Talk:Zumwalt-class destroyer/Archive 1

message: I don't see anything on that page saying "Wikipedia must make an exception to their naming standards for this specific ship type."  We don't capitalize "guided-missile frigate" or "air-cushion landing craft" or "aircraft carrier".... ➥the Epopt 16:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point. On the other hand, nothing on the page says "Wikipedians should look silly by being the only ones not to capitalize LCS." Perhaps a distinction might be drawn between the Littoral Combat Ship program and its products, the littoral combat ships -- though this would still leave Wikipedia standing alone. Bbpen 17:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming

message: Earlier it was reported here that the name Zumwalt had been struck from the official records as the name for this ship. Did something change? TomStar81 08:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if it's really a change, but see this press release. Jinian 12:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The class name

message: "In April 2006, the DD(X) was cut back two 2 ships, effectively ending the DD(X) program as the Navy's future surface combatant and ending the future of the CG(X)."
Wrong on all parts.
Even the chairman of the House committee wants to see the CG(X) program continue and his move to cut the DD(X) program down to two ships is a long ways from becoming law.
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/state/060505biw.shtml
Rep. Tom Allen, D-Maine, said the House action should make little difference to BIW because the panel still endorsed designing the new ship and the Navy hadn't expected to start construction on the second ship until 2008.
-HJC
:Please feel free to correct the article then. --Falcorian (talk) 06:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DD(X) program not reduced to two ships yet. 

message: ::If I were the enemy and I was asked what would I fear the most, and given the following three options...
::-Air Strike
::-DD(X) Naval Gunfire
::-BB Broadside
::...I would pick the BB Broadside.
::Why? Simple really the strike from a 2700 pound shell at 23 miles is more devastating both physically and psychologically that a comparatively tiny shell fired from a DD(X) Broadside. And because there is really no such thing as close air support now (only from a distance with PGMs), I can really disperse my forces out for survivability purposes and can attack the enemy in strength for a few minutes before withdrawing before your airplanes finally arrive in the area. Geez ppl think technology is everything these days. The serbs, Iraqis and the Al Qaeda / Taliban in Afghanistan have proved repeatedly that Shock and Awe is BS. At Best Shock and Awe is basically reinventing the wheel, at worst it is expensive window dressing intended to deceive ppl to think that wars can really be surgical and swift. It's all BS! All of it!
:Tomcat200 10 June 2006
:::Not seeing the point.  The thing that you (and all of the battleship-booster crowd) fail to get is that the battleships are not in the fleet now, and yet American troops have made countless successful amphibious invasions in the decade and a half since the last BB left service - including an amphibious invasion of a totally landlocked country (Afghanistan)!  The raison d'etre of a battleship is to fight another battleship - and there are no battleships left to fight.  The bombardment role can be and is very ably filled by other classes of ship.  Can it be done better than it's done now?  Certainly.  But to say that only battleships can adequately perform shore bombardment is nostalgic BS at its finest. 
:::Iceberg3k 14:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Iowa class battleships are rather vulnerable to underwater explosives; their torpedo protection was never the equal of their protection against gunfire (nor did it ever truly match up to the standard set by the best foreign warships).  Are you, perhaps, not aware that it took several weeks in 1991 for minesweepers to clear out a couple of grid squares for Wisconsin and Missouri to operate in off of the coast of Iraq, while during that time it was the 5"-armed cruisers and destroyers and 3"-armed FFGs which provided shore fires.  Third, Zumwalt is a hell of a lot closer to being in the fleet than Iowa ever will be again.  Fourth, it's funny you mention adaptability.  The four Iowas had a weapons and electronics fit limited by the shock requirements of the 16" guns in the 1980s - the government would have liked, for example, to fit them with more extensive datalinks and a better AA suite than just four Mk 15 Phalanx, but the shock of firing the big guns kept damaging the equipment.  It'll be worse with the modern electronics needed to operate with the rest of the 2006 fleet, and without those electronics the battleships will be nothing but a pair of white elephants.  Fifth, battleships are built to survive... combat with other battleships.  Which makes them very tough against heavy gunfire, but not so tough against even light missiles.  Even a light missile's warhead is as heavy or heavier than the bursting charge in a 16" shell, and better yet, they start jet- or rocket-fuel fires, which Iowa's firefighting system is ill-equipped to handle.  And imagine a monster like Moskit or Granit - a missile heavier than even a Yamato 18.1" shell, flying in at over twice the speed of sound and packed with more heavy explosives than a hundred battleship shells.  The only way to avoid that one is to shoot it down before it hits, and Phalanx is notoriously bad at hitting high-speed sea skimmers.  The only real answer to that question is a SAM, which can't be mounted on a battleship.  Why would we even think about using battleships as a stores ship?  We have real stores ships that don't need the stores they would be offloading to another vessel in order to fight.  The debate is NOT between battleships and destroyers, and never has been.  The debate involving battleships was with the aircraft carrier, and battleships lost that debate, 65 years ago on the 7th of December.  Incidentally, there's a reason we've never fought an amphibious invasion against a built-up beachhead since World War II, and that reason is the helicopter.   And as a parting shot, try as a mental exercise to figure out exactly where the Navy is going to get 3,000 sailors, many of whom would end up filling billets that haven't been used since the end of the Cold War, who are going to be willing to sabotage their careers by spending a cruise or longer learning systems that are over six decades old and are not shared by any other vessel in the fleet.  If your answer starts with or involves the words "aircraft carrier," keep dreaming. :::Iceberg3k 12:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no interest in getting invloved in this arguement/debate/discussion, however I will remind both side that there are to be no personal attacks her on wikipedia, and that voilation of this policy could result in a temporary edit block. TomStar81 08:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have rectified my posts. You will hear nothing from me. It does not change my position in that Battleships are tougher, adaptable and exist today, because they are all that. The views promoted by a certain poster are just a play on words and facts that do not pan out when studied more closely. Accusations of nostalgia on the part of supporters for the battleships is quite clearly unfounded. I apologise to the offended parties who thought my posts were outrageous and aggressive in content, however I still stand behind my truthful, factual comments relating to the stupidity of acquiring 2 expensive destroyers (with suspect technology) to replace 2 battleships that have been proven in action and that exist today. My view is that these two destroyers are not as survivable and are too expensive for the capabilities that they will give to the fleet. Furthermore the technologies that have been projected for the DD(X)'s either have not worked to a satisfactory standard, have not worked at all, and all fall short of requirements needed to conduct Naval Surface Fire Support. The Hulls themselves are not survivable enough for the ships to keep fighting once damaged, and the ammunition (artillery and missiles) that these ships contain, while good for set-piece precision land attack missions, cannot provide the volume of fire needed either in a more dynamic situation or against an enemy that might not only be dynamic in thinking but will actually stand up and fight. Because we have not really seen either, especially in an littoral environment as of late, it does not mean it will not happen. My opinion is that eventually it will. We are so in love with new technology that we forget the axiom that "If it aint broke don't fix it". We have to get out of the habit of thinking that new is best and old is less, that all that glitters is gold. The reason why the U.S. Navy has no viable NSFS capability is because it retired the battleships, pure and simple. It is plainly obvious that Battleships will never surpass the aircraft carrier as the primary capital ships, yet the Navy is so paraniod in that it regards the BB's as a threat to their aircraft carrier programs that they sort to terminate the BB program once and for all and go for cheaper less capable platforms that will not take the spotlight away from Naval Aviation and the PGM Mafia. They use excuses such as big billets, old technology, lack of capability to manufacture parts and machinery and main gun ammunition, and other far-fetched reasons to highlight the supposed obsolescence of the battleship. The only thing that is obsolete is the use of the battleship as the primary surface combatant, however as history shows the battleships have proven to be able to adapt to other roles to suit their unique cpabilities and characteristics, conducting missions far and beyond the capability of other fleet components. Battleships are still a symbol of might and power because of their imposing size, massive firepower and survivability, and doubtless the Navy has exploited this psychological aspect of these type of ships, especially during the 1980's. You will not get the same result from a destroyer, or even funnily enough, from a flat top. As we all know the battleship has also successfully conducted deep precision strike through the use of its Tomahawk missiles, in addition to naval bombardment missions to which it had no equal, relieving other naval aviation assets of attacking highly defended targets that would have likely incurred severe losses. They also have routinely refueled their escorts at sea and as I understand it, also have a limited ship repair capability. So in closing I will say this. Retiring the Battleships was a mistake. Relying on PGM's and naval light artillery to support an amphibious "door-kicking" operation is a bigger mistake and an expensive one. And building two new destroyers imbued with suspect, expensive technology, to fulfill the NSFS mission will deny our commanders the capability of force-entry from the sea against determined opposition, in effect denying decision makers options that may just shorten any new wars that we are unlucky to get ourselves into, and that is not acceptable.Tomcat200 10:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have edited out last post by Iceberg. We were asked to end this. Why do you want to keep going?Tomcat200 12:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All the armor will only aid the power of a torpedo - modern designs create a cavity of gas under the ship's keel, collapsing it under its own weight. The use of "shock and awe" is overrated and studies of WWII landing sites (the shining moment for NGFS, so its supporters claim), showed that other than creating cover in the form of craters, NGFS really didn't do much as far as destroying or "putting terror" into defenders in well-constructed barricades - for the simple reason that it was next to impossible to hit them and only a direct hit could take out a concrete emplacement. Modern PGM's are fully capable of destroying anything we see (in fact, so well that the trend is to smaller warheads). Moreover, the accuracy of the 16" guns, while great by 1945 standards, sucks. I recall seeing a target plot superimposed on a scale drawing of the pentagon, if anyone can find that picture. There are few instances today where such wanton and unprecise destruction would be warranted. Your love of the "psychological aspect" illustrates your emotional bias; anyone not still stuck in the 1950's would realize that they pose little threat relative to modern munitions and platforms. --Mmx1 21:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Have edited out last post by Tomcat200. You were asked to end this. Why do you want to keep going? BigNate37 04:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tangent relative to answering Antelope's original issue & the Goofiness that ensued

message: It seems to me the defence industry is making a killing, being handed contracts which seem to last years for products that in the end don't seem to work at all, don't work as advertised, and or are just too plain expensive.
The U.S. has atleast 14000 16 inch shells in storage today, that is a fact! 
To date almost all the technologies related in the replacement for the Battleships have proven to be expensive and disappointing to say the least, and that is after many years and billions of dollars in taxpayers money spent on Research & Development. I believe these companies are leaching off the taxpayers to keep making loads of dough, and are getting away with it. 
I believe that there should be stiff penalties both legal and financial against defence contractors and subcontractors for not living up to their end of the bargain in providing weapons and equipment that work to specifications and requirements laid down by the customer.
These companies are rorting the system, and put many more lives at risk for profit. This is not acceptable.
Tomcat200 10 june 2006
: I would believe that. I personally think that it would not matter if the USN supported the DDX or the reactivation of the Iowa’s as long as whoever was doing the modernization and armament work got paid their millions at the end of the day. Thats my two cents on the matter. Furthermore, if Constitution can be maintained in the active fleet well past the time she was built to fight in why can't the Iowa’s? TomStar81 03:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats true, and I do understand that. The point is more along the lines that the Navy does maintain a sailing frigate with cannons in an age when nuclear powered aircraft carriers and stealth aircraft and guide munitions are the norm. It is well settled that Constitution will never sail into harms away again (unless the crew has a death wish), yet the ship is still on active duty. The vessel HMS Victory is in a similar vain, permently comissioned but also permently drydocked. It just seems a shame to remove the Iowas. Admittedly, the four battlewagons are somewhat poorly suited to steam back into battle, but I think it reckless of the navy not to consider a ship of similar size and characteristics for use in a shore bombardment role. For example: if the US was to build the Montana class today the could design the ship with massive guns (perhaps even the Advanced Gun Mounts set to go one the DD(X) ships), VLS cells, a phased radar array, a nuclear reactor, and so forth. I guess what it boils down to is a polarization of battleships in favor a something so new as to litterally be non existant. TomStar81 22:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DD(X)Just another item on the long list of defence industry profiteering 

message: I don't know why someone put the tag there, so I'm going to ask here. 68.39.174.238 01:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you were going to move the page it should have been to "Zumwalt class destroyer" and not DDG 1000, as that is the hull number for the ship USS Zumwalt. Furthermore, I feel that the removal of the Controversy section violates NPOV policy. Simply because the contract has been awarded does not mean that the controversy is gone. TomStar81 19:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is certainly controversey, but there isn't that controversy. The Zumwalt class is not ment to perform the mission of battleships, and the Iowa class will still stay retired even if no Zumwalt class ship is ever built.  The article is far more fitting of an encyclopedia now that that section is gone. Spejic 03:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, you win. I give up. I do not know if I even care anymore... TomStar81 07:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction tag... and possible contradiction 

message: * DDG-1000 → Zumwalt class destroyer … Rationale: To conform to other ship class articles. —Falcorian (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support as per the nom. TomStar81 19:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments
*************
I moved it from DD(X) to DDG-1000 this morning. Regarding the requested move from DDG-1000 to Zumwalt class destroyer, I have no objection, either is fine with me, just don't call it DD(X) anymore. Regarding my removal of the controversy section, it sounded like contradictory and confusing information, obviously outdated since the contract is now a done deal. At best, some of it might be usable as anecdotal historical information. You may be right, there may still be controversy, but the controversy discussion that I removed was old and OBE. If someone cares to ammend the article with controversy of a current nature (ie. so-and-so should not have won the xyz part of the contract, or whatever), they can certainly do so.
*****************
Article was moved on July 4 by User:Ixfd64. --Falcorian (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support as per the nom. TomStar81 19:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Add any additional comments
*************
I moved it from DD(X) to DDG-1000 this morning. Regarding the requested move from DDG-1000 to Zumwalt class destroyer, I have no objection, either is fine with me, just don't call it DD(X) anymore. Regarding my removal of the controversy section, it sounded like contradictory and confusing information, obviously outdated since the contract is now a done deal. At best, some of it might be usable as anecdotal historical information. You may be right, there may still be controversy, but the controversy discussion that I removed was old and OBE. If someone cares to ammend the article with controversy of a current nature (ie. so-and-so should not have won the xyz part of the contract, or whatever), they can certainly do so.
*****************
Article was moved on July 4 by User:Ixfd64. --Falcorian (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: This section has been heavily framed by the pro-battleship side, and is pretty much entirely useless as a discussion of the ship itself (I don't even see why this is an issue, the battleships are not going to be brought back for such a limited role as shore bombardment - their primary roles as main sea combatants and implements of power projection have been entirely taken over by the carrier fleet). I'm really strongly tempted to delete the entire section unless it is rewritten from a neutral point of view, and unless the pro-battleshippers agree to stop vandalizing it. Iceberg3k 13:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Checked it. However, now it has some counter-battleship biased statements. I'd suggest to remove the, actually, nonsense about the gun that takes out the command post and replaces bombardment. This is job of guided missiles, stealth aircraft, precision munitions, SEALs, but not of artillery. Also, the new section about the long run is not fully correct, since costs rise simply due to inflation and ships have limited service time, therefore it is always more cost-efficient to build something later; also, the design work is not yet done, and updating design is optional and increases capabilities. The part about mothballing is correct. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's gotten worse, not better. The entire section basically reads as a pro-battleship diatribe at this point, puffing up the supposed superiority of battleships to the point of mythology. Do you seriously think an article on Wikipedia is going to affect national policy? I'm not going to get bogged down in a revert war about this article. If somebody wants to fill it with made-up facts, they're free to do so at this point, I am washing my hands of the whole thing. Iceberg3k 14:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some things which are just poorly formatted, in form of responding to the arguments. It's basically hard to compare 9x16" against 2x6.1" batteries, and hard to argue that one set is in a different weight category than another, and actually almost two orders of magnitude apart. Of course, one of them is more modern, but comparing them point-by-point without the general image could be like this joke comparison of battleships. What is lost when diving into this comparison is the fact that Zumwalt class is a guided missile platform in the first place, not an artillery one, and their main armanent consists of 80 guided missiles. It's likely that a better way would be to trim less relevant of the argument-counter-argument chains and rather focus on cleaner facts and the big picture. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 15:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody keeps making up the same incorrect fact about the Iowa TDS (steel at the waterline is irrelevant to torpedo defense, as torpedoes hit underwater). Iowa TDS was directly derived from the South Dakota TDS, which was known to be deficient. An improved TDS, based on better foreign designs, was to be installed on Illinois and Kentucky, but neither ship was ever completed. I've never read any naval historian who rated the Iowas as any better than average in underwater protection. Iceberg3k 15:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DD(X) vs. Battleships debate section 

message: This section is completely incoherent, frequently repeating itself and apparently featuring several orphan paragraphs that no longer make sense. Please make some sense out of the mess before replacing it in the article. Dan100 (Talk) 11:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still a lot of bad grammar in the article in these sections too. GraemeLeggett 16:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sort this out 

message: Littoral Combat Ship is capitalized; see . Bbpen 15:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization of Littoral Combat Ship

message: The article claims, that The second ship of the Zumwalt destroyer class will be named Jeremy Boorda. Is there any source for this? I could not find anything to support it. --Gunter.krebs 20:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of DDG-1001

message: Older sections on the talk page have been moved into an archive section and can be accessed by the link in the archive box. Tirronan 21:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: While I agree with the change I would prefer that at least some notice be put here rather than deciding this proforma. Tirronan 18:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oliver Hazard Perry Class

message: Is that nose designed for ramming? I can't see any more use for it. It is established fact that "clipper nose" is best for heavy waves, e.g. german's vertical nose Bismarck, Gneisenau battleships were retrofitted with styled nose for North Sea campaigns and that worked well. 82.131.210.162 07:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Salamis or Lissa?

message: The nose is designed for RADAR, not ramming.  No matter how the ship is tossed in the waves the hull will deflect radar waves up rather than back to the hostile ship.  It's a stealth design feature like the B-2 bomber.
The true follow up class for the DDG 51 is the DDG(X), but that might be counted as the follow up to the DD(X) / DDG 1000 class.
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32109.pdf
Note also that the USN is being forced to extend the lifespan of the DDG 51s to make up for the limited DDG 1000 purchase.
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/02/navy_DDGlife_080211w/
Finally the ERGM is no more so there is no long range NGFS option without the DDG-1000.
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/03/defense_ergm_032408/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcobb (talk • contribs) 18:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon reading it there isn't any call out of a difference between EGRM 5" and 6.1" which rather makes the whole program rather redundent. Tirronan (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Follow on

message: "In April 2006, the first of the class was announced and will be named the Zumwalt and carry the designator DDG-1000. The ship will be named to honor the former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Elmo R. “Bud” Zumwalt Jr. So doing, the Navy will eschew the guided missile destroyer sequence begun with DDG-1 Gyatt and continue in the previous "gun destroyer" sequence left off with DD-997 Hayler."
The ship is DDG-1000. How is it continung the sequence of "gun destroyers" that left off with DD-997? 70.106.36.134 01:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DD or DDG?

message: According to this article, there is a difference between the DDG-1000 program and the DD(X) program:
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,125017,00.html
-----
DD(X) was one proposed design and DDG-1000 is the current lead ship under construction.
We should use the DD(X) term only in the past tense for that design and use DDG-1000 for the present and future of the actual ship class please.
Is it okay for me to do a cleanup that replaces DD(X) with DDG-1000 where needed?
Hcobb (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Difference between DDG-1000 and DD(X)?

message: Roughly half of this article, by page length, is taken up by a comparison of the relative merits of the Zumwalts vs. Iowa class BB's in  naval fire support roles.  Obviously someone cares a great deal about this matter, but I argue that the entire discussion totally out of place here. Before one can address this argument at all he must also address:
-The significance of the NFS mission to the overall DDG-1000 project.
-The capabilities of DDG-1000 vs. the real needs for NFS in moden warfare.
-The likelihood of battleships returning largely for NFS.
-Whether or not money spent on DDG-1000 would take away from the return of battleships.
Only the first two questions are truly relevant to a brief summary of the DDG-1000 program, and only marginally so, considering that NFS is only one of many missions that the Zumwalts are slated to perform.  Even if one ignores the absurdity of the second two questions and the subsequent comparison of Iowas vs. Zumwalts, they take the debate well outside the scope of a brief summary of DDG-1000.
Other questions and controveries that would be more relevant (and make this article a bit more mature) would include:
-The viability and merits of the "tumblehome" hull shape.
-The large cost of DDG-1000 destroyers as compared to the ships they are to replace.
-What mission roles are most important for a medium sized combat vessel.
-Whether money spent on DDG-1000 would be better spent on things like CG(X), LCS's, modernizing existing ship classes, or something else entirely unrelated to destroyer-style ships.
-Any number of questions that don't take up a dozen paragraphs rambling on about antiquated battleships in a proposed destroyer article!
''
I would suggest that most, if not all of the discussion about the Zumwalt's NFS capabilites vs. those of the Iowas be removed from the article entirely, and that discussion of NFS in general be limited unless more space is spent discussing other, more significant, aspects of DDG-1000.
 
NoClass 23:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll second that call, I do not understand why so much of this article is about BB vs DDX.  The BB's are all stricken and the Navy has spoken on this.  No article is going to bring back the beloved BB's and it has no place in a destroyer article in any case.  I would suggest that it be moved to the NGS page or create one if it doesn't exist.  This needs to be about the DD 1000 project and its ramifications not about BB's.  I am an ex-US Navy type myself and I love the old Iowas but they are relics now and pierside is where they will remain.  Gentlemen remove the arguements on the main page. Tirronan 15:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we punt this to the Naval gunfire support page with a short reference so that that page looks into the future as well as the past?  (Just so long as that page keeps the focus on the USN and ignores all other navies of the past, present and future of course.) Hcobb (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently any ship that purports to have anything to do with NGFS will have this inserted by those in the "Bring the BB back" group.  We would need a page set up with the US Navy NGFS situation to bring this to the proper place. Don't get me wrong there is so much about this ship that is screwed up as well as revolutionary it doesn't deserve to see the light of day but without the EGRM munition this whole project needs to be and will be dropped.  As such wasting anymore time or effort on this page is a bit of a loss. Tirronan (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to direct your attention to United States Naval Gunfire Support debate‎, it may be appropriate. bahamut0013♠♣  17:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is there a comparison between DDG-1000 and BB's here at all?

message: Is the 14,564 ton figure for light, standard, or full load displacement? 71.203.209.0 (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Displacement