This ship will be in production because there will be tensions in the Pacific. You will see the first batch go to the 7th fleet and China will be in for a big surprise. Late in this decade or early 2020's is when high tension of war will plague the region.
The AGS on the Zumwalt is built by US and British defense firms, the all ELECTRIC DRIVE is not pioneered by the Zumwalt rather the UK's Daring class AAW destroyer.
Too bad DoD cut off funding to the ddx (now known as DDG 1000). These will not make it to the fleet anymore. LOL @ 300 fewer then current DDG's thats not possible, current DDG's already only have a crew of around 280 lol.
@andrewm153351 the DDX is actualy only 60 feet longer then an Burke class destroyer but the DDX will only have a crew of 99 sailors. Well, if DoD wouldnt have cut off funding to the program. We wont even see 1 of these in the fleet now, :(
Gentlemen, it was said that the US, couldn't go to the moon !!!! Well ?!!! If this ship, and its systems become a reality, it shall mean in naval warfare " CHECKMATE " the USN can, and will see you, well before you leave the pier, not only that, but shall choose the place, and the time of the sea-battle, along with where your going to sink !!!! " GAME OVER " Damn railgun !!! Sweet Jesus !!!!!!
"Smaller warships" DDG 1000 is huge, at 14500 tonnes its nearly a battleship.
"The smaller its radar signature, the tougher it is for remote seeking mines and torpedoes to find it" These weapons dont use radar to track their targets.
"Free energy laser weapons" you mean Free Electron laser weapons.
"These are railguns" No those are coilguns, similar but not the same as railguns (he continues to describe coilguns)
Actually it is a railgun, not a coilgun that the USN is planning to develop and deploy on of warships of the future. The commentator is describing a railgun. Coilguns run an electric current through a series of coils positioned on the outside of the gun barrel to generate a sequence of electromagnetic forces to propel the projectile. Railguns utilize rails and the projectile to create an electric current throughout the barrel. The resulting electromagnetic force then drives the projectile.
I agree. The way the navy is thinking these days is that the enemy wont ever see us, let alone hit us. I thought we learned our lesson from the USS Cole.
The odds of a liht raft sneaking up on this ship is very un likley..Thi ship isnt designed for close up engagemets or near lnd operations..We have another ship being built..This is a ship that does its fighting at sea..Though only 3 of them will be built do to budget cuts
"The odds of a liht raft sneaking up on this ship is very un likley"
Raft? I wasn't meaning sneaking up near it with raft. Things like sea mines and anti-ship missiles do exist. If this ship looses all it's power and small crew needs to control ship and do damage control same time...
Well offcourse if the ship looses its power its in a wold of trouble...And Sea mines are typically located in semi shallow waters which isnt were this ship operates really.. But I will agree that anti-ship missile' can be a problem..But if the ship has lasers and/or rail guns...Any anti-ship missile thats properley detected can be blown up..Not sure wat kinda radar this ship is using
There isn't one, we just need to maintain our technological advantage. Other countries are developing crafts similar and even better then the A.B, so we must move on as well.
This ship isnt replacing the burke class which are considered a destroyer class anyway..The burke class though are great ships..The only thing wrng with the burke class is its design is a lil outdated..Besides only 3 of these ships will be built..Not nearly enough to replace th 20+ burke class ships
I was talking about CIWS in particular. It's not intended to be used against aircraft, mostly missiles. Even then it's still the, as I've said before, the 'Oh Shit!' defense.
Trust me, I used to be on an Arleigh Burke destroyer.
Zumwalt destroyers are going to serve as a test platform. The advanced gun system is going to be critical for future U.S. conflicts. Tomahawks are often to expensive for modern targets(training camps, terrorist meetings, etc) The accuracy of the advanced gun system and range should be usable against a wide array of littoral targets, saving Tomahawks for far away inland targets. The next U.S. destroyers to be mass produced will most certainly include this gun and be more automated reducing cost.
Battleships can just change their ordnance to focus more on anti-aircraft ability, just like the cruisers, destroyers, frigates and any other smaller vessels. The fact remains, a larger warship can carry more than a smaller one, all you need it to twist the facts until it sounds good and everyone will jump on it. The tumblehome design is unstable and likely to be discontinued. We already know the class is being downsized before even the first ship is finished. Possibly even cancelled.
The class will be limited to 3 ships, due to the $4 billion price tag. The Navy has opted to build more Burkes and refurbing their existing destroyer and cruiser fleet.
The DDG-1000s will serve mainly as a framework for future ship designs, by testing advanced ship automation and rail gun applications once the technology has matured.
Neither do. The UK is not part of the program in any way and will not be a customer, as they have their own indigenous shipbuildig industry. The US has yet to build them.
80% of the Earth's population live near large bodies of water and are concentrated around the oceans.
90% of trade is done via aquatic transportation.
The navy is extremely important. Not the mention, they navy protects trade routes, and likewise, the economy. And with China's growing navy and military overall, an increase in our navy's power is more than reasonable.
You couldn't be more wrong. History has shown battleships are not effective (abilities/efficiency v cost). That is why the navy no longer uses them. If they were so much better, the navy would be developing battleships. However, they are not. Destroyers and cruisers are more effective, thus, the growing development in there areas (the DDG destroyer and the CGX cruiser).
the navy wont use them for the reason the Era of these monster is over aircraft rape them i know that but this thing is going to cost 6x more then 1 battleship and it wont even have Rail guns the gulf war proved these things still have a role not has a main weapon tho
How did they prove anything during the Gulf War other than how vulnerable they are? Sure, their guns was a nice bonus, but did they really ad anything? The reason they were reactivated was because, in the days before the invention of the VLS, they were the cheapest way to get a lot of Tomahawks and Harpoons to sea, not because they had big guns.
2 ships alone had more cover over the gulf then any other ship apart from the aircraft carriers which again need to be protected and 1 battleship did do that better then 5 DD's and what did they ad they smashed Tragets at a cheaper cost then using a Tomahawk and yes they did fire thenm to. make sure you know that i know battleships Glory days a long gone but 2 ships alone can do the job of 4-5 DD's and could use the DD's in other needed places
What history has shown is that you cannot fight future wars assuming they will be the same as the last.
Assuming air superiority will save the day in the next war is the same mistake as people made thinking Battleships would save the day in WW2. AAW has advanced so much with the development of the guided missile and CIWS that an airborne attack on a modern fleet likely accepts an unreasonably high casualty rate with little chance of success.
Excuse me, but CIWS is an intercept system. It's the 'Oh shit!' line of defense. The Block 1B models can be additionally used against small boats.
