Then AH-1Zs and Harriers (soon F-35Bs) pound the enemy on the beach. A few DD(X)s steam in off-shore and opens up its stealth guns and pound any occupied enemy positions. USMC lands heavy vehicles, tanks, artillery, and begin their push inland under the cover of the USAF, USN, and their own organic air assets. Game, set, match using overmatch.

  2. skrip In accordance with official USN designations, it is A-18. F/A is not an official USN designator, inspite of the manufacture’s claims to the contrary. Use of the F-111s was a political decision. Not a tactical one. I had some good friends there. I heard all about the political BS that drove using UK based USAF aircraft in that strike. They had plenty of capability but, USAF wanted to play. Airwing composition of EACH of those two birdfarms was 24 F14, 24 A7, 14 A6, 6 EA6B, 4 E2C, 10 S3, and 6 SH3. Instead of 62 F14/A7/A6 we now have 50 A18 and the S3 contingent (tanker support) is gone. That is with USN embarking USMC squadrons to fill out the wings (not done btwn VM and mid-90s). A18s made a good replacement for the A7 ‘Light Attack’ Aircraft. It is not a good replacement for the A6 or F14. It just costs less to maintain. As to USMC Artillery, it takes time to move them and (more importantly) their ammo to the beach. That is why NSFS for landings is still required. To cover that gap and provide augmentation so that the grunts can save their rounds for when they need them further inland. Hence the USMC valadated requirement for NSFS, P.S. A1s made good COIN birds in VM and were in use in some Air Forces into the ’80s in that role.

  3. Skrip, smart bombs have allowed any given aircraft to take out targets with far less sorties since the 1980s. However, the amount of sorties needed for air dominance and strategic targets is still going to dominate carrier use. Look how long the air-war phase took in even WITH smart bombs, and mor aircraf then we have today in 1991. Saying that aircraft are going to magically do everything is a cop out of the NFS debate. Aircraft, have not, don’t, and cannot provide all fire support missions- especially tactical ones. The Marines have a NFS requirement, period. Another aspect of the NFS vs. Air debate, is that with NFS you can put less pilots in danger. That in and of itself should be reason to keep serious NFS around. In 1991 all arty was basically ‘dumb’- which meant that arty- including NF

  4. PS OIF had no significant air or air defense threat to deal with since we spent a decade bombing anything stupid enough to fire at us. The Gulf War never realy ended for those of us who were repeatedly deployed there…

  5. In 1991 all arty was basically ‘dumb’- which meant that arty- including NFS’- I meant to finish that comment off by mentioning that Arty, as well as NFS can be much more accurate then it was. In other words, the same technology that saw a big leap in aircraft strike capability, is now being felt by arty (especially NFS). Being able to use ulra long range GPS guided shells means you can avoid doing a lot of aircraft sorties, and avoid the related aircraft losses.

  6. Steve, never said aircraft would do all the work. But as far as Naval Fire support is concerned, the DD(X) does the job quite well, just see my above example.

  7. skrip 101 or 82 dropped? 101 hasn’t been parachute qual’d since VM. AAslt is helo transported and using the birdfarms in that role removes them from air support or air defense. As to USAF TacAir, you cannot be sure that it will have basing/overflight available. Many times it has not been (usually for political reasons).

  8. And a missile hit to the superstructure of a BB leaves a blind ship.’ Not necessarily, the superstructure on the BB is a very well protected area of the ship. Also, its made of steel, which means that a smaller hit can’t start a fire as easily. The composites on the DDG make it a death trap. In the Falklands war, even aluminum was liability. When hit by exocet missiles, high temperature aluminum fires broke which were deadly to the crew and very difficult to stop. If they had been steel, much of this secondary damage could have been avoided.

  9. L/L from Falklands is why DDG51s are all steel construction. CG47s have aluminum superstructures. Funny how they keep trying out failed concepts.

  10. Fitting all of the DDG51s with the lightweight 8′ gun turret in place of 5’ers made more sense than this overpriced DD(X).

