That is incorrect. Current DIACAP/DoD guidelines require that end-of-life operating systems be retired and replaced with newer versions. Sure, there are some XP machines floating around on legacy systems where the cost of replacement or upgrade exceeds the value of the information and the information system, but those are not afloat, warfighting systems.

Ohio-class subs are missile platforms, capable of launching a couple dozen ICBMs with MIRVs, for nuclear deterrence. The Seawolf-class was designed for attack, same as the Virginia-class. They discontinued the Seawolf production line after the USS Jimmy Carter was built, because it was built to Cold War specifications, and was an outdated design. The Virginia and her successors incorporate Seawolf design features at a much lower cost and with much more capability. They'll be replacing the Los Angeles-class attack subs for the next several decades.

That said, the Ohio-class' last boat came online in 1997, and will eventually need to be replaced. The oldest, the Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and Georgia, were converted to Guided Missile subs, and now only embark the Tomahawk missile. The oldest of those boats came online in 1984. They'll have a long life, but they'll need to be replaced, starting in about 2029.

Agreed. I previously worked on the combat systems for the Ticos, Burkes, and the LM variant of the LCS, and these are completely superfluous, only being built to appease the Marine Corps brass. The Navy didn't want them, but the Corps did, since there's no dedicated shore bombardment platform in the US arsenal, other than utilizing attack aircraft and Tomahawk missiles. Some senators and congressmen got behind the program, as it would funnel pork dollars to their districts, and it was set into motion. It was then cut back significantly, because it can't do the number one role that Navy DDGs and CGs are tasked with, AAW, nor can it do BMD. Hence, the Navy is buying a dozen or more Flight IIA and III Arleigh Burkes.

Well, it's more relative to using electronic countermeasures to saturate the radar, then deploying a salvo of weapons, perhaps 10, or more, to try to confuse and overwhelm the combat system and the personnel staffing the combat system. Course, all Destroyers and Cruisers, as well as all other major combatants, have Cooperative Engagement Capability, and can communicate with each other, share radar tracks, launch weapons from another ship's VLS system, etc. Just because you've tried to blind one combatant, doesn't mean you can blind them all.

A DDG-51 ship has 90 VLS cells, and a CG-47 ship has 122 cells. While there is certainly a mix of missiles, between SM-2 and SM-6 (Anti-air warfare - missile and aircraft defense), SM-3 (Ballistic Missile Defense), Evolved Sea Sparrow missiles (anti-missile), Tomahawk (land and surface attack), Harpoon (anti-ship missile), and ASROC (anti-submarine missile), they carry copious numbers of the SM-2 and SM-3 interceptors, and there are multiple platforms per Carrier Battle Group. Each incoming missile would likely have a salvo of SM-2/SM-3/ESSM missiles targeting it, and if they missed, there's still the CIWS and RAM missiles aboard each combatant.

In a large salvo from an aggressor nation, would a couple missiles break through? Possible. Would it cripple the fleet? Certainly not.

Which is why many ships are fielded with Rolling Airframe Missiles, CIWS, as well as the hundreds of Standard Missiles that AEGIS-equipped Destroyers and Cruisers carry, which provide the real fleet defense against incoming missiles and aircraft. The Zumwalt does basically none of this role, and it needs to be protected by DDG-51 and CG-47 ships, just like carriers do. Sure, it has point defense systems, but nothing that can perform complex, multi-target and multi-role anti-air warfare.

That's incorrect, as evidenced by the multiple kills the AEGIS Weapons System has against high speed, sea skimming missiles, ballistic missiles, and basically everything in between. The capabilities of the SPY-1 radar and the Standard Missile line are far above that of our enemies.

Oh, and I highlighted the word 'real,' in relation to destroyers, as the Zumwalt-class deviates from the traditional role of the destroyer, which is fleet anti-air warfare (AAW) and anti-submarine warfare (ASW). The Zumwalt and her sister ships are pretty useless for AAW and ASW, they're more designed for shore bombardment and anti-surface warfare (ASuW). Further, the Burke-class destroyers can handle the Ballistic Missile Defense mission, while the Zumwalts can't. This is a HUGE reason why the Navy tried to cancel them when they were in development.

So, as someone who helped design the operating environment for the latest REAL Destroyers, the newest of the DDG-51 class, and who has an extreme level of experience with the systems running on the DDG-51s, CG-47s, and the LM version of the Littoral Combat System, the core of the system is, in fact, running a variant of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. The CDS consoles, at least on AEGIS (DDG-51, CG-47) run RHEL, as well, but there are input/output boards that we call 'ACEG' that, in certain instances, run LynxOS or VxWorks, and take data feeds from legacy sensors, then convert them for usage by the actual core operating environment.

There are also dozens of government furnished systems that interface with the combat systems, and many of those run as embedded systems with little to no true networking capability.

Yep, it's real U-Verse. We've got fiber directly to each building, and there's an optical distribution block outside each building that distributes to each apartment. After that, we've got ONTs in each apartment to convert from fiber to copper. We get about 25 Mbps down and 6-8 up, depending on the day.

So? Apple should diversify their mobile products, if they want to insulate against this possibility. Samsung, on the other hand, creates a multitude of products, and SOME of them were banned. Besides, if I recall correctly, the Apple devices banned were the iPhone 4, which is a three year old design, anyway. Banning that product, specifically, doesn't "destroy" their market, as they probably sell very, very few, if at all.

Me? Huh?

Public utilities are only 'public' in the sense that they're provided to the public, for a fee. In all areas where I've lived, with the exception of sewer service, utilities are private companies that are regulated by the state.

That said, Verizon isn't the only company doing this, and governments are configured to create monopolies. The companies are just playing the hands they're dealt.

My phone gets 25 Mbps on LTE, as well. The big problem? Like Fios, it isn't available everywhere. You make due with what you have available to you.

I had Fios in NJ, and my internet speeds were consistently 30 Mbps or above. My AT&T U-Verse service gets me about 25 Mbps in South Carolina. Methinks you're just a troll.

Whatever their reasoning, it is EXTREMELY sad that Verizon isn't rolling Fios out everywhere. I had it when I lived in south Jersey, and it was incredible. The speeds were great, the content was great, and everything worked, all the time. Now that I'm in South Carolina, my apartment complex forces me into AT&T U-Verse, and it's not bad, but not great. Everywhere else, the only option is Comcast. I'm buying a house next week, and can't get anything other than Comcast. So, it's Comcast internet, and DirecTV for the rest of it.