Interesting visitor....
 

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.

Your qualifications as a Naval architect and your degrees in all areas
of engineering are duly noted. Why don't you write a letter to Secretary
Gates and tell him to tell the Navy to start building them out of wood
again.

Interesting visitor....
 

Don White wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
""UglyDan®©T"" wrote in message
...
"Boater" wrote:
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.


The USS Belknap was built in the 60's and she had an aluminum
superstructure, Wasn't too much left of her, except the hull after the
collision with the Kennedy. UD

Quite a few modern naval ships have steel hulls and aluminum
superstructures. They just aren't supposed to crash into an aircraft
carrier.

Eisboch

Seems to me the Brits had a problem with Aluminum superstructures on their
warships in the Falklands War..
The French built Exocet missle caused major fires.

Everyone is afraid of the Exocet missle it doesn't matter whether you
ship is made of steel or aluminum. If an Exocet hits your ship you and
the rest of your crew are going to get wet.

Interesting visitor....
 

Boater wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Don White wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
""UglyDan®©T"" wrote in message
...
"Boater" wrote:
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.


The USS Belknap was built in the 60's and she had an aluminum
superstructure, Wasn't too much left of her, except the hull after the
collision with the Kennedy. UD

Quite a few modern naval ships have steel hulls and aluminum
superstructures. They just aren't supposed to crash into an
aircraft carrier.

Eisboch

Seems to me the Brits had a problem with Aluminum superstructures on
their warships in the Falklands War..
The French built Exocet missle caused major fires.


That is a common misconception, the HMS Sheffield was made entirely of
steel.


Supplied by the lowest bidder...

Your government procurement system at its best.

Interesting visitor....
 

On Dec 3, 5:59*pm, Boater wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Don White wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
news:XqadnaZbqZLDVqvUnZ2dnUVZ_qTinZ2d@giganews .com...
""UglyDan®©T"" wrote in message
...
"Boater" wrote:
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.

The USS Belknap was built in the 60's and she had an aluminum
superstructure, Wasn't too much left of her, except the hull after the
collision with the Kennedy. UD

Quite a few modern naval ships have steel hulls and aluminum
superstructures. * They just aren't supposed to crash into an aircraft
carrier.

Eisboch
Seems to me the Brits had a problem with Aluminum superstructures on
their warships in the Falklands War..
The French built Exocet missle caused major fires.

That is a common misconception, the HMS Sheffield was made entirely of
steel.

Supplied by the lowest bidder...

And the union welders would not weld in the verticle fire partitions.
Sad.

I see you let Zell out of the locked ward.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yuk, yuk, same old same old... Harry, do you actually think anything
you say here matters to anyone? If so you are more retarted than I
thought. Quick, what year did you graduate
Yale... ........................ or High School for that matter,
personally, I don't think you did either...

Interesting visitor....
 

On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:17:23 -0500, BAR wrote:

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.

Your qualifications as a Naval architect and your degrees in all areas
of engineering are duly noted. Why don't you write a letter to Secretary
Gates and tell him to tell the Navy to start building them out of wood
again.

Now that sounds like a pretty good idea.
--
John H

*Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!*

Interesting visitor....
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...


Supplied by the lowest bidder...


You know, this comment, that one hears all the time, is not exactly true.
The wording for government contracts is "lowest qualified bidder" or "lowest
technically qualified bidder".

We used to scan the Commerce Business Daily faithfully in the early days of
my company. It is a list of contracts or purchases to be made by any of the
gazillion government agencies, including military.
RFQ's (Request For Quotations) for anything more complex than toilet paper
were carefully written to basically disqualify everybody except the
preferred vendor, if in fact there was one. Often the RFQ would contain
wording like, "Acme Model 871 or equivilent". Well, unless your equivilent
was an exact copy of the Acme Model 871, down to the last nut, bolt and
color, the purchasing agent could justifiably discard your quotation, even
if your price was lower.