On Ticonderoga class Cruisers and Arleigh Burke class Destroyers the primary anti-air weapon is the SM-2, either the Blk III or the Blk IV. The Mk 45 five inch/54 caliber gun is the secondary weapon, blanketing an area with VT rounds. The last line, the aforementioned 'OH SHIT!' line, is the Phalanx CIWS.
this thing i a fucken joke waste of money in fact the whole navy is joke these days i would have joined say 1914-1980 back then the navy WAS something
Yeah, I mean that aegis class system on our destroyers/cruisers/aicraft carriers is so funny....
This thing is not a"joke" it has more powerfull sensors then our current destroyers, the radar sig of a rowboat, aswell as the capability of accepting a ton of new tech to its hull.
The only thing I dont like about it is the fact that it isnt going to have a fission engine.
It is actually a composite hull, and what is this laser weapon thing? There are NO railguns on the DD(X); trust me, I have read all the congress reports and website details. Besides it won't have the power to use a railguns if one was developed because it is too small for a nuclear reactor, it is a gas diesel engine.
Marine desire to reactivate the Iowa and Wisconsin runs counter to the DD(X) destroyer of the future. It will not be ready before 2015, costing between $4.7 billion and $7 billion. Keeping the battleships in reserve costs only $250,000 a year, with reactivation estimated at $500 million (taking six months to a year) and full modernization more than $1.5 billion (less than two years).
because back then, they don't have the technology to overcome the challenges of a tumblehome design, and because back then, they didn't even know what stealth was. This program is a failed project, I agree, but please give credit where it is due. Thinking that decades old experiences of a hundred genius minds don't know such basic idea about what they doing is just stupid in itself.
Yeah, you'd THINK that way, but here we are, looking at their project, and we see that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the design solutions those idiots came up with is a complete failure!
They failed to meet even a single of of the initial project requirements!
And it's not like they HAD to come up with new ideas - they had everything right in front of them - just go ahead and use the old, tested solutions!
But nooo!
They think that just because their solution is innovative, it's better by default!
And where did you get this information from that they failed on every single solutions they came up with for the design? Or you just totally made that up to cover up your own stupidity? Here's a thing, innovative designs have to go through several departments within the pentagon and congress that would judge to see if such innovative ideas are feasible, and at what cost. So NO, they don't just go "hey, it's innovative, let's just do it!" The only idiot here is you.
Yet they somehow managed to bring all of their broken ideas into the final design.
How do you explain that in the FINAL design stage, the ship has the shitty tumblehome hull, it's sensor mast is a spectacular failure, it's missile silos are located in the worst place imaginable, the railgun project was an IMPOSSIBLE concept from day one!
How do you explain the fact that despite what you say, they STILL somehow managed to carry out all of those disastrous concepts in the resulting design?
And again, where did you get these informations from? I'm sorry, but you seem to be too stupid to realize the basic concept that an arguement has any weight only it can present proven facts? Show me the reliable sources that prove what you said is true and not just BS you popped out from your own arse. I've already asked you this in my earlier post, yet you failed to do so, either because you were too stupid to understand or you can't because they were just craps you pulled out from your own ass
My knowledge of those facts come from my, admittedly humble, knowledge of maritime construction principals.
I CAN prove my previous statements, or at least provide profound explanation to the part for which no direct sources exist.
The problem, however, is that you came here, with precisely ZERO understanding of the issue at hand, and started loud-mouthing me and my assertions, screaming that I somehow OWE you an explanation!
So I WILL provide my evidence, but only when, and IF, I damn right feel like it, kid, and sure as HELL not until you start behaving yourself, and start acting like someone who wants to learn something, as opposed to your current behavior of a trash-talking, loud-mouthed brat who thinks he knows everything, better than everybody else.
Are you so completely pitiful and helpless!? When you decide to talk intellectually (remember the lesson I taught you earlier about the weight of logic and evidence in an argument?), come back! Right now, it's just a bunch of mindless words arguing for the sake of arguing and has no weight because your pride is hurt. I don't demand crap from you. It's your call, but people whose claims are devoid evidence are viewed as pitiful fools in an intellectual society.
Kid, I was debating people back when your mommy was still wiping your ass, so your assumption that you can teach me something about debating is arrogant in the extreme.
Right now the situation is like this - I KNOW what I'm talking about, you, very simply, DO NOT.
If you want me to educate you on the topic at hand, you better stop acting like I owe you an explanation and start behaving yourself.
Until you can meet those two requirements, you have no business bothering me any further.
The more you talk, the more you showed your ignorance in which you lack the ability to understand other. I already said you don't OWE me any explanation. I don't give a damn. You're just a nobody from internet who so stupid to not even understand the concept of a discussion. Right now, you just being extremely amateur arguing for the sake of arguing. You're at least 20 years of age already, grow up and stop embarrassing yourself!
I taught you, that's history. Just look at the previous posts. You showed your ignorance in the concept of an argument by asking me to prove the solution for a tumblehome, in which I laughed and explained that such a question is illogical and stupid. I don't know who you are, the only thing I know about you is that you lack the least intelligence to think logically, amateur enough to argue just to win despite the obvious. Why the hell should I humble myself to you?
"How do you explain the fact that despite what you say, they STILL somehow managed to carry out all of those disastrous concepts in the resulting design?"
Argue with your own words, mate!
And no, you CAN call a scientist "idiot" as long as you can back your claims up, especially when you are a nobody. You owe me nothing, but remember what i say? Claims without evidence is only for fools in an intellectual society. It's your call whether to look like a fool or not.
And to quote myself:" don't have to present anything. I'm not the engineer who's working on the project here. It's you who failed to see that because an outsider like me can't present the sensitive technologies to overcome these challenges, doesn't mean it can't. It's the same as saying that I'm not an airplane engineer, so since I can't present how a 100 tons airplane can lift off the ground, it must mean the whole idea of airplanes are bullshit."
It's you who challenged Common Sense and logic that hundreds of experienced scientists and engineers must know the basic challenges of the tumblehome. And it's You who CLAIMED that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the design solutions those idiots came up with is a complete failure!" without a single source. The more you argue, the more pathetic and desperate you prove to be.
No, I meant that they should know it by default, and YOU are challenging that logic. That's what I meant. Stop dodging around so to prolong the argument. That's pathetic. And again, where does the source that states that every solutions they came up with are failures? There's nothing here that is not understood, the only one who's retarded enough to not understand is YOU. You can claim this and that, but without sources, they are just thin air. Gosh, is there limit to your stupidity?
Tell me, are you, sincerely, THAT fucking stupid, or are you trying to piss me off?
If they are supposed to know those things BY DEFAULT (like it would be expected from someone in charge of designing a ship), then WHY THE FUCK did they implement that design in their project?
If they KNOW this design is faulty, why have they chosen to use it nonetheless?
And you're talking to ME about logic?
Next time try to actually THINK before you post...
.....damn...either you choose to be ignorant for the sake of arguing itself or you are the stupidest person I've seen. I already said THIS a few posts back, it's called TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENTS, the ability to overcome what we could not before. For example, before, putting an unstable airplane on the sky was suicidal too, but we figured out a way to do it through fly-by-wire tech. I already had said this already. Are you so retarded to even process such a simple idea?
Your point is that just because the developers are scientists, they can't possibly be wrong in any of their decisions, and if they do something stupid, they can rely on those magical "TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENTS" to miraculously save their asses.
That's very cute of you to have such blind faith in the brilliance of those scientists, but the burden of proof is ON YOU to prove that they HAVE somehow overcame the inherited flaws of the tumblehome hull.
Lol, who was it that agreed with me that my thinking was logical by saying "Yeah, you'd THINK that way" and argued that though it's logical to think so, "but here we are, looking at their project, and we see that every single one of the design solutions those idiots came up with is a complete failure!" In which I simply asked for proof of claim. Argue with your own words, mate! The more you try, the more it become apparent of your helplessness in facing the fact that your stupidity.
""but here we are, looking at their project, and we see that every single one of the design solutions those idiots came up with is a complete failure!" In which I simply asked for proof of claim."
Oh, I'd be happy to provide such proof, but not here, and not before you prove YOUR statements, as you made it way before I made mine...
cut the crap! It's obvious that you pulled that "information" out of your own ass. Give it up already! I already explained that it's unreasonable for me to prove SEVERAL times over already. Go back and read on it. I know that you gonna come back with some shit just to win. But seriously, think about it first, then reply. If you're gonna argue, at least pull out some good shit. This is just completely helpless and pathetic.
"It's obvious that you pulled that "information" out of your own ass."
Just because YOU are ignorant doesn't mean EVERYBODY are.
Unlike you, I know EXACTLY what's wrong with that ship.
YOU, however, are just as ignorant as you were a week ago...
Besides, you think that making wild assumptions based solely on your blind faith is perfectly reasonable, while demanding proof for those assumptions is NOT?
I'm pretty sure you know what's wrong with the ships as well as you know every solution they came up with and of course, how each of them failed. And the only reason you are still hesitating to prove me wrong with just a single proof and be done with this prolonging pointless argument with me walking out in shame is certainly not because you are unable to provide the proof lol. I'm pretty sure you can see how pathetic and competely helpless you looking right now, yes?
Lol, as the part about demanding my proof,you totally ignored what I said about you simply agreed with me that my deduction was logical a few posts back. At this point, I'm not as angry as your stupidity as much as I'm pitying you on how you degrade your dignity just to win an argument by using outrageous tricks.
"Lol, as the part about demanding my proof,you totally ignored what I said about you simply agreed with me that my deduction was logical a few posts back."
I've addressed that claim several times already - your deduction might be logical, but facts clearly prove it to be erroneous, so any further speculations on it are void.
And the fact that you still have no clue of what I'm talking about clearly points at your inability to comprehend written text?
Please, try to not dodge around and have a relevant post. Answer me why you are contradicting yourself? And TPI has no shit to do with the solutions they came up with are failing.
Of course TPI has nothing to do with their solutions - TPI is one of their main problems!
And since you are the one claiming they found some magical solution to it, I'm still waiting for you to prove it.
So how's that going?
Oh, BTW, don't forget that I didn't just ask you what TPI is, I also asked you to explain us why is it relevant to the issue at hand, so don't forget about that one...
us? There is more of you? Anyway, I'm pretty sure you still haven't embarrassed me with a source on how ALL their solutions don't work is not because you pulled it out of your arse. lol that you still ignored my question about you contradicting yourself by agreeing with me a few posts back and requested from me no sources simply because it was logical and sensible. Only when I ask for source did you ask the same from me in order to avoid providing the source. haha,completely pitiful and pathetic
By that I meant whoever might read this exchange, now or in the future.
Also, stop the broken-record bullshit, I've already addressed those points of yours, but you keep repeating them over and over as if I didn't say anything.
That's called a logical fallacy BTW, and it's not a way to debate...
And if my memory serves me, you got plenty of work to do - your claims that need to be proven, the task I gave you, your reading comprehension issues..
Also, what is up with you and that "conclusive evidence" stuff?
What, do you REALLY think that for every question in life there would ALWAYS be a single, conclusive source/evidence that will sort out all the inconsistencies?
That's not how LIFE works, kid!
More often than not, you'll face more than one source/opinion regarding your question, often contradicting each other!
What will you do in THAT case? Give up?
Or actually try to imply your own BRAIN to reason things out and find a solution?
Lol, EPIC FAIL! you said you got at least a source, now you don't anymore? Then at least name me the solutions that they're using and how each of them failed, will ya? And stop pretend to be a retard, I'm not asking for a single source that says it all, but that at least give me 1 source, if not several, since I'm pretty sure you got several sources to be able to know all their solutions and how each of them failed. Why keep dodging around so pathetically?
I'm not dodging around, you're the one with the burden of proof on your ass!
Why should I provide any sources if you still haven't provided your own?
Given that you were the first one to make unsupported claims, I don't see why should I...
Oh, and just to be clear with the terms - for the most part, it's not their solutions that failed (for the lack thereof), but their initial, "innovatory" designs.
Indeed, how does one provides solutions for THAT kind of mess is beyond me!
Lol, epic fail, go back and read your own writing:"Yeah, you'd THINK that way, but here we are, looking at their project, and we see that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the design solutions those idiots came up with is a complete failure!" I'm amused and pity you at the same time. And still with the burden of proof on me arguement? Lol, for the 4th time, you still haven't come out straight why you were agreeing with me that my thinking was logical and you simply didn't require any proof from me. Pathetic!
Lesson#2(repeat of lesson#1 in a different way for the mentally retarded): the burden of proof is on the ones who's challenging either common sense/common knowledge. I'm not the one who's challenging the difficulties of the tumblehome designs (common knowledge); the scientists do. They're the ones who need proof of their solution to NAVY analysts. I only draw a logical deduction from that. You, on the other hand, challenging that logic (common sense), so the burden of proof is on YOU.
"They're the ones who need proof of their solution to NAVY analysts."
Nice try cupcake.
However, they're not the ones debating me over here - it's YOU.
Therefore the burden of proof is on YOU to prove YOUR wild assumptions in regards of their achievements.
If you STILL don't understand WHY the burden of proof is on you, I'll tell you - YOU are the one claiming those people somehow managed to defy the laws of physics, so it's expected that you'll be able to prove it...
You already agreed with me that my deduction is logical and is needless of proof by saying "you would think that way." Now, you come back to ask for proof because why? You can't provide any proof for your bullshit so you try to bring it around. If you gonna play dirty tricks, at least don't make it so obvious. The exact reason why I called you helpless and pathetic.
"You already agreed with me that my deduction is logical and is needless of proof by saying "you would think that way." "
It's called SARCASM, idiot - didn't I tell you to work on your reading comprehension?
You'd THINK that they should know such basic things. Since they STILE used that design, it clearly shows that they DO NOT know it.
And since YOU ARE the one claiming that some magic "TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENTS" exist that somehow make that design NOT suck, you will now go ahead and prove it.
...Said the moron who have no clue of what is he talking about.
You can engage in delusional wishful thinking however you want, but it won't cover up the fact that you've entered a debate without knowing jack and shit about the issue at hand.
Nah, this isn't a debate. A debate needs both sides to think logically and intellectually. What is happening here is just me teaching your mentally retarded brain to practice thinking like a human being.
I've already said these things before, yet you seem to either ignored them and then come back with the same shit for the sake of arguing itself, or you're too retarded to understand. There's nothing to understand, what is needed is proof of claim. You claim they failed with every solutions. Now where's the proof for such claim? How the hell did you even imagine that I would humble myself to a retarded person like you? Such simple concept you can't even process after all these explainations.
I don't have to present anything. I'm not the engineer who's working on the project here. It's you who failed to see that because an outsider like me can't present the sensitive technologies to overcome these challenges, then it can't. It's the same as saying that I'm not an airplane engineer, so since I can't present how a 100 tons airplane can lift off the ground, it must mean the whole idea of airplanes are bullshit.
Edit: the part " It's you who failed to see that because an outsider like me can't present the sensitive technologies to overcome these challenges, then it can't." should be "It's you who failed to see that just because an outsider like me can't present the sensitive technologies to overcome these challenges, doesn't mean it can't."
This ship will be in production because there will be tensions in the Pacific. You will see the first batch go to the 7th fleet and China will be in for a big surprise. Late in this decade or early 2020's is when high tension of war will plague the region.
kwazykilla87 1 month ago
What provides the electrical power?
deezynar 9 months ago
The AGS on the Zumwalt is built by US and British defense firms, the all ELECTRIC DRIVE is not pioneered by the Zumwalt rather the UK's Daring class AAW destroyer.
TheCharlie359 1 year ago
This idiot kept saying it was small, the ship is fuckin huge. Like the size of a WWII battle cruiser.
njdevil281 1 year ago
@njdevil281 True, but it is a canoe compared the the CVN carriers that are in service.
Elthenar 9 months ago
Too bad DoD cut off funding to the ddx (now known as DDG 1000). These will not make it to the fleet anymore. LOL @ 300 fewer then current DDG's thats not possible, current DDG's already only have a crew of around 280 lol.
xCobalt05x 1 year ago
so bassicaly dont fuck with ddx USN hoorah
iducatifan 1 year ago
What show is this????
STyx794 1 year ago
how can they POSSIBLY say the ddx(zumwalt) is a "small" destroyer??? its almost TWICE as big as as any other destroyer....
andrewm153351 1 year ago
@andrewm153351 the DDX is actualy only 60 feet longer then an Burke class destroyer but the DDX will only have a crew of 99 sailors. Well, if DoD wouldnt have cut off funding to the program. We wont even see 1 of these in the fleet now, :(
xCobalt05x 1 year ago
Gentlemen, it was said that the US, couldn't go to the moon !!!! Well ?!!! If this ship, and its systems become a reality, it shall mean in naval warfare " CHECKMATE " the USN can, and will see you, well before you leave the pier, not only that, but shall choose the place, and the time of the sea-battle, along with where your going to sink !!!! " GAME OVER " Damn railgun !!! Sweet Jesus !!!!!!
MrJeffreydunson 2 years ago
Comment removed
MokomaSusi 1 year ago
don'trail guns require a tone of capacitors? how small could this thing be?
Sandybags2 2 years ago
stupid narrator, the zumwalt is huge, not smaller than conventional destroyers
NJRocks281 2 years ago 4
*delete 'of'
XzenXzaneXzix 2 years ago
"Smaller warships" DDG 1000 is huge, at 14500 tonnes its nearly a battleship.
"The smaller its radar signature, the tougher it is for remote seeking mines and torpedoes to find it" These weapons dont use radar to track their targets.
"Free energy laser weapons" you mean Free Electron laser weapons.
"These are railguns" No those are coilguns, similar but not the same as railguns (he continues to describe coilguns)
Sack whoever wrote this garbage.
luemas666 2 years ago 17
Actually it is a railgun, not a coilgun that the USN is planning to develop and deploy on of warships of the future. The commentator is describing a railgun. Coilguns run an electric current through a series of coils positioned on the outside of the gun barrel to generate a sequence of electromagnetic forces to propel the projectile. Railguns utilize rails and the projectile to create an electric current throughout the barrel. The resulting electromagnetic force then drives the projectile.
XzenXzaneXzix 2 years ago
@luemas666 1 year ago 5
"DDG 1000 is huge, at 14500 tonnes its nearly a battleship."
An Iowa class Battleship displaced 45,000 tons, so unless you think one third is 'nearly' as large, you are simply wrong.
The AGS on the Zumwalt class is a HUGE improvement over the Burke class guns.
The Zumwalts radar signature will be much smaller than the Burkes and
the Zumwalt is total electric instead of gas turbines which will make it a much quieter platform as well.
Engus1 1 year ago
What about damage control? Small crew might be problem if that thing is it by enemy fire.
MokomaSusi 2 years ago
I agree. The way the navy is thinking these days is that the enemy wont ever see us, let alone hit us. I thought we learned our lesson from the USS Cole.
drbackjack 2 years ago
The odds of a liht raft sneaking up on this ship is very un likley..Thi ship isnt designed for close up engagemets or near lnd operations..We have another ship being built..This is a ship that does its fighting at sea..Though only 3 of them will be built do to budget cuts
JackRABBITslim27 2 years ago
"The odds of a liht raft sneaking up on this ship is very un likley"
Raft? I wasn't meaning sneaking up near it with raft. Things like sea mines and anti-ship missiles do exist. If this ship looses all it's power and small crew needs to control ship and do damage control same time...
MokomaSusi 2 years ago
Well offcourse if the ship looses its power its in a wold of trouble...And Sea mines are typically located in semi shallow waters which isnt were this ship operates really.. But I will agree that anti-ship missile' can be a problem..But if the ship has lasers and/or rail guns...Any anti-ship missile thats properley detected can be blown up..Not sure wat kinda radar this ship is using
JackRABBITslim27 2 years ago
das nix gut!
95predator 2 years ago
I fail to see the problem with the Arleigh Burke...
CaptainAmerica322 2 years ago
There isn't one, we just need to maintain our technological advantage. Other countries are developing crafts similar and even better then the A.B, so we must move on as well.
MrAmerica1995 2 years ago
This ship isnt replacing the burke class which are considered a destroyer class anyway..The burke class though are great ships..The only thing wrng with the burke class is its design is a lil outdated..Besides only 3 of these ships will be built..Not nearly enough to replace th 20+ burke class ships
JackRABBITslim27 2 years ago
I was talking about CIWS in particular. It's not intended to be used against aircraft, mostly missiles. Even then it's still the, as I've said before, the 'Oh Shit!' defense.
Trust me, I used to be on an Arleigh Burke destroyer.
ArsenalSPT 2 years ago
Wow...yeah that was really late, I dont' even remember what I typed "BS" for...
tommytmt 2 years ago
Pretty cool stuff.
civver3 2 years ago
Zumwalt destroyers are going to serve as a test platform. The advanced gun system is going to be critical for future U.S. conflicts. Tomahawks are often to expensive for modern targets(training camps, terrorist meetings, etc) The accuracy of the advanced gun system and range should be usable against a wide array of littoral targets, saving Tomahawks for far away inland targets. The next U.S. destroyers to be mass produced will most certainly include this gun and be more automated reducing cost.
neloza86 2 years ago
navy orderd 1,000
popscoop12 2 years ago
BS....
tommytmt 2 years ago
Battleships can just change their ordnance to focus more on anti-aircraft ability, just like the cruisers, destroyers, frigates and any other smaller vessels. The fact remains, a larger warship can carry more than a smaller one, all you need it to twist the facts until it sounds good and everyone will jump on it. The tumblehome design is unstable and likely to be discontinued. We already know the class is being downsized before even the first ship is finished. Possibly even cancelled.
VT16 2 years ago
The class will be limited to 3 ships, due to the $4 billion price tag. The Navy has opted to build more Burkes and refurbing their existing destroyer and cruiser fleet.
The DDG-1000s will serve mainly as a framework for future ship designs, by testing advanced ship automation and rail gun applications once the technology has matured.
slimpickinz 2 years ago
this ship is fucking awsome, glad the US and the UK have them.
samarigil66 2 years ago
Neither do. The UK is not part of the program in any way and will not be a customer, as they have their own indigenous shipbuildig industry. The US has yet to build them.
slimpickinz 2 years ago
these ships were named after my grandfather elmo...so were gonna be doing honoring these ships later this year!!!
roastermaster 3 years ago
BS...
tommytmt 2 years ago
70% of the Earth is water.
80% of the Earth's population live near large bodies of water and are concentrated around the oceans.
90% of trade is done via aquatic transportation.
The navy is extremely important. Not the mention, they navy protects trade routes, and likewise, the economy. And with China's growing navy and military overall, an increase in our navy's power is more than reasonable.
aa112211 3 years ago
history shows a Battleship can do better
Mrbob200 3 years ago
You couldn't be more wrong. History has shown battleships are not effective (abilities/efficiency v cost). That is why the navy no longer uses them. If they were so much better, the navy would be developing battleships. However, they are not. Destroyers and cruisers are more effective, thus, the growing development in there areas (the DDG destroyer and the CGX cruiser).
aa112211 3 years ago
the navy wont use them for the reason the Era of these monster is over aircraft rape them i know that but this thing is going to cost 6x more then 1 battleship and it wont even have Rail guns the gulf war proved these things still have a role not has a main weapon tho
Mrbob200 3 years ago
How did they prove anything during the Gulf War other than how vulnerable they are? Sure, their guns was a nice bonus, but did they really ad anything? The reason they were reactivated was because, in the days before the invention of the VLS, they were the cheapest way to get a lot of Tomahawks and Harpoons to sea, not because they had big guns.
chrthiel 2 years ago
2 ships alone had more cover over the gulf then any other ship apart from the aircraft carriers which again need to be protected and 1 battleship did do that better then 5 DD's and what did they ad they smashed Tragets at a cheaper cost then using a Tomahawk and yes they did fire thenm to. make sure you know that i know battleships Glory days a long gone but 2 ships alone can do the job of 4-5 DD's and could use the DD's in other needed places
Mrbob200 2 years ago
what history has shown is that battleship are useless; they can easily be defeated by anyone having air superiority
scutumtempli 2 years ago
What history has shown is that you cannot fight future wars assuming they will be the same as the last.
Assuming air superiority will save the day in the next war is the same mistake as people made thinking Battleships would save the day in WW2. AAW has advanced so much with the development of the guided missile and CIWS that an airborne attack on a modern fleet likely accepts an unreasonably high casualty rate with little chance of success.
No1118117 2 years ago
good argument!
scutumtempli 2 years ago
Excuse me, but CIWS is an intercept system. It's the 'Oh shit!' line of defense. The Block 1B models can be additionally used against small boats.
On Ticonderoga class Cruisers and Arleigh Burke class Destroyers the primary anti-air weapon is the SM-2, either the Blk III or the Blk IV. The Mk 45 five inch/54 caliber gun is the secondary weapon, blanketing an area with VT rounds. The last line, the aforementioned 'OH SHIT!' line, is the Phalanx CIWS.
ArsenalSPT 2 years ago
Did you fail reading comprehension or something? I said guided missile and CIWS. Now correct me if I'm wrong but SM-2 is a guided missile is it not?
No1118117 2 years ago
the cost for the 3 they are making ( ONLY MAKING 3) is far to what was expected
Mrbob200 3 years ago
this thing i a fucken joke waste of money in fact the whole navy is joke these days i would have joined say 1914-1980 back then the navy WAS something
Mrbob200 3 years ago
Yeah, I mean that aegis class system on our destroyers/cruisers/aicraft carriers is so funny....
This thing is not a"joke" it has more powerfull sensors then our current destroyers, the radar sig of a rowboat, aswell as the capability of accepting a ton of new tech to its hull.
The only thing I dont like about it is the fact that it isnt going to have a fission engine.
goodby2u2 3 years ago
It is actually a composite hull, and what is this laser weapon thing? There are NO railguns on the DD(X); trust me, I have read all the congress reports and website details. Besides it won't have the power to use a railguns if one was developed because it is too small for a nuclear reactor, it is a gas diesel engine.
aa112211 3 years ago
Marine desire to reactivate the Iowa and Wisconsin runs counter to the DD(X) destroyer of the future. It will not be ready before 2015, costing between $4.7 billion and $7 billion. Keeping the battleships in reserve costs only $250,000 a year, with reactivation estimated at $500 million (taking six months to a year) and full modernization more than $1.5 billion (less than two years).
Mrbob200 3 years ago
I guess you didn't just post THIS particular video on THIS particular day, did you?
Well played, sir, well played ;)
A tumblehome!!
Can you believe those assholes?
This piece of shit design was used in the beginning of the century, and there's a reason no one uses it now!
Zyamaman 3 years ago
because back then, they don't have the technology to overcome the challenges of a tumblehome design, and because back then, they didn't even know what stealth was. This program is a failed project, I agree, but please give credit where it is due. Thinking that decades old experiences of a hundred genius minds don't know such basic idea about what they doing is just stupid in itself.
stealthyf23 3 years ago
Yeah, you'd THINK that way, but here we are, looking at their project, and we see that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the design solutions those idiots came up with is a complete failure!
They failed to meet even a single of of the initial project requirements!
And it's not like they HAD to come up with new ideas - they had everything right in front of them - just go ahead and use the old, tested solutions!
But nooo!
They think that just because their solution is innovative, it's better by default!
Zyamaman 3 years ago
And where did you get this information from that they failed on every single solutions they came up with for the design? Or you just totally made that up to cover up your own stupidity? Here's a thing, innovative designs have to go through several departments within the pentagon and congress that would judge to see if such innovative ideas are feasible, and at what cost. So NO, they don't just go "hey, it's innovative, let's just do it!" The only idiot here is you.
stealthyf23 3 years ago
Yet they somehow managed to bring all of their broken ideas into the final design.
How do you explain that in the FINAL design stage, the ship has the shitty tumblehome hull, it's sensor mast is a spectacular failure, it's missile silos are located in the worst place imaginable, the railgun project was an IMPOSSIBLE concept from day one!
How do you explain the fact that despite what you say, they STILL somehow managed to carry out all of those disastrous concepts in the resulting design?
Zyamaman 3 years ago
And again, where did you get these informations from? I'm sorry, but you seem to be too stupid to realize the basic concept that an arguement has any weight only it can present proven facts? Show me the reliable sources that prove what you said is true and not just BS you popped out from your own arse. I've already asked you this in my earlier post, yet you failed to do so, either because you were too stupid to understand or you can't because they were just craps you pulled out from your own ass
stealthyf23 3 years ago
My knowledge of those facts come from my, admittedly humble, knowledge of maritime construction principals.
I CAN prove my previous statements, or at least provide profound explanation to the part for which no direct sources exist.
The problem, however, is that you came here, with precisely ZERO understanding of the issue at hand, and started loud-mouthing me and my assertions, screaming that I somehow OWE you an explanation!
Zyamaman 3 years ago
So I WILL provide my evidence, but only when, and IF, I damn right feel like it, kid, and sure as HELL not until you start behaving yourself, and start acting like someone who wants to learn something, as opposed to your current behavior of a trash-talking, loud-mouthed brat who thinks he knows everything, better than everybody else.
Zyamaman 3 years ago
Are you so completely pitiful and helpless!? When you decide to talk intellectually (remember the lesson I taught you earlier about the weight of logic and evidence in an argument?), come back! Right now, it's just a bunch of mindless words arguing for the sake of arguing and has no weight because your pride is hurt. I don't demand crap from you. It's your call, but people whose claims are devoid evidence are viewed as pitiful fools in an intellectual society.
stealthyf23 3 years ago
Kid, I was debating people back when your mommy was still wiping your ass, so your assumption that you can teach me something about debating is arrogant in the extreme.
Right now the situation is like this - I KNOW what I'm talking about, you, very simply, DO NOT.
If you want me to educate you on the topic at hand, you better stop acting like I owe you an explanation and start behaving yourself.
Until you can meet those two requirements, you have no business bothering me any further.
Zyamaman 3 years ago
The more you talk, the more you showed your ignorance in which you lack the ability to understand other. I already said you don't OWE me any explanation. I don't give a damn. You're just a nobody from internet who so stupid to not even understand the concept of a discussion. Right now, you just being extremely amateur arguing for the sake of arguing. You're at least 20 years of age already, grow up and stop embarrassing yourself!
stealthyf23 3 years ago
I taught you, that's history. Just look at the previous posts. You showed your ignorance in the concept of an argument by asking me to prove the solution for a tumblehome, in which I laughed and explained that such a question is illogical and stupid. I don't know who you are, the only thing I know about you is that you lack the least intelligence to think logically, amateur enough to argue just to win despite the obvious. Why the hell should I humble myself to you?
stealthyf23 3 years ago
Yes, keep pretending you've somehow proven me wrong in a debate that never took place.
Keep telling that to yourself, maybe it'll somehow hide the fact that you don't know jack and shit about the issue at hand...
Zyamaman 3 years ago
But at least we now know what's your problem - you have some major reading comprehension issues.
Fact is, I've never asked you to prove a goddamn thing to me.
You are the apologistic cretin who thinks that we can't call an idiot "an idiot" solely on the merit that said idiot is scientist.
I challenged that conclusion of yours by pointing that despite being scientists, those people still failed the project.
That's when you started whining about me owning you an explanation.
Learn to read...
Zyamaman 3 years ago
"How do you explain the fact that despite what you say, they STILL somehow managed to carry out all of those disastrous concepts in the resulting design?"
Argue with your own words, mate!
And no, you CAN call a scientist "idiot" as long as you can back your claims up, especially when you are a nobody. You owe me nothing, but remember what i say? Claims without evidence is only for fools in an intellectual society. It's your call whether to look like a fool or not.
stealthyf23 3 years ago
"And no, you CAN call a scientist "idiot" as long as you can back your claims up,"
I'm sorry, you were the one challenging my conclusions about the tumblehome hull on the basis of "they're scientists".
And in that case, YOU need to back up your words, not me, because the tumblehome being a shitty design is COMMON KNOWLEDGE.
If you want to know WHY is it so, or you want explanations about my other claims, PM me - I will not debate with a 500-digit limit.
Tried that, it doesn't work.
Zyamaman 3 years ago
And to quote myself:" don't have to present anything. I'm not the engineer who's working on the project here. It's you who failed to see that because an outsider like me can't present the sensitive technologies to overcome these challenges, doesn't mean it can't. It's the same as saying that I'm not an airplane engineer, so since I can't present how a 100 tons airplane can lift off the ground, it must mean the whole idea of airplanes are bullshit."
stealthyf23 3 years ago
It's you who challenged Common Sense and logic that hundreds of experienced scientists and engineers must know the basic challenges of the tumblehome. And it's You who CLAIMED that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the design solutions those idiots came up with is a complete failure!" without a single source. The more you argue, the more pathetic and desperate you prove to be.
stealthyf23 3 years ago
Oh, so you think that a bunch of scientists designing a warship are NOT supposed to know such things by DEFAULT?
That's rich!
What next, aerodynamics experts don't have to know planes need wings to take off?
And for fucks sake, stop being such a semantics whore - you knew EXACTLY what I meant when I said that they failed the project.
They had a project at hand, they started coming up with "innovative" solutions, those solutions were failures.
Why is it so hard to understand?
Zyamaman 3 years ago
No, I meant that they should know it by default, and YOU are challenging that logic. That's what I meant. Stop dodging around so to prolong the argument. That's pathetic. And again, where does the source that states that every solutions they came up with are failures? There's nothing here that is not understood, the only one who's retarded enough to not understand is YOU. You can claim this and that, but without sources, they are just thin air. Gosh, is there limit to your stupidity?
stealthyf23 3 years ago
"No, I meant that they should know it by default"
Tell me, are you, sincerely, THAT fucking stupid, or are you trying to piss me off?
If they are supposed to know those things BY DEFAULT (like it would be expected from someone in charge of designing a ship), then WHY THE FUCK did they implement that design in their project?
If they KNOW this design is faulty, why have they chosen to use it nonetheless?
And you're talking to ME about logic?
Next time try to actually THINK before you post...
Zyamaman 3 years ago
.....damn...either you choose to be ignorant for the sake of arguing itself or you are the stupidest person I've seen. I already said THIS a few posts back, it's called TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENTS, the ability to overcome what we could not before. For example, before, putting an unstable airplane on the sky was suicidal too, but we figured out a way to do it through fly-by-wire tech. I already had said this already. Are you so retarded to even process such a simple idea?
stealthyf23 3 years ago
See, that's why I call you a moron.
Your point is that just because the developers are scientists, they can't possibly be wrong in any of their decisions, and if they do something stupid, they can rely on those magical "TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENTS" to miraculously save their asses.
That's very cute of you to have such blind faith in the brilliance of those scientists, but the burden of proof is ON YOU to prove that they HAVE somehow overcame the inherited flaws of the tumblehome hull.
So go ahead.
Zyamaman 3 years ago
Lol, who was it that agreed with me that my thinking was logical by saying "Yeah, you'd THINK that way" and argued that though it's logical to think so, "but here we are, looking at their project, and we see that every single one of the design solutions those idiots came up with is a complete failure!" In which I simply asked for proof of claim. Argue with your own words, mate! The more you try, the more it become apparent of your helplessness in facing the fact that your stupidity.
stealthyf23 3 years ago
"Yeah, you'd THINK that waySimple logic.
"
Again, go work on your reading comprehension.
When I said that I meant that you'd expect a scientist know about the faults of the design and NOT implement it in the project.
Since they HAVE implemented it, it's clearly evident that they DID NOT know about those faults.
As per your claim that they made those faults magically disappear, it requires some proof.
So go right ahead, tiger!
Zyamaman 3 years ago
""but here we are, looking at their project, and we see that every single one of the design solutions those idiots came up with is a complete failure!" In which I simply asked for proof of claim."
Oh, I'd be happy to provide such proof, but not here, and not before you prove YOUR statements, as you made it way before I made mine...
Zyamaman 3 years ago
cut the crap! It's obvious that you pulled that "information" out of your own ass. Give it up already! I already explained that it's unreasonable for me to prove SEVERAL times over already. Go back and read on it. I know that you gonna come back with some shit just to win. But seriously, think about it first, then reply. If you're gonna argue, at least pull out some good shit. This is just completely helpless and pathetic.
stealthyf23 3 years ago
"It's obvious that you pulled that "information" out of your own ass."
Just because YOU are ignorant doesn't mean EVERYBODY are.
Unlike you, I know EXACTLY what's wrong with that ship.
YOU, however, are just as ignorant as you were a week ago...
Besides, you think that making wild assumptions based solely on your blind faith is perfectly reasonable, while demanding proof for those assumptions is NOT?
That's rich!
Zyamaman 3 years ago
I'm pretty sure you know what's wrong with the ships as well as you know every solution they came up with and of course, how each of them failed. And the only reason you are still hesitating to prove me wrong with just a single proof and be done with this prolonging pointless argument with me walking out in shame is certainly not because you are unable to provide the proof lol. I'm pretty sure you can see how pathetic and competely helpless you looking right now, yes?
stealthyf23 3 years ago
"I'm pretty sure you know what's wrong with the ships as well as you know every solution they came up with and of course, how each of them failed."
Not EVERY solution, of course, just the most important ones.
I obviously lack the security clearance for such intimate details...
And you're wrong, it's not a "single proof".
Do you REALLY think such complex issues can be summarized in two sentences?
It's a fuckton of typing, and I'm not doing it over HERE.
And not before you prove YOUR claims...
Zyamaman 3 years ago
Lol, as the part about demanding my proof,you totally ignored what I said about you simply agreed with me that my deduction was logical a few posts back. At this point, I'm not as angry as your stupidity as much as I'm pitying you on how you degrade your dignity just to win an argument by using outrageous tricks.
stealthyf23 3 years ago
"Lol, as the part about demanding my proof,you totally ignored what I said about you simply agreed with me that my deduction was logical a few posts back."
I've addressed that claim several times already - your deduction might be logical, but facts clearly prove it to be erroneous, so any further speculations on it are void.
And the fact that you still have no clue of what I'm talking about clearly points at your inability to comprehend written text?
Didn't I tell you to work on that, BTW?
Zyamaman 3 years ago
You know what?
Since you're so anxious about this whole thing, I'll throw you a bone.
I want you look up the term "Ton per Inch Immersion", and tell us what it is and why is it relevant to the issue at hand.
Zyamaman 3 years ago
Please, try to not dodge around and have a relevant post. Answer me why you are contradicting yourself? And TPI has no shit to do with the solutions they came up with are failing.
stealthyf23 3 years ago
Of course TPI has nothing to do with their solutions - TPI is one of their main problems!
And since you are the one claiming they found some magical solution to it, I'm still waiting for you to prove it.
So how's that going?
Oh, BTW, don't forget that I didn't just ask you what TPI is, I also asked you to explain us why is it relevant to the issue at hand, so don't forget about that one...
Zyamaman 3 years ago
us? There is more of you? Anyway, I'm pretty sure you still haven't embarrassed me with a source on how ALL their solutions don't work is not because you pulled it out of your arse. lol that you still ignored my question about you contradicting yourself by agreeing with me a few posts back and requested from me no sources simply because it was logical and sensible. Only when I ask for source did you ask the same from me in order to avoid providing the source. haha,completely pitiful and pathetic
stealthyf23 3 years ago
"us? There is more of you?"
By that I meant whoever might read this exchange, now or in the future.
Also, stop the broken-record bullshit, I've already addressed those points of yours, but you keep repeating them over and over as if I didn't say anything.
That's called a logical fallacy BTW, and it's not a way to debate...
And if my memory serves me, you got plenty of work to do - your claims that need to be proven, the task I gave you, your reading comprehension issues..
You're slacking, kid!
Zyamaman 3 years ago
Also, what is up with you and that "conclusive evidence" stuff?
What, do you REALLY think that for every question in life there would ALWAYS be a single, conclusive source/evidence that will sort out all the inconsistencies?
That's not how LIFE works, kid!
More often than not, you'll face more than one source/opinion regarding your question, often contradicting each other!
What will you do in THAT case? Give up?
Or actually try to imply your own BRAIN to reason things out and find a solution?
Zyamaman 3 years ago
Lol, EPIC FAIL! you said you got at least a source, now you don't anymore? Then at least name me the solutions that they're using and how each of them failed, will ya? And stop pretend to be a retard, I'm not asking for a single source that says it all, but that at least give me 1 source, if not several, since I'm pretty sure you got several sources to be able to know all their solutions and how each of them failed. Why keep dodging around so pathetically?
stealthyf23 3 years ago
Dodging around?
I'm not dodging around, you're the one with the burden of proof on your ass!
Why should I provide any sources if you still haven't provided your own?
Given that you were the first one to make unsupported claims, I don't see why should I...
Oh, and just to be clear with the terms - for the most part, it's not their solutions that failed (for the lack thereof), but their initial, "innovatory" designs.
Indeed, how does one provides solutions for THAT kind of mess is beyond me!
Zyamaman 3 years ago
Lol, epic fail, go back and read your own writing:"Yeah, you'd THINK that way, but here we are, looking at their project, and we see that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the design solutions those idiots came up with is a complete failure!" I'm amused and pity you at the same time. And still with the burden of proof on me arguement? Lol, for the 4th time, you still haven't come out straight why you were agreeing with me that my thinking was logical and you simply didn't require any proof from me. Pathetic!
stealthyf23 3 years ago
Lesson#2(repeat of lesson#1 in a different way for the mentally retarded): the burden of proof is on the ones who's challenging either common sense/common knowledge. I'm not the one who's challenging the difficulties of the tumblehome designs (common knowledge); the scientists do. They're the ones who need proof of their solution to NAVY analysts. I only draw a logical deduction from that. You, on the other hand, challenging that logic (common sense), so the burden of proof is on YOU.
stealthyf23 3 years ago
"They're the ones who need proof of their solution to NAVY analysts."
Nice try cupcake.
However, they're not the ones debating me over here - it's YOU.
Therefore the burden of proof is on YOU to prove YOUR wild assumptions in regards of their achievements.
If you STILL don't understand WHY the burden of proof is on you, I'll tell you - YOU are the one claiming those people somehow managed to defy the laws of physics, so it's expected that you'll be able to prove it...
Zyamaman 3 years ago
You already agreed with me that my deduction is logical and is needless of proof by saying "you would think that way." Now, you come back to ask for proof because why? You can't provide any proof for your bullshit so you try to bring it around. If you gonna play dirty tricks, at least don't make it so obvious. The exact reason why I called you helpless and pathetic.
stealthyf23 3 years ago
"You already agreed with me that my deduction is logical and is needless of proof by saying "you would think that way." "
It's called SARCASM, idiot - didn't I tell you to work on your reading comprehension?
You'd THINK that they should know such basic things. Since they STILE used that design, it clearly shows that they DO NOT know it.
And since YOU ARE the one claiming that some magic "TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENTS" exist that somehow make that design NOT suck, you will now go ahead and prove it.
Zyamaman 3 years ago
The more you talk, the more it become clearer of your stupidity and how pathetic you are at attempting to cover up your proven stupidity.
stealthyf23 3 years ago
...Said the moron who have no clue of what is he talking about.
You can engage in delusional wishful thinking however you want, but it won't cover up the fact that you've entered a debate without knowing jack and shit about the issue at hand.
Zyamaman 3 years ago
Nah, this isn't a debate. A debate needs both sides to think logically and intellectually. What is happening here is just me teaching your mentally retarded brain to practice thinking like a human being.
stealthyf23 3 years ago
As I said, your delusional wishful thinking doesn't fool anybody - anyone can clearly see that you have no idea of what are you talking about.
And it was already established that the burden of proof is on you, so you might as well get to it...
Zyamaman 3 years ago
I've already said these things before, yet you seem to either ignored them and then come back with the same shit for the sake of arguing itself, or you're too retarded to understand. There's nothing to understand, what is needed is proof of claim. You claim they failed with every solutions. Now where's the proof for such claim? How the hell did you even imagine that I would humble myself to a retarded person like you? Such simple concept you can't even process after all these explainations.
stealthyf23 3 years ago
Right, now listen, you goat molesting, inbred degenerate - I HAVE the info at hand, you DO NOT.
I DO NOT owe you a GODDAMN thing, and I will provide the info only WHEN and IF I ever feel like it.
It's that simple - if you want to learn something from me, cut the anal semantics-picking bullshit.
If you stop acting like a spoiled brat who thinks the entire world owes him, I will provide you all the explanations necessary.
Until then, stop wasting my time.
Zyamaman 3 years ago
And you're calling ME an idiot?
Come back when you'll have a clue of what are you talking about...
Zyamaman 3 years ago
I don't have to present anything. I'm not the engineer who's working on the project here. It's you who failed to see that because an outsider like me can't present the sensitive technologies to overcome these challenges, then it can't. It's the same as saying that I'm not an airplane engineer, so since I can't present how a 100 tons airplane can lift off the ground, it must mean the whole idea of airplanes are bullshit.
stealthyf23 3 years ago
Edit: the part " It's you who failed to see that because an outsider like me can't present the sensitive technologies to overcome these challenges, then it can't." should be "It's you who failed to see that just because an outsider like me can't present the sensitive technologies to overcome these challenges, doesn't mean it can't."
stealthyf23 3 years ago