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?