  11. But then Trent Lott would have to explain to his constituents why Ingalls had to lay so many people off…

  12. Shipbuilding is important. We need it to keep the industry alive. Look what happened to our diesel sub construction capabilities. If you people think DD(X) is a bad idea now, how bad do you think itll be when China or Korea is building our Navy for us?

  13. Steve, never said aircraft would do all the work.’ I would contend you have pushed idea, semantics aside. For example you have said- ‘Also, can someone tell me: With today’s aircraft and precision guided munitions, why would you ever need a BB or any Naval Fire Support vessel?’ ‘NFS is not needed. Thats why we have aircraft carriers boys and girls.’ Aside from Air, there is no other kind of fire support on a beachead. If you don’t have a viable NFS- then aircraft MUST do the work or its not done. You have said NFS is not needed- I disagree. I’m sure the Marines put SOME thought into their NFS requirement. The recent and historic use of NFS also suggest otherwise. ‘But as far as Naval Fire support is concerned, the DD(X) does the job quite well, just see my above example’ The DD(X) will do a totally inferior NFS job. Its poorly protected and poorly armed for NFS- with low endurance and a high price tag as well. Sending in a 4 billion composite cyber yacht on a NFS mission makes no sense at all, nor does it come close matching the capability of BB. To say we don’t need NFS, but concede that little amount we do need it is filled by the DD(X) contradicatory and wrong on both counts. Either we do or don’t have a NFS requirement. In fact we do, both the USMC have asked for it and Congress has mandated it. THe level NFS was mandated to be equivlent to the former battleships abilities- however, the DD(X) not even come close to meeting the requirement when measured by nearly every metric of NFS. In addition it fails while being billions of dollars over budget.

  14. I fail to understand why the Navy could not have designed a modern ship to meet the shore bombardment requirements at a reasonable price. A ship of the approximate size of a WWII light cruiser would suffice. Two banks of 8′ Naval guns (a modernized version of the autocannons on the Des Moines would be great), a couple of MLRS launchers, and all the latest air defense stuff. Maybe even a decent armor belt above and below the water line to make the ship survivable. They could use the latest tank armor tech. A ship like this could be built for far less than the $ billions the Navy seems determined to spend. It would also fulfill the mission unlike the DDX.

  15. Shipbuilding is important. We need it to keep the industry alive. Look what happened to our diesel sub construction capabilities. If you people think DD(X) is a bad idea now, how bad do you think itll be when China or Korea is building our Navy for us?’ The alternative to building the DD(X) isn’t to build nothing, its to place orders for ships that have the right capabilites for the right jobs. Congress mandated a fire support requirement, the USMC wants there NFS. Yet the Navy wants to spend over 4 billion a pop on a ship that does not even come close to meeting those requirements. The argument we should buld the DD(X), despite it being the wrong ship, at the wrong price fails completely, because there are plenty of new ship designs that can and will support naval yards.

  16. ‘The alternative to building the DD(X) isn’t to build nothing, its to place orders for ships that have the right capabilites for the right jobs.’ Yeah, youll end up with DD(X) all over again. DD(X) and CG(X) are the same thing. One has more missiles, one has 2 AGS mounts. The USN did the right thing. You wanna know what a bad idea is? Relying on 60 year old relics, or building a vessel just for Fire Support. Thats a waste of money if Ive ever heard of. ‘The DD(X) will do a totally inferior NFS job. Its poorly protected and poorly armed for NFS- with low endurance and a high price tag as well.’ Poorly protected versus what? EXPLAIN THIS TO ME! Because, by the time it needs to get in close to support Marines hitting the beach, Im pretty sure the biggest opposition lies in submarines (which LCS handles), enemy artillery, and a couple of riflemen. Air superiority is in US hands backed up by DD(X)’s SAM/AEGIS system. USMC has organic air assets, which, at the time DD(X) arrives, will be comprised of MV-22s, UH-1Ys, AH-1Zs, and F-35Bs. Also, DD(X) is far more survivable and useful than a BB or dedicated fire support vessel ever will be.

  17. A couple of cents worth. One hitting the superstructure of the BB. According to a former battleship Captain Larry Seaquist, ‘Larry told me (Tom Clancy) that someone had done a calculation of Exocet against the thickest armor aboard, that on the conning tower, whose armor is about 17′ (the exact length of my forearm on the doors; I checked it). Five (5) such missiles, arriving less than five (5) seconds apart at exactly the same spot*might* burn a hole through, the officer decided. Except that such precision is not to be expected.’ And what super protection does the DD(X) have? They ring the ship with explosives and pray that if they get hit, that 1) The ship does not blow up & B) They hope the power works, otherwise all of that automated machinery will fail and the poor 80 squids are going to have to take a crash course on swimming, becuase the ship cannot be operated manually. (cost cutting)

  18. Also, DD(X) is far more survivable and useful than a BB or dedicated fire support vessel ever will be.’ I think I finally understand. Of all the services, it can be argued that it is Navy that has had the least amount of combat experience. Generally, during peace time all sorts of wacked out ideas come around. You know – cut training, short the weapon stores, have marine guards stand around with unloaded rifles (So as not to intimidate the suiside truck drivers) … and so on. Then you have a war, people die, and the idiots with the wacked ideas get shown the door, people get serious about what is real and what is BS. Take Vietnam with the air force going with ‘ we don’t need guns on planes, we have missiles! Dog fighting? never happen, we have missiles!’. Ok, a lot of good pilots got hurt over that – but the flip side is the airforce got serious and built the F-15, Red Flag… and so forth. Well long story short – no body has taken the Navy out to woodshed and beat the crap out of them in 50+ years. They are piling theory on top of theory to come up with some wacked version of naval war that defies logic. The DD(X)is only viable if you have around 20 of them. Then they can compliment each other and actually be a viable force outside of the carrier group. Now = that is not going to happen. No way, no how, not ever. What is going to happen is the Navy will get 2, maybe as many as 5. These DD(X)’s will be mated to a carrier and never leave it. As a fire support ship – its near useless. It can fire for 30 minutes and then its back to supply yard. If the Navy was serious about massive precision fire support – it would of built the arsenal ships. Cheap, with enough firepower to make a difference. Its really sad to watch the navy. They have their heads wedged so deep they can’t admit failure. The DD(X) is going to drain the budget and not add any significant capability. The F-18 is rapidly becomming a liability. The new fighters comming on line will mop the floor with them. How many F-18 jocks want to go up against a SU-37? The only thing the navy has got right is the LCS. I hope its enough.

  19. Skirp, If supporting the yards is a reason to build the DD(X), even though it is the wrong ship for NFS and a waste, then it makes no sense to say building a dedicated NFS is wrong. The argument that if we can’t cancel the DD(X) and ask them to build a better ship because it will turn out the same, does not make sense. The naval yards can do produce different designs. Some of these go over-budget, or don’t meet requirments and end up cancelled, and some go into production. If the CG(X) is the right ship, for the right job, that is not a reason to worsen the deal by building a ship that is not needed. ‘Poorly protected versus what?’ That the DD(X) is poorly protected versus a iowa class a battleship. Congress mandated that the Navy maintain NFS equivlent to the BBs and the USMC has layed out a pretty heavy duty NFS requirement. I believe that the DD(X) is niether equivlent to the BBs abilites in this area or adequate for the USMC requirment. The Navy has snubbed its collective nose at them both with DD(X), IMO. It is a unforgivable mistake that will likely be paid for in the lives of sailors and marines.

  20. Well Steve, thats why I’m glad people like you aren’t in charge. Because so far, the ideas I’ve seen here, and the reasons behind them are just plain foolhardy. We dont need a Battleship for Naval Fire Support. DD(X) is the perfect ship for the job. And all the money going into it also pays for CG(X) in part. So quit whining about it costing so much. Also, I expect the Navy to buy at maximum, 20 of them, and at minimum 16. Then fill the rest of the slots with CG(X)s. I think these are tax dollars well spent, and that we are getting our money’s worth.

  21. Also, I expect the Navy to buy at maximum, 20 of them, and at minimum 16.’ No – you are dead wrong. The navy currently touting its 313 ship fleet plan. To which it is being described as unrealistic. http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,85654,00.html Yet even that plan does not call for 20 DD(X)’s. ‘Surface Combatants The Navy’s plan would buy seven DD(X) destroyers at a rate of one per year starting in 2007. The Navy has stated that it hopes for the first two ships to cost $3.1billion each and the next three, $2.4 billion apiece. However, CBO estimates thatthe cost of the first ship would be $4.7 billion and that the average cost for the seven ships would be $3.6 billion (see Table 1). http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/71xx/doc7105/03-30-Navy_ShipBuilding.pdf

  22. We dont need a Battleship for Naval Fire Support. DD(X) is the perfect ship for the job.’ I would contend the opposite of that statement is correct. The DD(X) is will be disaster waiting to happen if used for NFS, and grossly inferior to the BB. That said, we will at some point need a next-generation blue-water destroyer. Im not conviced how good it, or the CGX will be even in that role. At least out at sea they will be able to make better use of their sonar and radar.

  23. I forgot to mention one thing. Very true about the copperhead round, I was wrong to say there was no smart arty in 1991. I had heard of the copperhead, but I did not realize they were used in ’91.

  24. No problem Steve, I know because I was on a Forward Air Control Team. Close Air Support (fixed wing) and Close in Fire Support (helicopters) is risky for pilots and aircraft so we don’t use it unless their is no alternative such as mortars, arty, or naval gunfire. Whenever our team passed an artillery unit, we would ask them what they have for special rounds – especially Copperheads and the extended range Rocket Assisted Projectiles (RAP). The old heavy 8′ inch guns that came off the pre-positioned ships did not have the laser guided shells (no sure if they were ever made for the 8′). All the 155mm batteries I talked to had them. If you need to kill a tank, a Copperhead is much safer than an aircraft. The arty tube fires a single shot and tells the spotter when to illuminate the target with the laser designator. The armor penetrating shell coming down at a high angle is a sure kill on any tank. Frees up the fly-boys to do other things. This is why grunts are suspicious of an Air Support only solution to fire support.

  25. Did the 1.7 billion cap per ships (after intital) get passed for the 2006 defense budget. In early documents they mention the house version had it, but the senate did not- but I can’t find if it passed.

  26. You guys are right. The USN doesnt need more than 8~10. 4 in the Atlantic Fleet. 6 in the Pacific Fleet. Since Fire Support requirements are pretty minimal these days, we dont need too much of them. Seems like the QDR played right into the USN’s hands. Have the DD(X) program carry the brunt of developement costs, then cut it short. Then build CG(X)s on the cheap. Brilliant. Hey, why don’t any of you ever play Devil’s Advocate? Try defending the DD(X) for once, and then maybe you’ll get a better appreciation of it. Thats how I went from anti-stryker nazi, to stryker lover. And BB-lover to DD(X)/CG(X) lover. Also, I would like to propose the Navy use a new designation system for warships. DD(X) is definitely NOT a destroyer. Its a cruiser in all respects.

  27. Geez, it seems as if everyone has their own little axe to grind. Also, everyone seems to have their preferred weapons delivery platform. There is a lot more to a ship than throwing bombs at the enemy, and then trying to protect yourself from theirs. I was stationed on both a Spru-can and a Perry mini-can. They both had their serious weaknesses. Biggest weaknesses were not enough missiles (for those of you who think it’s spelled missle) and shells. The guns were too small and too slow. The crappy Sea Sparrow on the Spruance destroyers was a joke, and the SM-1s on the Perry frigate had a ridiculously short range. The communications equipment was antiquated. Forget about blast protection. A .50 cal. could put either of them out of action. They were designed to fill a role for many functions other than fighting a war. Escorting carriers, freighters, Radar picket, sub hunting, etc. The Navy has learned a lot from their mistakes and short-sightedness, and it seems to have finally learned how to design ships to both fight in various arenas and to defend themselves. A destroyer covers an extraordinary number of roles. It needs to be able to fight in a battle group, or by itself without the benefit of air cover. I think that the Nav has finally done it’s homework in designing a ship to perform every function and to do it well. The smartest thing that they have done is to design the ship as an integrated system, and not a hodge podge of incompatible equipment. They have put an extraordinary amount of research into the electric drive system which will make this ship many times more reliable than even a gas turbine powered one. The consolidation of electrical systems will also save a huge amount of space. Speaking of space and manpower. The Spruance ship that I was on had over 400 people crammed into a ship designed for 270. I hope that the Navy finally realizes that a ship can easily be automated to run with far fewer people IF there is additional outside support for repairs and IF they get rid of all the stupid archaic functions common to all ships which waste tremendous amounts of manpower. Things like having multiple watchstanders in port, poorly managed mess facilities, outdated equipment with excessive maintenance requirements, etc. I’m tired of jabbering away, and it’s late. The navy has made a lot of mistakes over the years, but I hope that they will get it right this time. Chris Parrish ET1 1979-1989 USS Ingersoll DD-990 USS Crommelin FFG-37

