Second LCS Launched
dump...@hotmail.com
dump...@hotmail.com
> See:
>
> http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3505906&c=AME&s=SEA
Another picture:
http://www.blackfive.net/photos/uncategorized/2008/05/02/in20dock20prior20to20launch.jpg
Douglas Eagleson
A trimaran hull allows a flatten ships bilges. self stability is
evidently to be controled by speed and vanes. Loss of power in seas
could very well capsize the thing.
Some kind of quest for speed made the tradeoff I guess. It stinks.
Let it try out the North Bearing sea and then ask a need for flat
bilges.
Interception as a rule requires the speed, but to place such a defect
in the hull is a lesson to be learned. It HAS TO move to prevent
capsize. Somebody placed a very bad hull inside the flat bottom speed
boat. WHY have at all a section of the central hull be so????
Guess the effect on righting stability of the central underwater hull
section. It is dynamically unstable, as hull angle increases the rate
of bouyancy change causes the hull angle to only increase. It
litererlly self capsizes. I can not imagine the hull form tests being
anything but speed demanded a priori.
A plain flat bottom would be safer.
PaPaPeng
>On Apr 30, 8:37 pm, dumpst...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> See:
>>
>> http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3505906&c=AME&s=SEA
Quote from URL: The ship first saw the sun April 26 when workers at
Austal USA moved the striking, aluminum-hulled trimaran out of its
building shed and onto a floating drydock.
From WIKI: The sinking of the Sheffield is sometimes blamed on a
superstructure made wholly or partially from aluminium, the melting
point and ignition temperature of which are significantly lower than
those of steel. However, this is incorrect as the Sheffield's
superstructure was made entirely of steel.[6] The confusion is related
to the US and British Navies abandoning aluminium after several fires
in the 1970s involving ships that had aluminium superstructures. The
sinking of the Type 21 frigates HMS Antelope and Ardent, both of which
had aluminium superstructures, probably also had an effect on this
belief though these cases are again incorrect and the presence of
aluminium had nothing to do with their loss. In both cases, it is
likely the ships would have been lost in any event, due to amount of
explosives involved in such small ships, though aluminium fires did
break out.
Wouldn't combat experience suggest that aluminum is not a good
material for the construction of combat ships? Above a certain
temperature aluminun melts and congtributes to fuel a very hot fire.
Think thermite.
>
>
>Another picture:
>
>http://www.blackfive.net/photos/uncategorized/2008/05/02/in20dock20prior20to20launch.jpg
Dean A. Markley
does not burn.....it does indeed melt and loses structural strength at a
much lower temperature than steel but it does not burn.
Thermite is a totally different physical and chemical reaction. It is a
reaction between finely divided aluminum and iron oxide. This combines
to form aluminum oxide and molten iron plus a huge exotherm of course.
The use of aluminum vs steel is a trade-off as in almost everything. Do
you want strength? Or do you want reduced weight?
Dean