Defcon 6

I'm going to take the time to answer another question I don't feel I've given enough time to.

About the cost of the ship. I said 5.2 billion dollars and some people can't understand why or how.

Lets talk about ship building. Because we are talking about the size of the ship, lets forget weapons and electronics since that is irrelevant in the arguement that because its twice as big as a DD(X) it should be twice as expensive.

Ship building, materials and labor.

Lets think cruise ships since thats the easiest way to explain this. The Queen Mary 2 is the largest cruise ship in the world at 1,133 ft. long, 129 ft beam, and 150,000 tons overall. It cost 852 million dollars.

Now why does a ship that uses FAR more steel and materials cost a lot less than a 16,000 ton DD(X)? It's weapons and electronics used for it's e-warfare. Thats where the cost is coming from. But simply making the ship bigger does not add that much cost. Thats why I keep trying to point out that my 5.2 billion dollars is pretty accurate.

Now the ship uses the same electronic warfare systems as a DD(X), and it carries quite a few more weapons, so thats why it costs a billion more than the DD(X). It's the weapons, not the electronics or the size specifically.\

Lets also consider the price of a 16 inch gun turret, of which my ship has 3. Okay, lets say...30 million dollars. Thats probably a modest figure, it's more likely less since this is more of a issue of materials.

Okay, 30 million dollars is a drop in the bucket when you compare it to everything going into a 5 billion dollar ship. Or when you consider that the military used 40+ tomahawks to hit one bunker in Iraq. And the military did this dozens of times. That one strike cost 40 x 750,000 dollars. Do your math. So 16 inch guns that can fire 50,000 dollar shells are actually a lot cheaper in the long run as far as ammunition and the actual cost of the gun themselves goes.

So, saying something like "I don't want to imagine the cost of 16" guns" is fairly pointless. Because it's not important in the big picture of things. And as I have said, it's actually a lot cheaper in the long run.

And saying that cruise missiles have more capability is also pointless. yes they do, but that capability is clear when you view the cost. And my guns can fire at 320 miles, so lets consider a 900 mile range for a cruise missile and a 320 mile range for a 16" shell. The shells can't go as far, sure. Thats why the cruise missile will always be useful. Sometimes targets are out of range of even a cannon that can fire at 320 miles. But at the same time, the cannon is actually more useful for things within that range. So, missiles will never reign supreme.