  28. Steve – It looks like the Navy got out of the ‘1.7 billion cap’. However, instead of getting 7, they got budgeted for 5. (2) in 07 (3) 1 in 09,1 in 10,1 in 11 http://public.secnav.navy.mil/FY07.nsf/($reload)/8525711F000FDA098525702800434181/$FILE/DD(X)+2119+.pdf Now dispite Skrips, happy Navy talk. The orders in 09-11 are more in theory then reality. Basically congress gave Bush a going away present of 2 DDX’s but left the future of the plan in the hands of the next administration. (Read) If the Democrates win – death to DD(X) Procurementwise the Navy has two many new shiny balls in the air. You have the DD(X), LCS, the Virgina and CVNX. Basically all 4 Navy Mofia’s have a shiny babble to protect. There is going to be blood in the halls.

  29. No there wont. The USN needs to replace the Ticonderogas, and Arleigh Burkes. They decided to build an LCS-writ large with the DD(X)/CG(X) hull. The US doesnt need to many DD(X)’s. I’ll be happy with 8 to 10 of them, so we would have enough in both oceans for fire support duty. Then fill the rest of the billets with CG(X)s. LCS has the L for a reason, and cannot do DD(X) or CG(x)s job. The USN needs to do this: Cut carriers from 12 to 10. Build some LHXs for the USMC. Retire the Ticos and ABs and replace them with CG(X)s, LCSs, and some DD(X)s. Buy more Virginias. We have no choice in the matter. We either buy these ships, or watch our naval capability get deep sixed.

  30. Skrip – ? The LCS is not based on the DD(X) hull. The Navy has not even settled on a single hull. Last I heard, they are going to build two versions and will see which one is better. DD(X) 8 to 10? – Fantasy land. A) Not even the Navy in its wet dreams is thinking that they are going to get 8 DD(X). They will be lucky to get 4. There is not going to be any big budget increases for the Navy. Not with a 460 billion dollar deficit and a ground war going on. CG(X)? Total vaporware – but what is being written is not too comforting. From Global Security ‘The CG(X) would be derivative of the DD(X) design, but with a more powerful radar than the DD(X), as well as additional missile tubes in the place of the DD(X)’s AGSs. The CG(X) might be somewhat larger than the DD(X), and would have a procurement cost equal to or greater than that of the DD(X). ‘ Oh boy – love those savings. Mostly – The AB’s are going to get some serious life extensions and the LCS are going to get busy.

  31. DDG51s are all less than 17 years old. CG47s are all less than 25 years old. All of them have and are planned to remain in service for 20 years(+) more. (35-40 year hull life is normal and planned for.) The gun turret for the DD(X) was designed to fit in the same base ring as the 5’54s mounted on all of our DDG/DD/CGs. What has never made sense is why they didn’t do what was originally planned and up-gun all of our smallboys with the new gun or the lightweight 8′ gun that was also developed for a NSFS and also designed to fit in the same ring as the 5’54s. That would give a NSFS capability equivalent to or better than DD(X) to all of our surface ships except the frigates (LCS). And get rid of Trent Lott’s gold plated pork project – DD(X). As to adding to the big deck gators. We have 12 already. One Marine carrier to go with each Fleet carrier. A good mix and 2 more than the Marines asked for. (Curticy of Trent Lott’s porkbarrel politics. His house was just down the street from Ingalles in P-guala until Katrina hit.) P.S. The reason I know the guns were designed originally as an upgrade is that I spent 4 years on CG48 while they were designing and testing and attended some of the briefs on their capabilities in P-goula.) Retired USN

