Creston wrote on Nov 10, 2016, 18:03:
Rigs wrote on Nov 10, 2016, 14:10:
Whoa, whoa, whoa...I know the F-35 was a money sink (err, blackhole?) but what was wrong with the Zumwalt destroyers? That's a new one for me, I was under the impression the R+D for it was actually underbudget. Was I hallucinating? (which, given the last couple weeks, is definitely a possibility )
Oh, let's see:
They have a cannon which costs $800,000 to fire which they can't afford.
Experts feel it has a good chance of just flipping over if the right wave hits it.
They cost four BILLION dollars per fucking ship.
It can't really defend itself from missile attacks. (in fact, I've seen articles say that it basically has NO air defenses at all, and thus can only function as part of a battlegroup along with several MUCH cheaper Arleigh Burke class destroyers. You know, the thing it was supposed to replace.)
In short, it's a typical military fucking boondoggle. Just throw more and more and more and more and more and more fucking money against it. Meanwhile, our entire road infrastructure is collapsing and the majority of it will be undriveable by 2045 because there is no money to spend on it, all of America is bankrupted by the cost of healthcare and we have no single dime to spend on teachers, so class sizes now routinely surpass 35 or even 40 children per class.
But yeah, let's give the fucking military EVEN MORE MONEY.
Yeah, but a lot of that wasn't during the R&D phase of the program...not that it really matters, money is money regardless of what 'phase' the project is in. I totally agree with you, though, I just wasn't that much aware that the destroyers were in the same boat as the F-35's. I haven't had much chance to keep track of the history, I'll have to do some reading this weekend on it and get up to speed. Blagodaryu and Dasvidaniya, Comrade Creston!
=-Rigs-=This comment was edited on Nov 10, 2016, 18:48.