In a way it was good, because the government was also regularly ripped off
by having to award a contract to an unqualified, low-ball vendor who
happened to luck out and respond to a poorly written RFQ.

Our large government financed contracts were usually awarded by a prime
government contractor, like a Raytheon or a Litton who could solicit bids,
technical proposals and then pick and choose based on their own set of
qualifying standards.

Eisboch

Interesting visitor....
 

On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:09:30 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


Quite a few modern naval ships have steel hulls and aluminum
superstructures. They just aren't supposed to crash into an aircraft
carrier.

Or the shore. I was doing a little reading today and came upon the Honda
Point disaster. Funny, I had never heard about it before. Seven
destroyers going aground follow the leader style.

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/i...000/h66721.jpg

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...onda-point.htm

Interesting visitor....
 

On Dec 3, 1:22*pm, wrote:

Hey, he designed a lobster boat with super-stealth technology, it
can't even be found!!!

That's funny!!

Interesting visitor....
 

On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:42:37 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

Aluminum does not burn

And just how would you describe rapid exothermic oxidation then ?




Very fast spreading and destructive rust.

If you heat aluminum in the presence of oxygen in first melts and then
begins to do something which closely resembles burning at very high
temperatures. After glowing red very brightly, it turns into a
powdery ash within seconds.

I'd call it burning, purists may not.

Interesting visitor....
 

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:42:37 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

Aluminum does not burn

And just how would you describe rapid exothermic oxidation then ?




Very fast spreading and destructive rust.

If you heat aluminum in the presence of oxygen in first melts and then
begins to do something which closely resembles burning at very high
temperatures. After glowing red very brightly, it turns into a
powdery ash within seconds.

I'd call it burning, purists may not.


It might be burning, but will it support combustion like wood or magnesium?

Interesting visitor....
 

On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 21:15:50 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:

If you heat aluminum in the presence of oxygen in first melts and then
begins to do something which closely resembles burning at very high
temperatures. After glowing red very brightly, it turns into a
powdery ash within seconds.

I'd call it burning, purists may not.


It might be burning, but will it support combustion like wood or magnesium?

In the presence of the right oxidizers it absolutely will.

The thermite reaction for example which will burn through almost
anything:

2Al(solid) + Fe2O3(solid) ---- 2 Fe + Al2O3

or as rocket fuel:

6 NH4ClO4 (oxidant) + 10 Al = 5 Al2O3 + 6 HCl + 3N2 + 9 H2O

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...on/q0246.shtml

More he

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=ge...er =ADA425147

Interesting visitor....
 

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 21:15:50 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:

If you heat aluminum in the presence of oxygen in first melts and then
begins to do something which closely resembles burning at very high
temperatures. After glowing red very brightly, it turns into a
powdery ash within seconds.

I'd call it burning, purists may not.


It might be burning, but will it support combustion like wood or
magnesium?

In the presence of the right oxidizers it absolutely will.

The thermite reaction for example which will burn through almost
anything:

2Al(solid) + Fe2O3(solid) ---- 2 Fe + Al2O3

or as rocket fuel:

6 NH4ClO4 (oxidant) + 10 Al = 5 Al2O3 + 6 HCl + 3N2 + 9 H2O

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...on/q0246.shtml

More he

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=ge...er =ADA425147



Hey, it ain't rocket science. Oh wait, I guess it is. Nevermind.

Interesting visitor....
 

Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:42:37 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

Aluminum does not burn
And just how would you describe rapid exothermic oxidation then ?



Very fast spreading and destructive rust.

If you heat aluminum in the presence of oxygen in first melts and then
begins to do something which closely resembles burning at very high
temperatures. After glowing red very brightly, it turns into a
powdery ash within seconds.

I'd call it burning, purists may not.

Sounds to me like rust on steroids.

Interesting visitor....
 

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:57:41 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 21:15:50 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:

If you heat aluminum in the presence of oxygen in first melts and then
begins to do something which closely resembles burning at very high
temperatures. After glowing red very brightly, it turns into a
powdery ash within seconds.

I'd call it burning, purists may not.


It might be burning, but will it support combustion like wood or magnesium?

In the presence of the right oxidizers it absolutely will.

The thermite reaction for example which will burn through almost
anything:

2Al(solid) + Fe2O3(solid) ---- 2 Fe + Al2O3

or as rocket fuel:

6 NH4ClO4 (oxidant) + 10 Al = 5 Al2O3 + 6 HCl + 3N2 + 9 H2O

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...on/q0246.shtml

More he

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=ge...er =ADA425147

Did you ever see that Mythbusters episode where they tested the theory
that the Hindenberg was actually painted in a type of thermite and
that's what caused the devastating fire?

They pretty much proved it could have happened that way.
--

Happy Holidays and Merry Whatever It Is
That ****es Liberals Off.

Interesting visitor....
 

On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:17:23 -0500, BAR wrote:

Your qualifications as a Naval architect and your degrees in all areas
of engineering are duly noted. Why don't you write a letter to Secretary
Gates and tell him to tell the Navy to start building them out of wood
again.

John Wayne had a wood warship. 150 foot, 2 1/2 mahogany over aluminum
frames. Special nonmagnetic Detroit Diesel 12V149's. [Canada wanted
150 000 for one like it in 2000.]

Casady

Interesting visitor....
 

On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 13:09:30 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

Quite a few modern naval ships have steel hulls and aluminum
superstructures. They just aren't supposed to crash into an aircraft
carrier.

You can buy strips of metal consisting of two strips, one aluminum and
the other steel, welded together with pressure from high explosives.
You weld one side to the steel, the other to the aluminum. The better
alternative to rivets.

Casady

Interesting visitor....
 

On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:27:14 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

I think the Sheffield was mostly steel and the aluminum in question was a
high magnesium content alloy.

Probably no more than 5%. The stuff, and copper as well, harden
aluminum as carbon hardens iron.

Casady

Interesting visitor....
 

On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 14:59:08 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Magnesium does a rapid exothermic oxidation.
A chemist would probably say that it burns with a brilliant white
light. They use it in flares.

Casady

Interesting visitor....
 

On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 14:59:08 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Magnesium melts. One of the
reasons it is so hard to weld magnesium.

You are saying that melting makes things hard to weld?
I say it is quite usual to melt the metal while welding, although
there is pressure welding, below the melting point, sometimes even at
room temperature. And it isn't hard to weld magnesium. You simply
surround the arc with a blanket of inert gas, helium or argon.
Nitrogen and carbon dioxide are not inert enough, magnesium will burn
in either.
I have a welded magnesium extension ladder, and I once ignited a small
sliver of it. It burns with a brilliant white light.

Casady

Interesting visitor....
 

On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design. Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?

Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Casady

Interesting visitor....
 

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design.
Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?

Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Casady


Good grief.

Use steel in the places you need strength.
Use aluminum in the places you need light weight.
Use titanium when you need both.

Eisboch

Interesting visitor....
 

On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 08:54:17 -0500, BAR wrote:

Have you ever seen them cut the superstructure away, lift it off to get
to the engineering equipment below

It often requires a chain saw to replace the engines on small
fiberglass yachts. Sometimes they go through the side of the hull.

Casady

Interesting visitor....
 

On Dec 4, 11:43*am, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"

wrote:
The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design. *Lots
of cracks happening. *So better designers were needed. *Harry maybe?

Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Casady

Well, kind of. There are lots of variables that will put holes in that
blanket statement. If it were going to be a generality then you could
include wood, too.

Interesting visitor....
 

Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design. Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?

Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Casady


Gee, I just bought a carbon fiber tripod. Maybe they could make warships
out of that. It wouldn't be any more a waste of taxpayer money than what
they are doing now.

Interesting visitor....
 

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:20:20 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design. Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?

Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Casady


Gee, I just bought a carbon fiber tripod. Maybe they could make warships
out of that. It wouldn't be any more a waste of taxpayer money than what
they are doing now.

