Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Current Events

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Oct 23, 2013, 07:19 PM   #1
quagmire
macrumors 603
 
quagmire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
You could have owned your own super carrier for one cent!

The US Navy has sold the first super carrier, USS Forrestal for a penny to be scrapped. If I knew that was the asking price for it, I would gladly paid that price to own a super carrier.



http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...old-for-1-cent
__________________
Crimes against US History:
CV-6 USS Enterprise
Yankee Stadium
Penn Station-New York
quagmire is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2013, 07:20 PM   #2
AlphaDogg
macrumors 68040
 
AlphaDogg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Boulder, CO
Quote:
Originally Posted by quagmire View Post
The US Navy has sold the first super carrier, USS Forrestal for a penny to be scrapped. If I knew that was the asking price for it, I would gladly paid that price to own a super carrier.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/23/us/gal...html?hpt=hp_c3
You must have a really big backyard if you have space for super carrier
__________________
15" 2.66GHz C2D uMBP | 13" 2.4GHz i5 MBP 500GB | '07 MacBook
iPhone 6 64GB | iPhone 5 32GB | iPhone 8GB
אני רוצה לעשות עליה לישראל
AlphaDogg is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2013, 09:05 PM   #3
mobilehaathi
macrumors 601
 
mobilehaathi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The Anthropocene
I suspect it will cost quite a lot of money to 'deal' with it though.
__________________
The true way is along a rope that is not spanned high in the air, but only just above the ground. It seems intended more to cause stumbling than to be walked along.
mobilehaathi is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2013, 04:14 AM   #4
decafjava
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Geneva
Somewhere, an evil super villain is rubbing his hands...
decafjava is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2013, 04:22 AM   #5
Sym0
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Pretty sure the Govn. has to "sell" it so that would be why the lowest currency value was used, as a token. And I am pretty sure it was not for "sale" but simply being scrapped.
__________________
15" Retina Macbook Pro, 2.7GHz, 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD, Bootcamp OS X 10.10 & Windows 8.1, iPad Air, iPhone 5S
Sym0 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2013, 05:11 AM   #6
vrDrew
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
The number of potential bidders on scrapping a US Navy warship is pretty limited. By law, former Navy ships cannot be sent overseas for dismantling, because we don't want other Governments finding out how we put our ships together. Which means dismantlers have to be in the US.

While steel scrap is selling for almost $200/ton, the USS Forrestal (along with most vessels of her vintage) has a huge amount of asbestos and other hazardous material that needs to be remediated. And the work of safely scrapping such a huge vessel will probably take a year or more, during which time the boat will occupy a valuable yard space.

One of the largest (potential) sources of revenue for the scrapping company is going to be the large amounts of precious, and semiprecious, metals - the gold, silver, and copper to be harvested from the boats remaining electronics and thousands of miles of wiring.
vrDrew is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2013, 05:23 AM   #7
Tsuchiya
macrumors 65816
 
Tsuchiya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Aw man, I'd have gone up to a $1. What I would do with it (or store it) to be decided later.

There's something awe inspiring and somewhat terrifying about a ship that big.
__________________
Nothing is true, everything is permitted
Tsuchiya is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2013, 05:29 AM   #8
roadbloc
macrumors 604
 
roadbloc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: UK
Send a message via Skype™ to roadbloc
I'll push the boat out a bit and take two.
__________________
roadbloc is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2013, 08:23 AM   #9
quagmire
Thread Starter
macrumors 603
 
quagmire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by vrDrew View Post
The number of potential bidders on scrapping a US Navy warship is pretty limited. By law, former Navy ships cannot be sent overseas for dismantling, because we don't want other Governments finding out how we put our ships together. Which means dismantlers have to be in the US.

While steel scrap is selling for almost $200/ton, the USS Forrestal (along with most vessels of her vintage) has a huge amount of asbestos and other hazardous material that needs to be remediated. And the work of safely scrapping such a huge vessel will probably take a year or more, during which time the boat will occupy a valuable yard space.

One of the largest (potential) sources of revenue for the scrapping company is going to be the large amounts of precious, and semiprecious, metals - the gold, silver, and copper to be harvested from the boats remaining electronics and thousands of miles of wiring.
I know. I'm not surprised by the penny price tag either. USS Coral Sea( which is a Midway class carrier and predecessor to Forrestall) took forever to be scrapped because she was so big it made scrapping her almost unprofitable. It took 7 years to scrap her. I imagine the scrapping of the Forrestall class, Kitty Hawk Class, Enterprise, and Nimitz classes will be just as challenging for scrappers.
__________________
Crimes against US History:
CV-6 USS Enterprise
Yankee Stadium
Penn Station-New York
quagmire is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2013, 11:43 AM   #10
Antares
macrumors 68000
 
Antares's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Milky Way....a little place called Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by quagmire View Post
It took 7 years to scrap her. I imagine the scrapping of the Forrestall class, Kitty Hawk Class, Enterprise, and Nimitz classes will be just as challenging for scrappers.
Then, you can say that the scrappers will find themselves in quite the, "quagmire."
__________________
Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. - Steve Jobs
An Apple a day keeps the PC's away
Antares is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2013, 12:15 PM   #11
quagmire
Thread Starter
macrumors 603
 
quagmire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antares View Post
Then, you can say that the scrappers will find themselves in quite the, "quagmire."
Yeah. They tried to sell Coral Sea to India to finish scrapping her, but the US Navy blocked it. Capital ships have to be scrapped stateside.
__________________
Crimes against US History:
CV-6 USS Enterprise
Yankee Stadium
Penn Station-New York
quagmire is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2013, 03:08 PM   #12
Kissaragi
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
I wonder how much profit a scrap company can make from something like that. so much metal in it but such enormous costs just to deal with it.
Kissaragi is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 28, 2013, 07:27 AM   #13
sim667
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
I'd have turned it into a nightclub.....

Like the stubnitz
__________________
Mac Pro, Macbook Pro, G4 Powerbook, iPad 4, iPhone 5, 2X TV, Nikon D800, ACSP Trained - Photography and Mac tech
Music and UK festival Blog
sim667 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2013, 06:06 PM   #14
Peace
macrumors P6
 
Peace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Space--The ONLY Frontier
That carrier is 1/3rd Asbestos. Good luck doing anything with it for less that a couple hundred thousand bucks.

http://www.mesothelioma.com/asbestos...stal-cv-59.htm
Peace is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2013, 07:06 PM   #15
G51989
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
Quote:
Originally Posted by quagmire View Post
Yeah. They tried to sell Coral Sea to India to finish scrapping her, but the US Navy blocked it. Capital ships have to be scrapped stateside.
Indeed, the reason being is that even a carrier of this age has much more sophisticated construction than the majority of warships in the world, you don't want that to tall into the hands of say, the Chinese for example. Who at the moment, don't even know how to build a basic aircraft carrier.

Up until a few years ago, even the design plants for the Essex class carriers remained classified. As if they were built today, they would nearly be up to modern damage control and design standards.

Last edited by G51989; Nov 4, 2013 at 04:52 AM.
G51989 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2013, 06:16 PM   #16
needfx
macrumors 68020
 
needfx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: macrumors apparently
heading off topic

zumwalts look high tech
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	destroyer4.jpg
Views:	25
Size:	63.9 KB
ID:	445677   Click image for larger version

Name:	destroyer2.jpg
Views:	25
Size:	57.7 KB
ID:	445678  
needfx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2013, 06:20 PM   #17
Peace
macrumors P6
 
Peace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Space--The ONLY Frontier
Quote:
Originally Posted by needfx View Post
heading off topic

zumwalts look high tech
The concepts for that kind of warship was a design that my Commanding Officer on my ship started back in 2000.

http://www.belleairepress.com/index.php?id=107
Peace is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2013, 10:14 PM   #18
G51989
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peace View Post
The concepts for that kind of warship was a design that my Commanding Officer on my ship started back in 2000.

http://www.belleairepress.com/index.php?id=107
The Zumwalt has been in development well before 2000
G51989 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2013, 10:26 PM   #19
quagmire
Thread Starter
macrumors 603
 
quagmire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by G51989 View Post
The Zumwalt has been in development well before 2000
And it's a giant POS much like the F-35.

In a carrier related note, the Ford was floated for the first time.



Quote:
Originally Posted by G51989 View Post
Up until a few years ago, even the design plants for the Essex class carriers remained classified. As if they were built today, they would nearly be up to modern damage control and design standards.
Probably a bit better considering they have more armor than a Nimitz/Ford class(especially the Midway class with its armored flight deck).

The concept today is to prevent something from hitting the carrier, not make it able to take a decent pounding like the WWII era carriers.
__________________
Crimes against US History:
CV-6 USS Enterprise
Yankee Stadium
Penn Station-New York

Last edited by quagmire; Nov 5, 2013 at 10:37 PM.
quagmire is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2013, 05:18 AM   #20
G51989
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
Quote:
Originally Posted by quagmire View Post
And it's a giant POS much like the F-35.
I would not call it a POS, it is more like a Seawolf Class Submarine, or the North Carolina Class Battleships from WW2, they were low production, but formed the testbeds for the newer classes of ships. ( North Carolina Class? Angled Armored belts?! Are you Crazy?! Junk! Junk Junk! Then the Washington takes out an entire Japanese Squadron of a Battleship and 6 Destroyers by itself . At S Straight )

But I think in how the North Carolina ships were the test bed for South Dakotas and Iowa Class Ships
And the Ticonderoga ships were mostly a testbed for Arleigh Burke Class ships
And the Seawolf being the testbed for the Virgina class submarines

I think the Zumwalt is just a testbed for the next generation of DDGs and technology, it has lots of very interesting and innovative technology on it. It's one badass machine, the Advanced Gun System is crazy.

Quote:
Probably a bit better considering they have more armor than a Nimitz/Ford class(especially the Midway class with its armored flight deck).

The concept today is to prevent something from hitting the carrier, not make it able to take a decent pounding like the WWII era carriers.
Well a Nimitz could more than likely take much more punishment than an Midway, Nimitz's are much larger, they aren't armored like the old carriers, but they're still built of very strong materials, have far more water tight compartments, better damage control, and the machinery spaces are actually pretty well armored, so it would be very hard to Sink a Nimitz, or even knock out its drivetrain.

I also think the reason everyone went with " Oh god, don't get hit. " was the USS Stark accident, the Exocet Missile is pretty much the smallest Anti ship missile out there, with the smallest warhead, one of them didn't even explode , the other one ripped a giant hole in the Stark under and above the waterline, and cracked the keel.

It is more than likely a way better idea to shoot down an intruder than have it hit you, a large ASM would likely cut through the Midways armor like butter.

I believe the only carrier with an armored flight deck, and " armor " is the French Charles De Gaull, which I have seen in person, very interesting and innovative carrier. Then again, I feel the Italian/French FREMM Project ships are probably the best money-performance ratios in the world right now.

Quote:
In a carrier related note, the Ford was floated for the first time.
I love the Fords, they show a clear improvement. Look like they'll have a much lower operating cost than a Nimitz, and be much easier to maintain.
G51989 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2013, 06:56 AM   #21
quagmire
Thread Starter
macrumors 603
 
quagmire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by G51989 View Post
I would not call it a POS, it is more like a Seawolf Class Submarine, or the North Carolina Class Battleships from WW2, they were low production, but formed the testbeds for the newer classes of ships. ( North Carolina Class? Angled Armored belts?! Are you Crazy?! Junk! Junk Junk! Then the Washington takes out an entire Japanese Squadron of a Battleship and 6 Destroyers by itself . At S Straight )

But I think in how the North Carolina ships were the test bed for South Dakotas and Iowa Class Ships
And the Ticonderoga ships were mostly a testbed for Arleigh Burke Class ships
And the Seawolf being the testbed for the Virgina class submarines
Just be glad they were WWI era battleships. The N. Carolina Class, South Dakota class, and Iowa's didn't have the armor to withstand their own guns.

Quote:
I think the Zumwalt is just a testbed for the next generation of DDGs and technology, it has lots of very interesting and innovative technology on it. It's one badass machine, the Advanced Gun System is crazy.
Maybe, but at the cost that is fairly close to building a Nimitz? It's one very expensive testbed.



Quote:
Well a Nimitz could more than likely take much more punishment than an Midway, Nimitz's are much larger, they aren't armored like the old carriers, but they're still built of very strong materials, have far more water tight compartments, better damage control, and the machinery spaces are actually pretty well armored, so it would be very hard to Sink a Nimitz, or even knock out its drivetrain.

Not saying a Nimitz will be sunk easily. But, maybe an Essex or a Midway built in modern times with their armor could take a bit more. CV-8 Hornet took 9 torpedoes and still remained afloat. Then when the US tried to sink her, she still wouldn't go down.
__________________
Crimes against US History:
CV-6 USS Enterprise
Yankee Stadium
Penn Station-New York
quagmire is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2013, 07:12 AM   #22
G51989
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
Quote:
Originally Posted by quagmire View Post
Just be glad they were WWI era battleships. The N. Carolina Class, South Dakota class, and Iowa's didn't have the armor to withstand their own guns.
I wouldn't exactly call the Kirishima A WW1 battleship, she was refitted in the 30s fairly heavily. The Kirishima still had WW1 armor layouts, we see how well that worked against more modern guns and shells.

The reason that the North Carolina, SoDaks, and Iowas couldn't defend against their own guns, is that USN gun technology was light years ahead of everyone else at that point. An Iowa class could have gone up against any battleship ever built and easily come out on top.

Quote:
Maybe, but at the cost that is fairly close to building a Nimitz? It's one very expensive testbed.
Adjusted for inflation they don't cost much more than a Seawolf Did, and its a fairly more advanced Machine than a Nimitz, the Nimitz design is 40 years old at this point.

The Zumwalts kind of represent that Pivot Point, and also, there is no way you'll get any of those new weapon systems on a Burke.

Quote:
Not saying a Nimitz will be sunk easily. But, maybe an Essex or a Midway built in modern times with their armor could take a bit more. CV-8 Hornet took 9 torpedoes and still remained afloat. Then when the US tried to sink her, she still wouldn't go down.
A Nimitz could probably take even more punishment I would assume, as could the Fords.

The problem with armoring ships these days is that a modern ASM with its spacial charges will cut through armor like it doesn't even exist.
G51989 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2013, 10:36 AM   #23
quagmire
Thread Starter
macrumors 603
 
quagmire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by G51989 View Post
I wouldn't exactly call the Kirishima A WW1 battleship, she was refitted in the 30s fairly heavily. The Kirishima still had WW1 armor layouts, we see how well that worked against more modern guns and shells.
A WWI era BB is still a WWI era BB despite refits. Just like the Iowa's are WWII era BB's despite their extensive refits in the 80's. If a BB was built today, it would be built to todays standards and methods. No matter if you put modern equipment on an Iowa, it's foundation is still WWII tech.

Quote:
The reason that the North Carolina, SoDaks, and Iowas couldn't defend against their own guns, is that USN gun technology was light years ahead of everyone else at that point. An Iowa class could have gone up against any battleship ever built and easily come out on top.
The reason for it was because the US Navy wanted their battleships to keep up with the carriers( or at least the main consideration for the Iowa's since top speed of the South Dakota class was 28 knots). In order to do that, armor was sacrificed and an Iowa could not withstand shots from her own guns. Which the Yamato class would pose a threat to an Iowa since their guns were just as good as Iowa's, if not a bit better.

The Montana class was going to be able to withstand shots from her own guns( though they accepted that her speed would go back down to 28 knots).

Quote:
Adjusted for inflation they don't cost much more than a Seawolf Did, and its a fairly more advanced Machine than a Nimitz, the Nimitz design is 40 years old at this point.
Still a destroyer is close to costing the amount of money it takes to build a capital ship. A Ford costs $6 billion to build.....

I wonder how much it would cost to build a modern BB...... The Zumwalt's railgun is designed to replace the Iowa's 16" guns.....

Quote:
A Nimitz could probably take even more punishment I would assume, as could the Fords.
Sadly we will never know how much punishment a Nimitz/Ford class can take without a war breaking out.

Unless the Navy wants to take a decommissioned Nimitz class carrier and use it for target practice( though the test will not show how much punishment she can take with proper damage control). Though the results of the test will be highly classified like the results of the USS America sinking is.
__________________
Crimes against US History:
CV-6 USS Enterprise
Yankee Stadium
Penn Station-New York
quagmire is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2013, 08:32 PM   #24
G51989
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
Quote:
Originally Posted by quagmire View Post
A WWI era BB is still a WWI era BB despite refits. Just like the Iowa's are WWII era BB's despite their extensive refits in the 80's. If a BB was built today, it would be built to todays standards and methods. No matter if you put modern equipment on an Iowa, it's foundation is still WWII tech.
This is true, however, WW1 layouts typically went with a brute force armor approach, we see how well t his worked against the Washington, who only suffered superficial damage.

Quote:
The reason for it was because the US Navy wanted their battleships to keep up with the carriers( or at least the main consideration for the Iowa's since top speed of the South Dakota class was 28 knots). In order to do that, armor was sacrificed and an Iowa could not withstand shots from her own guns. Which the Yamato class would pose a threat to an Iowa since their guns were just as good as Iowa's, if not a bit better.
True, however I think the SoDaks were the best armored Battleships ever built, the Iowas not so much as they were larger, but I think outside the IJN 18 inch gun on the Yamatos, no other gun would be able to punch through its armor. Besides its own.

As long as the Commander of the Iowa isn't an idiot. A Yamato would not pose much threat to an Iowa. The Iowa is faster, has equal guns ( the IJN 18 inch was not a very good weapon for its size ), a faster rate of fire, and vastly better fire control.

Quote:
The Montana class was going to be able to withstand shots from her own guns( though they accepted that her speed would go back down to 28 knots).
I never understood why they even laid the Keels for those ships, it was clear by the Battle of Midway that the carrier is what made differences, not battleships.

Quote:
I wonder how much it would cost to build a modern BB...... The Zumwalt's railgun is designed to replace the Iowa's 16" guns.....
There is no point to a BB in the modren world, the concept is outdated and...well it never even worked in the first place. The Railgun on the Zumwalt isn't really made for close encounters, it has pretty insane range.

The day's of close waters naval warfare has been over for a long time. Destroyers can do the same job as a BB for a fraction of the cost. Things like the Zumwalt and the new French/Italian FREMM is where the future is. Small, fast, smart. With one hell of a punch.

I can't think of one place where those 16 inch guns serve any purpose these days.

Quote:
Still a destroyer is close to costing the amount of money it takes to build a capital ship. A Ford costs $6 billion to build.....
Well, a Ford is just a modified Nimitz with less moving parts, its a 100% electric ship, with reduces build cost and decreases the number of valves, and moving parts. Making it cheap to build, its also made out of pretty typical materials and uses standard shipbuilding techniques.

The Zumwalt, is a whore new ball game, everything on the ship is brand new. New materials, new building techniques, new hull, new composites, new computer systems, new power generation which produces a ton of power, all latched onto a very fast and capable ship that can accept ****ing rail guns.

Its all brand new stuff, so its very very expensive to get it going. The Zumwalt will be a testbed for the next generation of everything, as was the Enterprise, and the Seawolf Class.

Quote:
Sadly we will never know how much punishment a Nimitz/Ford class can take without a war breaking out.

Unless the Navy wants to take a decommissioned Nimitz class carrier and use it for target practice( though the test will not show how much punishment she can take with proper damage control). Though the results of the test will be highly classified like the results of the USS America sinking is.
Probably not, but being much newer and more robust than old carriers, built with much stronger materials ( nearly all of it is classified ), more water tight compartments, some of the fire surpression is totally automated, even the hangers can seal up and become water tight if the need be. I would say they could take an insane amount of Punishment. ESp considering the bulkheads, ahd the armor that armors the JP fuel tanks, reactors, turbines and shafts is made out of a steel where even the casting process is classified makes me think they could take a beating.
G51989 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2013, 09:00 PM   #25
quagmire
Thread Starter
macrumors 603
 
quagmire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by G51989 View Post
As long as the Commander of the Iowa isn't an idiot. A Yamato would not pose much threat to an Iowa. The Iowa is faster, has equal guns ( the IJN 18 inch was not a very good weapon for its size ), a faster rate of fire, and vastly better fire control.
Her own guns could knock out the radar system that helped aim the guns. Shows how A) Primitive the tech was back then B) How powerful those guns were.



Quote:
I never understood why they even laid the Keels for those ships, it was clear by the Battle of Midway that the carrier is what made differences, not battleships.
No Montana class BB keel was laid down. Montana and Ohio were reordered as Illinois and Kentucky which were both supposed to be Iowa classes. Illinois and Kentucky were never finished. Though there were several discussions on converting the hull of Kentucky to a BBG( guided missile battleship) or a carrier( ala the Lexington's), but that never materialized. Her bow was used to repair Wisconsin. She was ultimately scrapped as well.

Quote:
There is no point to a BB in the modren world, the concept is outdated and...well it never even worked in the first place. The Railgun on the Zumwalt isn't really made for close encounters, it has pretty insane range.

I can't think of one place where those 16 inch guns serve any purpose these days.
The Navy currently lacks shore bombardment capabilities. Something cruise missiles are not practical to do. And the 5" guns on modern ships just don't pack a big enough punch. Thus a purpose for those 16" guns. But, the railgun is supposedly going to be able to pack a similar punch.

Quote:
Well, a Ford is just a modified Nimitz with less moving parts, its a 100% electric ship, with reduces build cost and decreases the number of valves, and moving parts. Making it cheap to build, its also made out of pretty typical materials and uses standard shipbuilding techniques.

The Zumwalt, is a whore new ball game, everything on the ship is brand new. New materials, new building techniques, new hull, new composites, new computer systems, new power generation which produces a ton of power, all latched onto a very fast and capable ship that can accept ****ing rail guns.

Its all brand new stuff, so its very very expensive to get it going. The Zumwalt will be a testbed for the next generation of everything, as was the Enterprise, and the Seawolf Class.
I understand that the Zumwalt is a whole new ballgame. Doesn't excuse the fact it has seen constant delays and cost overruns so much so that it's close to the price tag of a capital ship. Also hence the curiosity of the cost of a modern BB...... Not saying we should start rebuilding BB's. Just curious as how much a modern one would cost. It probably wouldn't need to be as heavily armored as the Iowa's and below due to as you mentioned, there hasn't been a need for ship vs ship combat. It would serve as a naval artillery platform.
__________________
Crimes against US History:
CV-6 USS Enterprise
Yankee Stadium
Penn Station-New York
quagmire is online now   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Current Events

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
T-Mobile Sims 1 Cent - Good for What? Val-kyrie Buying Tips and Advice 3 Jun 8, 2014 07:34 PM
ZooGue 99 Cent Accessories Promo Code KeithLilja iPhone Accessories 1 Dec 5, 2012 03:48 PM
Super fast to super laggy slow to frozen, screen crashing 2012 MBA Highlander- MacBook Air 1 Aug 18, 2012 09:37 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:31 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC