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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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!!!

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?

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.

Interesting visitor....
 

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.

Interesting visitor....
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...
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.

I think the Sheffield was mostly steel and the aluminum in question was a
high magnesium content alloy. Aluminum does not burn, but does lose
strength at about 500 degrees and melts at 1500 degrees. The Sheffield did
not have vertical fire barriers as American ships do.

Interesting visitor....
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"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


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

Interesting visitor....
 

"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.

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.



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

Interesting visitor....
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
m...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"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


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


There you go. Union welders.

Eisboch

Interesting visitor....
 

On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:48:12 -0400, Don White wrote:


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.

HMS Sheffield had a steel superstructure. There were a couple of Type 21
frigates that sank. They had aluminum superstructures but were hit with
bombs, and probably would have sank regardless of the superstructure's
construction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sheffield_(D80)

Interesting visitor....
 

Calif Bill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
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.

I think the Sheffield was mostly steel and the aluminum in question was a
high magnesium content alloy. Aluminum does not burn, but does lose
strength at about 500 degrees and melts at 1500 degrees. The Sheffield did
not have vertical fire barriers as American ships do.


I thought it was about 750 degrees that Alum. started to puddle up.

Interesting visitor....
 

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...

Interesting visitor....
 

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"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.


Of course they did. Any ship hit with bombs or missiles is in deep do-do.
The idea is to not get hit.
That has been the focus of modern US weapons platform design for many years
now and it is paying off.
The number of lost ships, tanks, airplanes, helicopters, etc. in combat is
incredibly low relative to the damage they can inflict. Much of it is
related to defensive electronic warfare systems. We don't have to rely on
pure numbers anymore.

Still, this may come as a shock to some, but Navy ships aren't designed to
be completely safe and bullet proof, regardless of the materials used. And
steel ships have also had serious major fires as well.

It's a risk versus cost versus performance thing. Big, expensive ships
like Carriers operate in a task force that includes many smaller, less
expensive and, for lack of a better word, expendable ships tasked with
protecting the big boys. Frigates, for example (used to be called Destroyer
Escorts) were cheap to build, mass produced, only designed for about a 20
year service life and outnumbered the bigger cruisers and carriers in the
fleet by 20 or 30 to one. When under attack, the DE's charged the enemy in
numbers and distracted them from the big boys, even if it meant taking a
torpedo meant for the carrier.

The DE's and more modern Frigates had/have a crew of between 200 and 300.
These new ships only carry a crew of 40 and at flank speed are much harder
to hit (they are much lighter - performance versus risk) and have advanced
electronic warfare systems, both defensive and offensive. I'd feel much
safer on one of them.

Note: I am not referring to the actual process of designing and building of
the ships. That's another issue altogether.

Eisboch

Interesting visitor....
 

"Jim" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
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.

I think the Sheffield was mostly steel and the aluminum in question was a
high magnesium content alloy. Aluminum does not burn, but does lose
strength at about 500 degrees and melts at 1500 degrees. The Sheffield
did not have vertical fire barriers as American ships do.
I thought it was about 750 degrees that Alum. started to puddle up.

600 in a vacuum.

Interesting visitor....
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...

Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:


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


Supplied by the lowest bidder...


A slippery one you be.

Eisboch

Interesting visitor....
 

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
That is a common misconception, the HMS Sheffield was made entirely of
steel.

Supplied by the lowest bidder...


A slippery one you be.

Eisboch




Not enough.
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

Interesting visitor....
 

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

Aluminum does not burn

And just how would you describe rapid exothermic oxidation then ?

Interesting visitor....
 

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

Aluminum does not burn

And just how would you describe rapid exothermic oxidation then ?




The steam coming off SW Tom when his eTec blows up?

Interesting visitor....
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...
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...

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

Interesting visitor....
 

Calif Bill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
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...

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



I see you let Zell out of the locked ward.

Interesting visitor....
 

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:27:14 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Aluminum does not burn

And just how would you describe rapid exothermic oxidation then ?




Magnesium does a rapid exothermic oxidation. Magnesium melts. One of the
reasons it is so hard to weld magnesium.

Interesting visitor....
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
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...

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

I see you let Zell out of the locked ward.

How did you get out?

Interesting visitor....
 

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

Aluminum does not burn

And just how would you describe rapid exothermic oxidation then ?




Very fast spreading and destructive rust.