To: artichokegrower
In my not so humble opinion, the destroyer has for a century been the best looking surface ship in the fleet. Looks like the powers that be have fixed that.
4 posted on
01/07/2016 6:08:22 AM PST by
Tupelo
(Honest men go to Washington, but honest men do not stay in Washington.)
To: Tupelo
Butt ugly.
I guess the engineers of the CSN were way ahead of their time.
5 posted on
01/07/2016 6:11:55 AM PST by
central_va
(I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
To: Tupelo
Agree. The FFG/DDG ships with classic high & sharp bows, low fantails. Good looking ships. The DDG 1000??? Well, it certainly is ah “distinctive” looking. Yeah, let’s go with that...
8 posted on
01/07/2016 6:17:15 AM PST by
ThunderSleeps
(Stop obarma now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
To: Tupelo
Ugly is is OK if you have an electromagnetic rail gun and those should be ready in 5 to 10 years. The ship was designed around the weapon system.
Rail Gun
9 posted on
01/07/2016 6:18:03 AM PST by
Fai Mao
(Just a tropical gardiner chatting with friends)
To: Tupelo
You’re right, but is it better to be invisible than pretty?
15 posted on
01/07/2016 7:07:33 AM PST by
wbill
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson