Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Veterans

raidert05

(185 posts)

8. Its the biggest...

Reply to unhappycamper (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 12:01 AM

Jan 2013

waste of tax payer money I've set my eyes on when it came to Norfolk. You can make all the cool high-speed super sleek reduced radar cross section ships you want, all the enemy has to do is tweak his missile seeker, what is more cost effective?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Navy�s $670 Million Fighting Ship Is �Not Expected to Be Survivable,� Pentagon Says [View all] unhappycamper Jan 2013 OP

More private sector boondoggles. Bet the MIC doesn't lose a dime on this disaster. Scuba Jan 2013 #1

670 million to help people without health care would go a long way. Lint Head Jan 2013 #2

Jesus! pscot Jan 2013 #3

Tell me about it! Wonder how many cost overruns there were on that beauty? nt MADem Jan 2013 #5

Littoral Combat Ships were first defined in the US Navy's Bluewater program. unhappycamper Jan 2013 #6

Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia have navies gejohnston Jan 2013 #4

These things carry a robo-copter pscot Jan 2013 #7

Its the biggest... raidert05 Jan 2013 #8