In northern climes the ships could be made of ice.
The sailors would wear "penguin" dress and waddle.
Enemy recon would just see ice floes.
With penguins.

--Vic

Interesting visitor....
 

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:20:20 -0500, Boater wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design. Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?

Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Casady


Gee, I just bought a carbon fiber tripod. Maybe they could make warships
out of that. It wouldn't be any more a waste of taxpayer money than what
they are doing now.

In what way are they wasting money on warships, Harry? Should we not be
building them, or should we be building them with a different design?
--
John H

*Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!*

Interesting visitor....
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:20:20 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design.
Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?

Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Casady


Gee, I just bought a carbon fiber tripod. Maybe they could make warships
out of that. It wouldn't be any more a waste of taxpayer money than what
they are doing now.

In northern climes the ships could be made of ice.
The sailors would wear "penguin" dress and waddle.
Enemy recon would just see ice floes.
With penguins.

--Vic

Say what! No penguins up here......maybe a polar bear or two.

Interesting visitor....
 

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:20:20 -0500, Boater wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design. Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?
Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Casady

Gee, I just bought a carbon fiber tripod. Maybe they could make warships
out of that. It wouldn't be any more a waste of taxpayer money than what
they are doing now.

In what way are they wasting money on warships, Harry? Should we not be
building them, or should we be building them with a different design?
--
John H

*Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!*

Harry is a skin-flint. Wait till he sees the bill for escorting a whale
through the canal at Cape Cod Massachusetts.

Interesting visitor....
 

On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 12:07:32 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Richard Casady" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design.
Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?

Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Good grief.

Use steel in the places you need strength.
Use aluminum in the places you need light weight.
Use titanium when you need both.

I'm not an expert on steel or aluminum, but a few years ago I had to
do some research on this very subject.

As I understand it, and again this is remembering what I learned at
the time, the major difference between steel and aluminum is that
aluminum will reach it's failure point, given the same strength
standard, 40% sooner than steel.

Again, that's how I remember the issue.

I could be entirely wrong.

Interesting visitor....
 

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:20:20 -0500, Boater wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design. Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?
Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Casady

Gee, I just bought a carbon fiber tripod. Maybe they could make warships
out of that. It wouldn't be any more a waste of taxpayer money than what
they are doing now.

In what way are they wasting money on warships, Harry? Should we not be
building them, or should we be building them with a different design?
--
John H



Both.

I think spending $500 million on another high tech toy for the military
is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Better that money be spent on brainy
people assets that can be used for intel and other purposes that prevent
war. The problem with that sort of "flashy" ship is that some yahoo in
the chain of command will want to use to to make a point. The point
won't be made, and its presence will contribute to us getting into
another stupid shooting war.

Interesting visitor....
 

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:08:11 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:20:20 -0500, Boater wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design. Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?
Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Casady

Gee, I just bought a carbon fiber tripod. Maybe they could make warships
out of that. It wouldn't be any more a waste of taxpayer money than what
they are doing now.

In what way are they wasting money on warships, Harry? Should we not be
building them, or should we be building them with a different design?
--
John H



Both.

I think spending $500 million on another high tech toy for the military
is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Better that money be spent on brainy
people assets that can be used for intel and other purposes that prevent
war. The problem with that sort of "flashy" ship is that some yahoo in
the chain of command will want to use to to make a point. The point
won't be made, and its presence will contribute to us getting into
another stupid shooting war.

So we should stop building ships?

--
John H

*Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!*

Interesting visitor....
 

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:08:11 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:20:20 -0500, Boater wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design. Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?
Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Casady
Gee, I just bought a carbon fiber tripod. Maybe they could make warships
out of that. It wouldn't be any more a waste of taxpayer money than what
they are doing now.
In what way are they wasting money on warships, Harry? Should we not be
building them, or should we be building them with a different design?
--
John H


Both.

I think spending $500 million on another high tech toy for the military
is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Better that money be spent on brainy
people assets that can be used for intel and other purposes that prevent
war. The problem with that sort of "flashy" ship is that some yahoo in
the chain of command will want to use to to make a point. The point
won't be made, and its presence will contribute to us getting into
another stupid shooting war.

So we should stop building ships?

--
John H


RFC

Interesting visitor....
 

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:25:37 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:08:11 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:20:20 -0500, Boater wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design. Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?
Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Casady
Gee, I just bought a carbon fiber tripod. Maybe they could make warships
out of that. It wouldn't be any more a waste of taxpayer money than what
they are doing now.
In what way are they wasting money on warships, Harry? Should we not be
building them, or should we be building them with a different design?
--
John H


Both.

I think spending $500 million on another high tech toy for the military
is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Better that money be spent on brainy
people assets that can be used for intel and other purposes that prevent
war. The problem with that sort of "flashy" ship is that some yahoo in
the chain of command will want to use to to make a point. The point
won't be made, and its presence will contribute to us getting into
another stupid shooting war.

So we should stop building ships?

--
John H


RFC

You want to spend money on intel assets. Intel assets don't 'prevent' war.
They may give a heads up, like they did with the WMD Saddam was developing.

Should we stop building ships?
--
John H

*Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!*

Interesting visitor....
 

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:25:37 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:08:11 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:20:20 -0500, Boater wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design. Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?
Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Casady
Gee, I just bought a carbon fiber tripod. Maybe they could make warships
out of that. It wouldn't be any more a waste of taxpayer money than what
they are doing now.
In what way are they wasting money on warships, Harry? Should we not be
building them, or should we be building them with a different design?
--
John H


Both.

I think spending $500 million on another high tech toy for the military
is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Better that money be spent on brainy
people assets that can be used for intel and other purposes that prevent
war. The problem with that sort of "flashy" ship is that some yahoo in
the chain of command will want to use to to make a point. The point
won't be made, and its presence will contribute to us getting into
another stupid shooting war.
So we should stop building ships?

--
John H

RFC

You want to spend money on intel assets. Intel assets don't 'prevent' war.
They may give a heads up, like they did with the WMD Saddam was developing.

Should we stop building ships?
--
John H



Intel assets don't prevent war? That's a really interesting statement,
considering this country's recent history in invading Iraq.

To answer your question, since you don't seem to be able to read and
understand my lengthy response, I don't believe we should be wasting a
half billion dollars of taxpayer money on a high tech toy for the Navy.
Once again, try reading for content.

Interesting visitor....
 

On Dec 4, 5:15*pm, Boater wrote:
JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:25:37 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:08:11 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:20:20 -0500, Boater wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design. *Lots
of cracks happening. *So better designers were needed. *Harry maybe?
Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Casady
Gee, I just bought a carbon fiber tripod. Maybe they could make warships
out of that. It wouldn't be any more a waste of taxpayer money than what
they are doing now.
In what way are they wasting money on warships, Harry? Should we not be
building them, or should we be building them with a different design?
--
John H

Both.

I think spending $500 million on another high tech toy for the military
is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Better that money be spent on brainy
people assets that can be used for intel and other purposes that prevent
war. The problem with that sort of "flashy" ship is that some yahoo in
the chain of command will want to use to to make a point. The point
won't be made, and its presence will contribute to us getting into
another stupid shooting war.
So we should stop building ships?

--
John H

RFC

You want to spend money on intel assets. Intel assets don't 'prevent' war.
They may give a heads up, like they did with the WMD Saddam was developing.

Should we stop building ships?
--
John H

Intel assets don't prevent war? * That's a really interesting statement,
* considering this country's recent history in invading Iraq.

To answer your question, since you don't seem to be able to read and
understand my lengthy response, I don't believe we should be wasting a
half billion dollars of taxpayer money on a high tech toy for the Navy.
Once again, try reading for content.

Well, that should be enough for most here to realize it's probably the
best way to go.. After all, it it was bad for the US, you would be all
for it.. you are a weird bird..

