Largest destroyer built for Navy headed to sea for testing

Fearless Tower said:
As far as your comment about troubled systems doing well once in actual combat, do you realize that most of the big systems we have were never fully operationally tested like we do today and have never been fired in anger?

Most of our self defense systems, for example, have never been employed in combat ops because we have been fighting jihadis on the ground for the last 20+ years.
Click to expand...

That's the point of those big defensive systems right?? To never be tested in battle, because if they are, it likely means the end of the world. Thankfully they have done their job as well as if they were ever fired in anger.

You see the problem the defense department has though. Our real enemies hide in the shadow and attack civilians in an improvised fashion with rudimentary weapons. Their chief delivery system is either Toyota pick up, or airline ticket. We don't really need big fancy weapons to fight them.

However, the DOD has to make all those people that get whipped up about the "Russians", or the "Chinese" happy. How will we ever beat their vast and finely tuned armies??!! So we have to build all new and "future" looking weapons systems to scare them. It's a stupid world we live in, but it is what is it is. Too bad we can't all get along.

We play this game with rules we make up as we go along. Dangerous crap really. Anyhow I hope this tub doesn't sink or blow up. I have to have a little faith in our engineers even if all the pundits don't.
 
Last edited:
Fearless Tower said:
I'm not so sure in this case. Bath is probably going to lose a fair amount on this project; I don't think they will recover everything the put into it. Some of it is probably their fault, but the vast majority of blame rests squarely on the Navy not being able to develop effective requirements.

Now, don't get me wrong; Bath isn't going out of business over this. They are making plenty of profit off of the ever expanding DDG production, that it will more than offset the loss.
Click to expand...

Bath has been building ships since before there was a US to have a Navy. They'll be fine. They also build commercial freighters and do not rely only on military contracts.

The tall Bowdin Pine made great masts and spars for wooden ships.
Bath was well protected from the sea, up river from the coast and around two 90 degree bends in the river that protected it from WWII German subs. Ships come off the ways, at high tide. And only go down river at high tide.
 
Henning said:
Balsa core above the waterline has been common since before they figured out you can only use it above the waterline.:rofl: Above the water to use balsa core is perfectly appropriate for composite/stealth/damage control purposes. It would be my material of choice as well.
Click to expand...

So if you drop into it an incendiary munition, it al goes up in smoke ? :hairraise:

Cheers
 
ralarcon said:
So if you drop into it an incendiary munition, it al goes up in smoke ? :hairraise:

Cheers
Click to expand...

Depends on how well the damage control party answers. One of the things about balsa is it is slow, low energy, burning, and can be impregnated easily with more inhibitors. As for the actual composites around the core, again, there is a variability in burn times that can be modified in the resin chemistry. Will it burn? You bet, but then, so does aluminum. Can a competent well trained crew manage it? Maybe, these are Men o' War, they stand into harm's way, sometimes harm wins no matter what you do.

The materials it is made of would not cause me to question taking it to do its job.
 
Henning said:
Balsa core above the waterline has been common since before they figured out you can only use it above the waterline.:rofl: Above the water to use balsa core is perfectly appropriate for composite/stealth/damage control purposes. It would be my material of choice as well.
Click to expand...

As alluded to in the article, the balsa core does two things: assists in radar attenuation for the installed systems and absorbs external radar signals to reduce the radar cross-section as seen on enemy radar.

I believe it has a similar effect as the radar absorbing pannels that are applied to the superstructure of cruisers and destroyers.
 
Fearless Tower said:
As alluded to in the article, the balsa core does two things: assists in radar attenuation for the installed systems and absorbs external radar signals to reduce the radar cross-section as seen on enemy radar.

I believe it has a similar effect as the radar absorbing pannels that are applied to the superstructure of cruisers and destroyers.
Click to expand...

Do not underestimate the strength and damage resilience of balsa either. In many ways it is superior to foam cores, except rot and saturation. That's why you can't use it below the water line. Actually foam isn't worth a crap below the waterline either due to delamination problems. Yacht industry found out about that real quick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top