  32. P.S. The 9th Wasp LHD is under construction which will allow a Tarawa LHA to be transfered to reserve for use as Mine Warfare Support/Command Control Ship. Considering the Navy/Marines only asked for 5 Wasp LHDs and all 9 of them were/are built at Ingalls, I would say we have sufficient redundant gator capability for Marine support. (Trent Lott spending your taxpayer dollars and keeping his neighbors employed.)

  33. Ooh, electric drive and stealth. We coulda had that in the ’80s (sorry for the redundant link). In fact, we could have had considerably more stealth and a crew of 10 or 20 instead of hundreds. Maybe the Navy will work its way up to 1980s technology before the end of this century. Have I told you the one about how defense contractors don’t really want to build ships and planes and things? They don’t. Why should they? They make profit on development. It’s like free money. The DoD dude asks, ‘how’s that design coming along?’ We answer, ‘just peachy,’ and get a big ol’ check. If you build something, there’s a chance, a darn good chance, the thing won’t work. Thanks anyway, but we’d rather get paid to do development. That’s why F-22 took 25 years to develop. That’s why F-35 is taking so long. That’s why we’re spending a fortune on DDX development only to build a handful. You taxpayers are such suckers! I gotta’ love ya’ though. Keep those checks rollin’ my way.

  34. If UAV are going to take the place of manned aircraft for fire support missions, we have a ways to go. If we had a LHD loaded up with hell-fire armed predators, that would be something. However, we aren’t going to want robats deciding when to press the ‘red button’. That means weather its a some mini helo with a machine gun, or a huge UAV bomber, you have to a have a person in the loop. Which entails having a com link. If our abilty to provide air support is dependent on communitcating with a fleet of UAVs, that is a serious and glaring deficeny. Granted, this is a vunlerability of any unit, but when UAV have especially high bandwidth and quality of reception requirements (e.g. live video feed and data), rather then, say a few coordinates.

  35. I came up with a reason for keeping the BB’s. What is the protection provided for GPS satellites in space? All the stuff currently uses GPS, these satellites could be destroyed. What about hacking? Is there a software upgrade link possibility on these satellites? ie. a vulnerability

  36. Ok, just a little note of reason here….$5 billion dollars for a 1 to 2 gun platform….are you guys nuts? How much does a fully stocked aircraft carrier cost? If you want long range support…a cruise missile only costs a $1 million dollars. Thousand of cruise missiles for the cost of ONE of these ships….and cruise missiles have up to 10x the range AND a larger payload. Or, A modified Boeing 777 – with rotary bomb dispensers loitering over an area for many hours, carrying tons of JDAMs. Cheap (comparatively), efficient and you can forget about worrying if you’re with-in a 100nm of the shore. Besides, how long would it take a ship to cruise to the region to be on station, verses a jet….days verses hours…. Also, we ALWAYS have air dominance anyway.

  37. Well they canceled the arsenal ship, which could have been very usefull as a mobile missile battery (500 plus VLS cells, etc.) (mainly because of the cost of the SC-21 (the orignal DD-21, cruiser, etc. program and it (the arsenal ship together were deemed to high). The SC 21 program, as it was planned also got totaled. Congress cut its budget by 75 percent. So the navy basically shrunk the DD 21 down, and cut capability- this is what resulted in the DD(X). The DD(X) and CG(X) aren’t some grand plan of the Navy, they are the result of multiple ship cancellings and meddling by congress. DD(X) as it is currently envisioned as only been around for a couple years or so, and the planned CG 21 is different from the CG(X) as well. As for being over- reliant on GPS- yes, anti-satellite weapons would probably play a big role in any world war 4 that breaks out.

  38. The first thing Iran will do with a nuke is explode it in the magetosphere and fry all our satellites and high tech sh–. Then we’ll be up a creek. But we’ll have $10B composite stealth ships with reactive armor. That’s what’s really important. Won’t they look pretty?