Interesting visitor....
 

Look who dropped in for a visit.
I'll try to get down close to it tomorrow on the way back from the dogs
walk.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1093626.html

Interesting visitor....
 

On Dec 2, 6:01*pm, "Don White" wrote:
Look who dropped in for a visit.
I'll try to get down close to it tomorrow on the way back from the dogs
walk.http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1093626.html

State of the art battle ship. Odd seeing something like that with no
crew and no 8 and 16 inchers..

Interesting visitor....
 

Tim wrote:
On Dec 2, 6:01 pm, "Don White" wrote:
Look who dropped in for a visit.
I'll try to get down close to it tomorrow on the way back from the dogs
walk.http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1093626.html

State of the art battle ship. Odd seeing something like that with no
crew and no 8 and 16 inchers..



The launch was interesting:

http://www.lmlcsteam.com/video/LCS-christening.wmv

Transiting St. Lawrence Seaway

http://www.abay.com/alexandriabaynynews1022.htm


I hope to hell the hull ain't aluminum.

Interesting visitor....
 

Boater wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Dec 2, 6:01 pm, "Don White" wrote:
Look who dropped in for a visit.
I'll try to get down close to it tomorrow on the way back from the dogs
walk.http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1093626.html

State of the art battle ship. Odd seeing something like that with no
crew and no 8 and 16 inchers..



The launch was interesting:

http://www.lmlcsteam.com/video/LCS-christening.wmv

Transiting St. Lawrence Seaway

http://www.abay.com/alexandriabaynynews1022.htm


I hope to hell the hull ain't aluminum.

I really like Alexandria Bay. I enjoyed the tour of Boldt Castle, it is
an interesting place. If you are ever in the area, take the boat ride
and make sure your boat is under 40 ft in length. There is a guy who has
his house in Canada and a bridge, 20 to 30 feet long to an Island he
also owns that is in the US.

Interesting visitor....
 

On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:35:42 -0500, Boater wrote:


I hope to hell the hull ain't aluminum.

The hull is steel. The superstructure is aluminum.

http://wapedia.mobi/en/USS_Freedom_(LCS-1)

I hope it's stealth characteristics make it more seaworthy than some of
what I have read about the stealth destroyer.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/0..._the_bigg.html

There is also a competing LCS, the USS Independence.

http://wapedia.mobi/en/USS_Independence_(LCS-2)

Interesting visitor....
 

wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:35:42 -0500, Boater wrote:


I hope to hell the hull ain't aluminum.

The hull is steel. The superstructure is aluminum.

http://wapedia.mobi/en/USS_Freedom_(LCS-1)

I hope it's stealth characteristics make it more seaworthy than some of
what I have read about the stealth destroyer.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/0..._the_bigg.html

There is also a competing LCS, the USS Independence.

http://wapedia.mobi/en/USS_Independence_(LCS-2)

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

Interesting visitor....
 

"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

Interesting visitor....
 

On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 07:55:30 -0500, "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.

Speaking from the strict personal viewpoint of a grunt, the more armor
I can put between me and the folks shooting at me, the better I like
it.

And as we found out via IEDs, that is exactly the case in which light,
unarmored Hummers were getting smacked around really good resulting in
those humungeous troop transports built by Navistar/International.

There is something to be said for quick strike, rapid deployment
reaction forces and the blitzkrieg approach to war, but there is no
substitute for brute strength be it boots on the ground or four inches
of tempered steel when the human waste hits the Mark Four Rotating
Cooling Device.

If you get my drift. :)

Interesting visitor....
 

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.

Interesting visitor....
 

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.