Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting visitor....
"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 |
#12
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting visitor....
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. |
#13
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting visitor....
"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 |
#14
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. --------------------------------------Luddite------------------SNERK------------------------------------- |
#15
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting visitor....
"Boater" wrote in message ... 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. Probably also said, word for word, by your great, great grandfather about this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fulton It's part of the evolution to new platforms for our future defensive and offensive naval capabilities. Just recently we had a discussion here in which you (or somebody) was critical of the expense and potential vulnerability of an obsolete blue water Navy designed and configured to fight cold war era battles. This ship is fast, draws only about 8 feet and is far less expensive to operate and maintain than the class ship it will eventually replace. It isn't going to happen overnight, but ships with this and similar capabilities will slowly replace the battlewagons of yesterday. One benefit of the new technologies developed is that some of it , particularly defensive and electronic warfare systems many can be retrofitted to existing platforms in commission now. Eisboch |
#16
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting visitor....
""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 |
#17
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting visitor....
On Dec 3, 8:27*am, 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.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Why? Give us a technical explanation, please. |
#18
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting visitor....
On Dec 3, 9:11*am, "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- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Hey, he designed a lobster boat with super-stealth technology, it can't even be found!!! |
#19
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting visitor....
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? |
#20
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting visitor....
On Dec 3, 12:25*pm, Jim 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. --------------------------------------Luddite------------------SNERK-------*------------------------------- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - That damned modern technology! Should have made dugout canoes. They won't break down! It's a crying shame Harry doesn't know a damned thing about technology. Hell, he doesn't know anything about MOST things. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Well that was interesting... | General | |||
Well that was interesting... | General | |||
Well, that was interesting... | General | |||
A visit with an interesting guy who builds an interesting boat.... | General | |||
You are Visitor number 0085178 or Mnemonics for Sailors | Cruising |