Interesting visitor....
 

Interesting visitor....
 

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:15:45 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:25:37 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:08:11 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:20:20 -0500, Boater wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design. Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?
Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Casady
Gee, I just bought a carbon fiber tripod. Maybe they could make warships
out of that. It wouldn't be any more a waste of taxpayer money than what
they are doing now.
In what way are they wasting money on warships, Harry? Should we not be
building them, or should we be building them with a different design?
--
John H


Both.

I think spending $500 million on another high tech toy for the military
is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Better that money be spent on brainy
people assets that can be used for intel and other purposes that prevent
war. The problem with that sort of "flashy" ship is that some yahoo in
the chain of command will want to use to to make a point. The point
won't be made, and its presence will contribute to us getting into
another stupid shooting war.
So we should stop building ships?

--
John H

RFC

You want to spend money on intel assets. Intel assets don't 'prevent' war.
They may give a heads up, like they did with the WMD Saddam was developing.

Should we stop building ships?
--
John H



Intel assets don't prevent war? That's a really interesting statement,
considering this country's recent history in invading Iraq.

Read my post. The intel assets we, and many other countries, had did not
prevent us from attacking Iraq. They gave us the heads up on the WMD being
developed by Saddam.


To answer your question, since you don't seem to be able to read and
understand my lengthy response, I don't believe we should be wasting a
half billion dollars of taxpayer money on a high tech toy for the Navy.
Once again, try reading for content.

It's hard not to make personal insults, isn't it?

Do you believe we should not build new ships? You've never answered that
question. If it is the cost that bothers you, how much do you think we
should spend for a new ship?
--
John H

*Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!*

Interesting visitor....
 

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:15:45 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:25:37 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:08:11 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:20:20 -0500, Boater wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design. Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?
Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Casady
Gee, I just bought a carbon fiber tripod. Maybe they could make warships
out of that. It wouldn't be any more a waste of taxpayer money than what
they are doing now.
In what way are they wasting money on warships, Harry? Should we not be
building them, or should we be building them with a different design?
--
John H


Both.

I think spending $500 million on another high tech toy for the military
is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Better that money be spent on brainy
people assets that can be used for intel and other purposes that prevent
war. The problem with that sort of "flashy" ship is that some yahoo in
the chain of command will want to use to to make a point. The point
won't be made, and its presence will contribute to us getting into
another stupid shooting war.
So we should stop building ships?

--
John H

RFC
You want to spend money on intel assets. Intel assets don't 'prevent' war.
They may give a heads up, like they did with the WMD Saddam was developing.

Should we stop building ships?
--
John H


Intel assets don't prevent war? That's a really interesting statement,
considering this country's recent history in invading Iraq.

Read my post. The intel assets we, and many other countries, had did not
prevent us from attacking Iraq. They gave us the heads up on the WMD being
developed by Saddam.

To answer your question, since you don't seem to be able to read and
understand my lengthy response, I don't believe we should be wasting a
half billion dollars of taxpayer money on a high tech toy for the Navy.
Once again, try reading for content.

It's hard not to make personal insults, isn't it?

Do you believe we should not build new ships? You've never answered that
question. If it is the cost that bothers you, how much do you think we
should spend for a new ship?
--
John H



I'm sorry, John, but I really don't see any purpose in playing word
games with you. If you can't figure it out, it is your problem, not
mine, because, to be blunt (and not offensive), I don't give a **** what
you think...

About anything.

Merry Christmas.

Interesting visitor....
 

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:40:58 -0500, Boater wrote:

wrote:
On Dec 4, 5:15 pm, Boater wrote:
JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:25:37 -0500, Boater wrote:
JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:08:11 -0500, Boater wrote:
JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:20:20 -0500, Boater wrote:
Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:
The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design. Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?
Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.
Casady
Gee, I just bought a carbon fiber tripod. Maybe they could make warships
out of that. It wouldn't be any more a waste of taxpayer money than what
they are doing now.
In what way are they wasting money on warships, Harry? Should we not be
building them, or should we be building them with a different design?
--
John H
Both.
I think spending $500 million on another high tech toy for the military
is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Better that money be spent on brainy
people assets that can be used for intel and other purposes that prevent
war. The problem with that sort of "flashy" ship is that some yahoo in
the chain of command will want to use to to make a point. The point
won't be made, and its presence will contribute to us getting into
another stupid shooting war.
So we should stop building ships?
--
John H
RFC
You want to spend money on intel assets. Intel assets don't 'prevent' war.
They may give a heads up, like they did with the WMD Saddam was developing.
Should we stop building ships?
--
John H
Intel assets don't prevent war? That's a really interesting statement,
considering this country's recent history in invading Iraq.

To answer your question, since you don't seem to be able to read and
understand my lengthy response, I don't believe we should be wasting a
half billion dollars of taxpayer money on a high tech toy for the Navy.
Once again, try reading for content.

Well, that should be enough for most here to realize it's probably the
best way to go.. After all, it it was bad for the US, you would be all
for it.. you are a weird bird..


Your thought processes provide more insight into your ability to "think"
than you think.

It was *bad* for the USA to invade Iraq. Bush had a million different
reasons for invading, and most of them were based on either bad intel,
mistakenly misinterpreting the intel, or deliberately misinterpreting
the intel.

If we had better intel, Bush and Cheney wouldn't have had the wiggle
room to invade.

Can you follow that?

No, it wasn't bad. It was bad to give Saddam six months notice. It enabled
him to get rid of the WMD.
--
John H

*Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!*

Interesting visitor....
 

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:56:55 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:15:45 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:25:37 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:08:11 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:20:20 -0500, Boater wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design. Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?
Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Casady
Gee, I just bought a carbon fiber tripod. Maybe they could make warships
out of that. It wouldn't be any more a waste of taxpayer money than what
they are doing now.
In what way are they wasting money on warships, Harry? Should we not be
building them, or should we be building them with a different design?
--
John H


Both.

I think spending $500 million on another high tech toy for the military
is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Better that money be spent on brainy
people assets that can be used for intel and other purposes that prevent
war. The problem with that sort of "flashy" ship is that some yahoo in
the chain of command will want to use to to make a point. The point
won't be made, and its presence will contribute to us getting into
another stupid shooting war.
So we should stop building ships?

--
John H

RFC
You want to spend money on intel assets. Intel assets don't 'prevent' war.
They may give a heads up, like they did with the WMD Saddam was developing.

Should we stop building ships?
--
John H


Intel assets don't prevent war? That's a really interesting statement,
considering this country's recent history in invading Iraq.

Read my post. The intel assets we, and many other countries, had did not
prevent us from attacking Iraq. They gave us the heads up on the WMD being
developed by Saddam.

To answer your question, since you don't seem to be able to read and
understand my lengthy response, I don't believe we should be wasting a
half billion dollars of taxpayer money on a high tech toy for the Navy.
Once again, try reading for content.

It's hard not to make personal insults, isn't it?

Do you believe we should not build new ships? You've never answered that
question. If it is the cost that bothers you, how much do you think we
should spend for a new ship?
--
John H



I'm sorry, John, but I really don't see any purpose in playing word
games with you. If you can't figure it out, it is your problem, not
mine, because, to be blunt (and not offensive), I don't give a **** what
you think...

About anything.

Merry Christmas.

Harry, I find you like most liberals. You make pronouncements on subjects
about which you know nothing. When someone questions you with specifics,
you quickly demur, change the subject, or begin with the personal insults.
Maybe some of you are different. I'd sure like to meet one.

About whose thoughts do you care, Harry? Maybe that person could be enticed
into asking you a question to which you could give a straightforward reply.
If your answer is 'no one in this group', then why do you continue to post
here?

Apparently a deal to stop with the personal insults is out of the question?
I notice you've started again. Is that your 'taking responsibility for your
actions'?
--
John H

*Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!*