Picture of the day
- Thread starter jwhc
- Start date
Eaglelord17
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Sault Ste. Marie
Our current ships can't take or endure much hits or damage currently. I can't see how a composite one could be any worse.
In the Falklands there were instances of ladders giving out under people because they were made of aluminum and you couldn't tell if it was past the give out point or not. The other problem with aluminum is when it burns it creates a toxic gas.
There have been some interesting discussions about the survivability of these ships, but the composite materials aren't the primary concern.
The concern lies with the Tumblehome hul design. Keep in mind, that the Tumblehome design is not new (as mentioned, earlier, it dates back to the American Civil War), and while it has some advantages - even in a pre-radar environment, where it offers the same benefits for shell deflection as sloped armor does on a tank - it wasn't pursued to any great extent in the 20th century for a couple reasons.
Tumblehome ships have greater tendency to "nose in and down" into waves in heavy seas than a traditional hull design that flares outward above the waterline. There has been a lot of work to mitigate the safety issues associated with this in the Zumwalt - basically a much more sealed upper deck, which won't prevent the behaviour, just reduce the water ingress and risks when it happens.
The other concern is about the size of the internal air pocket above the waterline if the ship receives a below the waterline hit. With a traditional hull design, the size of the air space increases the higher you go in the hull. If a ship starts taking on water, this creates air pressure and buoyancy conditions that, while it may not save the ship, will keep it afloat for longer. Possibly long enough for successful damage control, but also creating a longer window of opportunity for crew evacuation.
With a Tumblehome hull, the largest internal air pocket is below the waterline, which creates some interesting problems with a below the waterline hit. This is actually the key reason the design was dropped from warships at the beginning of the 20th century.
The Navy's answers to both these concerns is, essentially, "trust us, we've solved this, with some cool technology we don't want to discuss." Not everyone is convinced.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/defense-news-will-ddg1000-destroyers-be-unstable-03203/
The other thing to consider is the nature of modern anti ship missiles and torpedoes. They have become powerful enough to cut any modern destroyer in have, with very low survivability prospects. Part of Navy is pushing for a larger fleet of smaller vessels with less crew per vessel, to increase overall survivability as a result. The Zumwalt fits within those parameters.
dgradinaru
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- British Columbia
Intresting footage.
dgradinaru
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- British Columbia
Patton once said " We have fought the wrong enemy". Communism was a bigger concern to him than the NAZIS. History is written in the eyes of the Victor. If you do a little more digging about the truth of WWII, It can really open your mind to a better understanding.
Aluminum is very bad on warships. The Brits discovered this in the Falklands. Aluminum alloys will burn and if you try and fight the fire with water the heat is such that water feeds the fire. Very bad stuff if it starts burning. You need very special fire fighting equipment which is difficult to carry in sufficient quantities. Ships carry enough to fight helicopter fires etc but if the whole superstructure starts burning things go pear shaped in a real hurry. Firefighting drills in the navy was the one thing I really hated. Still makes my back crawl thinking about it.
Our tribal class are aluminum are they not?
Are you serious? The world should not have stopped the spread of Fascism and stood by while the Jews, Gypsies and other "untermenschen" were eliminated? Coupled with what the Japanese were doing under their "Co-Prosperity" scheme in Asia, the world would be a much different placed than it is now.
Patton was an astute military tactician, but regarded as a loose cannon by his peers. He was correct in his assessment of the dangers of Stalinism to Europe and the West, but the Allies were war weary and Britain for one was bankrupt.
Churchill was also a visionary when he made his ".... an iron curtain has fallen across Europe ...." speech, but he stopped short of advocating a war with Russia.
Patton was an astute military tactician, but regarded as a loose cannon by his peers. He was correct in his assessment of the dangers of Stalinism to Europe and the West, but the Allies were war weary and Britain for one was bankrupt.
Churchill was also a visionary when he made his ".... an iron curtain has fallen across Europe ...." speech, but he stopped short of advocating a war with Russia.
Certainly Churchill didnt openly advocate war --- he knew the cost in terms of money and votes .. the British public (and everyone else) was war weary by then. However that did not stop the British from beginning their "Cold War" of which Churchill was well aware - and of course the Soviets already had their spies busy at work. It was pretty apparent from the Soviets activities in Iran in 1945 when they backed the establishment of the Peoples Republic of Azerbaijhan and the Kurdish Peoples Republic that they were going to oppose the British (and American) idea of a 'good time' ... and the kid gloves came off and the 'cold war' gloves went on.
It was honouring aggression pacts with European countries that got us into the war. Up to that point the world chose not to recognize what was happening to the Jews in Europe, closing the doors to Jewish refugees fleeing what was coming, Canada included. Much of the German population was similarly unaware (willfully ignorant?) of the plight of the Jews.
I asked my German in-laws how they could not know when tens of thousands of people were going to specific destinations, tying up resources and rail transport and not returning. Answer: "It was in your best interest NOT to know."
Canadians who fought with the Mac-Pap Battalion in Spain could see the writing on the wall and the rise of Fascism that threatened European stability.
I asked my German in-laws how they could not know when tens of thousands of people were going to specific destinations, tying up resources and rail transport and not returning. Answer: "It was in your best interest NOT to know."
Canadians who fought with the Mac-Pap Battalion in Spain could see the writing on the wall and the rise of Fascism that threatened European stability.
I was peripherally involved in a similar discussion about the ability of aluminumed hulled warships to handle hits and fires some time ago. Someone brought up that an inquiry was held in Britian to address the apparent tendancy of RN ships not to take damage well. The inquiry found that these concerns were unwarranted.
So, is this issue real, or a cover-up?
So, is this issue real, or a cover-up?
