To: sukhoi-30mki
Isn’t it a little late for this level of change?
2 posted on
03/03/2016 11:51:32 PM PST by
Talisker
(One who commands, must obey.)
To: sukhoi-30mki
I don’t see this type as becoming a great success. The Arleigh Burkes have been a solid work horse. I would be looking at a new cruiser design, 18,000 tons or so for gunboat diplomacy type force projection.
5 posted on
03/04/2016 3:00:40 AM PST by
Jimmy Valentine
(DemocRATS - when they speak, they lie; when they are silent, they are stealing the American Dream)
To: sukhoi-30mki
Hmmm... If this is still in the design phase, there’s still time to fix it. Unless they get waivers from the original requirement. I know that’s done all the time but in watering down this original requirement do they really want to accept this risk?
6 posted on
03/04/2016 3:03:58 AM PST by
SueRae
(An election like no other..)
To: sukhoi-30mki
I still wonder how important stealth is when it comes to surface ships. This isn’t WWII...It’s not like they’re “sneaking up” on their would-be opponents. With satellites and submarines, the ships can still be detected fairly easily.
7 posted on
03/04/2016 5:23:15 AM PST by
Lou L
(Health "insurance" is NOT the same as health "care")
To: sukhoi-30mki
The Navy has dumped billions of dollars into these three dinosaur “destroyers” and now they're making them more visible to enemy sensors because to do otherwise is too expensive? Excuse me, I thought the DDG-1000 Zumwalts were, next to CVNs, the most expensive items in the surface Navy's budget. Anything that makes a DDG-1000 a bigger target [compromises its stealth characteristics] should not be allowed.
8 posted on
03/04/2016 8:18:24 AM PST by
MasterGunner01
( To err is human, to forgive is not our policy. -- SEAL Team)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson