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.

"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

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.

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-------------------------------------

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.

"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

On Dec 3, 12:45*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"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

Imagine if cavemen felt the same way. Fire? Uh, we have to keep it
burning, requires fuel, it's prone to going out when it rains, if
you're not careful it'll burn you, and sometimes it's too bright.

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?

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.

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!*