While I am not surprised that the spanish LPD was selected (it was far and away a better option than the French proposal) I am somewhat dissapointed that the Gibbs and Cox dessign was not selected for the DDG requirement, it may have been hideously ugly but it was more capable.

I suppose it might have the advantage of being cheaper than some the Hypersonic offers.

Why not to build interceptor missiles against the ABM :p 😀 😀

Just put some interceptor missiles (IM) batteries near every ICBM silo, then when you launch the ICBM, and the NMD is “on” and starts launching their ABM, launch the IM against the ABM…deal done. 😀 😀

Whilst you were joking your idea is not actually that ridiculous. I remember being at some conference when NMD was first re-born and more than one person proposed the idea of building modified ICBM’s with IIR homing KKVs instead of warheads, the idea being that they would compliment the ‘normal’ missiles and the KKV’s (or just mini missiles) would enter the atmosphere with the MIRVs and home in on any incoming missiles, kind of like an SAM system but backwards. Its a rather complex solution but several technically minded people seemed to think it was doable. It was even suggested that the ICBM’s could replace some of their warheads interceptors.

So, afterall…

No MiG for you!!! …come back in ONE YEAR!!!!:D 😀 😀

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070619/67480943.html

I cant say I am surprised, these sorts of storys come round every now and again and thus far nothing has ever come of them.

You missed my point.

I am saying chronologicaly:

-Regulus came before ICBMs

-V1 before V2
-Cruise missile before ICBM

…and BTW, cruise missiles are still in the US nuclear arsenal. ICBMs have not replaced the cruise missiles.

:rolleyes:

No you are missing the point, Ballistic missiles represent the easiest option for rogue states to penetrate defended air space. This and never was a discussion about chronology.

Again you miss the point, yes there are cruise missiles in the US Nuclear detterent, but they are in increasingly small numbers and in order to have intercontinental capability they are carried and luanched by very expensive and complex bombers.:rolleyes:

So once again so you understand it, Development of cruise missiles capable of penetrating well defended air space is a more technically challenging task than building simple ICBMs which can penetrate defended air space unless a highly competent ABM system is present. That is the reason why ICBMs were the primary nuclear delivery systems of the cold war.

BTW, Regulus was replaced by ICBMS, or have you never heard of Polaris?:rolleyes:

Not exactly. The SSM-N-8A Regulus cruise missile was the nuclear deterrent weapon employed by the United States Navy from 1955 to 1964. It was retired once the Polaris SLBMs became available.

Just answered you own question question, when was it retired? what was it replaced with- oh yes thats right ICBMs. Incidently what was it launched from- thats right a submarine, which had to be designed built and developed.:rolleyes:

I agree with what you wrote but I still think RAM (or some SAM / Anti-missile system) is important in modern day combat. If one of these new ships had a couple of North Korean Silkworm missiles locked on it I bet the Captain would disagree with you and would want a SEA RAM system available to him. I know I would.

I think thats why the South Koreans are building Aegis cruisers.;) As yet, at least to the best of my knowledge the North Koreans have not yet fired an AShM at an SK ship. As long as these new vessels have the ability to be upgraded should this situation change I dont think there is a issue. Also the silkworm is not exactly a clever missile, with a decent fire control system the 40mm should be perfectly capable of dealing with them.