On Dec 3, 12:08*pm, Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

So...only the superstructure will easily catch fire when hit by an
incendiary...well, that's a step up.

In the old days of lesser defensive technology, warships were built with
a "When in doubt, make it stout" *philosophy.

Now-a-days the idea is not to get hit in the first place. * *We have a
very technology based (and reliant) *military today from equipment for
ground troops to ships and airplanes. * Critics aside, for the most part
it works, minimizes risks and saves lives when compared to the old,
brute force methodologies.

Eisboch

I appreciate the theory of not getting hit, and I am sure those who have
high-powered, supersonic, anti-ship missiles do, too. I think an aluminum
superstructure is a mistake on a capital warship.
Have you ever seen them cut the superstructure away, lift it off to get to
the engineering equipment below to replace the gas turbines? You cant do
it any other way.

Also, an all aluminum superstructure will allow an object to penetrate one
side and hopefully traverse the entire superstructure and exit the other
side. With steel the object may penetrate one side and bounce around the
interior and cause more damage.

You think Harry should become a design consultant to Litton and other
shipbuilders?
Apparently they are making big mistakes.

Eisboch

I am underwhelmed by that warship. It's going to break down a lot, it's
going to be expensive to fix, and it's too dependent upon technology.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, they should have used an iron-clad three masted schooner, huh,
idiot?