Steven Shelikoffwrote:
Sea Fighter's sea trials included, in part, extensive certification
testing ranging from maneuvering, cruise performance, and propulsion
trials -- where the ship achieved a continuous cruising speed in excess
of 50 knots -- to vibration, sound, and stern ramp operation trials.


"Built to commercial standards"?!?!! Sorry, IMHO that's just plain not
good enough. Warships have to meet demands and endure stresses that
commercial vessels get near. I also have grave doubts about the
suitability of aluminum for a warship, has the Navy already forgotten
it's rather gruesome lessons about how easily aluminum burns?

OTOH I'm glad to see the Navy & Coast Guard getting new advanced
equipment. They need it.

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
How about some pictures of this machine?

A Google image search turned up:

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/.../ship-fsf.html
http://www.onr.navy.mil/media/view_i...ID=91&SubID=81
http://www.onr.navy.mil/media/view_i...ID=93&SubID=81

http://www.quantumhydraulic.com/imag...eafighter1.jpg
http://www.quantumhydraulic.com/imag...eafighter3.jpg

DSK wrote:

"Built to commercial standards"?!?!! Sorry, IMHO that's just plain not
good enough. Warships have to meet demands and endure stresses that
commercial vessels get near. I also have grave doubts about the
suitability of aluminum for a warship, has the Navy already forgotten
it's rather gruesome lessons about how easily aluminum burns?

One may see you have no understanding of what Bureau and Classification
Society rules are, and how they do/don't affect NAVSEA design &
construction. Good naval architecture is good naval architecture. Of
mutual necessity commercial Class standards are higher, not lower, than
naval ones. A massive and slow 60,000 DWT cargo vessel operated by a
crew of 26 civilians, insured by private interests with high stakes,
and subjected to all the rigors of continual trade is much more robust
and more highly regulated than a light, fast subchaser of comparable
length displacing 7,000 DWT & built like a yacht with a crew of 400 to
operate her (that is, if you call what Navy guys do "operating"g).
You also may wish to learn a bit about what sort of contruction and
alloys are required to build practical surface combatants capable of
sustained high speeds and rapid battle manuevers (most of them
classified & some would amaze you). Combustibility of 6000 series Al
used for the superstructures of the other ships you refer to is among
the least of its problems to live with or overcome. Exfoliation,
electrolysis, cracking and other things head but do not complete its
challenges in typical combatant construction. Having an aluminum hull
eliminates some of its chief problems.

It was obviously a very wise business victory for the yard to have won
a combatant contract vessel build that includes Class approval, when
high speed cats are coming into their own commercially (with the
expected fits & starts) in a flagging American building industry that
has been languishing on its deathbed for 40 years. It must've taken
some real stroking & massaging at NAVSEA and a lot of cooperation
elsewhere to do this.

You should be jumping up & down that one yard in your marine-wise very
down-and-out country may have something relevant to do.

OTOH I'm glad to see the Navy & Coast Guard getting new advanced
equipment. They need it.

I want to know what kind of ASW vehicle fits into a container & is ramp
deployable. Maybe it's some new independent fish? (Maybe we shouldn't
ask in public.)