Well, can't afford while keeping 9 super carriers and 30 odd virginia class. It should be noted that the current generation of super subs can fire cruise missiles at shore targets as well as old cruisers could. Add in the shift in drone technology and the argument for big, non carrier surface combatants looks poor.
> Add in the shift in drone technology and the argument for big, non carrier surface combatants looks poor.
The newer American destroyers are bigger than the last cruisers we built, so phasing out of cruisers isn't about not having big, non-carrier surface combatants.
The Zumwalts are cancelled now. The calculus seems to be that if you are building a modern capital ship then it's either an aircraft platform, an assault ship or it needs to be able to go underwater - because it will cost just as much. There is a sharp division between naval assets to be used in war, and everything else.
Sure, but they are the newest destroyers we have, and illustrate (along with the Flight III Ashleigh Burke) a pattern. DDG(X) won't be twice the Ticonderoga-class displacement like the Zumwalt-class, but they'll also be bigger than the Ticonderoga by a sizable margin.
