In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...


Destroyers are meant for support of capitol ships and ASW.
Why call the Zumwalt a destroyer? It's not under previous and long held
definitions. Apparently they just "did it."
Pretty stupid calling a cruiser a destroyer.

It is just a name.


No. It's stupid. Not that I give a flying ****.
Apparently, others have noticed the inanity of it.
http://www.militaryaerospace.com/art...alt-destroyer-
blog.html

Good pics he
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...712-Bath-Iron-
Works-Lays-Keel-of-First-DDG-1000-Zumwalt/page23

Butt ugly from any angle.
And I think the Navy called it a "Destroyer" for one reason.
It sounds cheaper to build than "Cruiser."
And it worked.

On 4/21/2014 6:44 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...


Destroyers are meant for support of capitol ships and ASW.
Why call the Zumwalt a destroyer? It's not under previous and long held
definitions. Apparently they just "did it."
Pretty stupid calling a cruiser a destroyer.

It is just a name.


No. It's stupid. Not that I give a flying ****.
Apparently, others have noticed the inanity of it.
http://www.militaryaerospace.com/art...alt-destroyer-
blog.html

Good pics he
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...712-Bath-Iron-
Works-Lays-Keel-of-First-DDG-1000-Zumwalt/page23

Butt ugly from any angle.
And I think the Navy called it a "Destroyer" for one reason.
It sounds cheaper to build than "Cruiser."
And it worked.



Luddite.