Talk:CG(X)

Program cancellation [premature]

can anyone provide a SOURCE stating that the CG(X) was cancelled. 86.136.198.107 10:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be very strange if it were cancelled, as the CG(X) is currently being designed and to my knowledge the design funding has not been cut. I'm going modify references to the cancellation to reflect the uncertainty. Notea42 19:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Far as I know, it is still a valid program. It is also called MAMDJF (Maritime Air and Missile Defense of Joint Force). 138.162.0.46 14:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where this cancellation talk is coming from. It may have something to do with the reduction in DD(X) procurement, but all the statements seem to suggest that the DD(X) will be used as a limited-buy tech demonstrator and that the CG(X) will be fully purchased. TWZolf 23:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the cancellation mention after a quick web search revealed several articles discussing CG(X) as a current program:

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1735836&C=navwar

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1854403&C=navwar

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2071951&C=navwar

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2007/02/dead-aim-or-dead-end-the-usas-ddg1000-zumwalt-class-program/index.php

Stephen Hui 15:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"Cruiser"

If the only difference between the non-nuclear CG(X) and DD(X) is more VLS tubes, wouldn't it make more sense for them to turn it into "Block II" of the Zumwalt destroyer class? It would be much simpler if it was one single production line instead of two, if that's the only difference. Is there any other differences not mentioned in this article, because I'm failing to see why this ship would be called a cruiser. 70.137.169.123 (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason this is not called a cruiser is becauser its role is way different than that of a cruiser. Cruisers protect shipping and wage warfare against smaller and equivalent vessels. Destroyers kill subs. Missiles have been added to give them both a land attack and detterent capability. It definitely gives the USA a way better diplomatic and military asset than any old cruise missile-less boat. But I agree with you. It definitely is a offshot of the DD21 research program and Block II is more of a name, except there would be a lot of problems with classification symbols and there would probably be a lot of confusion. It may be that the USN was looking at this possibility. Jeremy Wang 22:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AirplanePro (talk • contribs)

Discussion of Nuclear or Non-Nuclear Propulsion

As of 07 AUG 2009 the GAO is still looking at the economics of the propulsion system decision within the Navy's Analysis of Alternatives. I think there should be some discussion of this process and maybe the pros and cons (once the GAO report is finalized) added to the article.

Reference here: Defense Acquisitions: Additional Analysis Needed to Capture Cost Differences Between Conventional and Nuclear Propulsion for Navy's Future Cruiser

--tom (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

See the rejected edits on my personal page for an interesting reference on this that was rejected from this page for no real reason. Hcobb (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on CG(X). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090219085757/http://www.chinfo.navy.mil:80/navpalib/.www/rhumblines/rhumblines634.doc to http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/.www/rhumblines/rhumblines634.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CG(X). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100423160951/http://opencrs.com/document/RL32109/2010-02-26/?24684 to http://opencrs.com/document/RL32109/2010-02-26/?24684

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)