Slashdot Mirror

Yep, aluiminium is more reactive than steel, though you can also burn steel, which is how a thermal lance operates.

As for the link, I don't know about the other cases, but that's incorrect in the case of the HMS Sheffield. It was struck with a turbojet powered exocet missile. The missile failed to explode but dumped a fair fraction of it's fuel (which has much more energy than the warhead) and ignited it. The missile strike also knocked out the water main used for firefighting.

So almost all of the damage was caused by a giant fuel fire. See also:

http://www.hazegray.org/faq/sm...

The missile hit right in the ships main control room putting it out of action and the fire caused by the remaining fuel from the missile burned nicely on the aluminium ship.

And you were doing so well up to this point... Sheffield wasn't an Aluminium ship, not even aluminium superstructure http://www.hazegray.org/faq/smn6.htm#F7
As the link above states none of the RN ships sunk in the Falklands were sunk because of burning aluminium.

In Sheffields case they lost the firefighting ring main more or less immediately and they abandoned when the heat conducted by the steel hull was causing secondary fires in other parts of the ship

All your post makes tons of sense. Well, almost all. This paart is not real:

[India] don't seem to have an appetite for superpower status

Actualy they have.

Those who want to be superpowers have aircraft carriers. India has some and is building more. Se:

India as a superpower:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_as_an_emerging_ superpower

Indian Navy carriers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier#Indi an_Navy

List of Indian carriers:
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/india.htm

India begins construction of aircraft carrier
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-04/1 2/content_433517.htm

"Moscow and New Delhi today signed a $1.6 billion deal finalizing India's purchase of a refurbished Russian aircraft carrier, fighter jets, and helicopters. Observers say it's a sweet agreement for both sides, allowing Russia to bolster its sagging arms industry and India its regional strategic capacity. "
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/mo dele.pl?prod=32130&session=dae.23771315.1164583691 .RWojC8Oa9dUAAHETeZY&modele=jdc_1

Grand Delusions: The Psychology of Aircraft Carriers
http://hir.harvard.edu/articles/1068/

India's Military, from CIA's factbook:
https://cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/in. html#Military

Peace!

Here's the breakdown from hazegray.org:

There were 7 US fleet carriers afloat before the war broke out (Lexington, Saratoga, Enterprise, Wasp, Hornet, and Ranger), along with a couple of smaller carriers like USS Langely, mostly used for ferrying and training.

During the war, 29 "fleet" carriers were built (Essex and Midway classes). Fleet carriers (designated CV) were the largest, capable of carrying over 100 aircraft.

Eleven light carriers (CVL) were built. These were slightly smaller than fleet carriers and were based on excess light cruiser hulls (Independence and Saipan classes).

As for carrier escorts (CVE), 129 keels were laid down during the war (51 Long Island and Bogue classes, 51 Casablanca class, 27 Sangamon and Commencement Bay classes). True, the first were converted from merchant hulls, but the rest were designed by Henry Kaiser and based on a merchie plan, not converted. Kaiser revolutionized shipbuilding, eventually getting the process of building and launching a Liberty Ship down to something like 6 days per hull.

So my numbers were a bit low. Forty carriers capable of power projection were built and 129 escort keels were laid down. Japan's carrier production figure included carriers and hybrids built on unfinished battleship and cruiser hulls (like Shinano).

Anyway, from the Wikipedia page you referenced has a table that I'd love to quote but it trips the Slashdot Lameness Filter. Here's an example line:


Merchant shipping tonnage: Allies 33,993,230 Axis 5,000,000+


The only line item on that table for which the Axis had an advantage was in submarine production, seeing as that was the bread and butter of Germany's Kriegsmarine. In every other category, the Allies had a 2:1, 3:1, or 4:1 edge.

That's a pretty definitive production advantage.

k.

Sorry, but China's growth rate is a prime example of the catch-up effect. In short, China's growth rate is double-digits (or near there) because they were using their labor so inefficiently until recently that they only have one direction to go. Besides, if GDP growth was proof of a country's greatness, perhaps China better look in their rear-view mirror, because Azerbaijan is catching up fast.

As for China being the next world superpower, call me when they get a navy. Sure, they can nuke us, but they can't even get past Chile's navy to hold the nuked territory, much less our own, and it's not like we don't have a few nukes to play with. Heck, the US has 2/3 of the quantitative aircraft carrier fleet in the world, and 4/5 of the deck space.

The Sheffield was lost in the Falkland Islands conflict. It is popularly beleived that this was due to the alumiminum superstructure catching fire. However, it seems that the Sheffield did not have an aluminum superstructure and the Sheffield was lost for other reasons.

http://www.hazegray.org/faq/smn6.htm#F7
http://www.alfed.org.uk/templates/alfed/content.as p?PageId=111

It is also worth noting that any metal can catch fire if you get it hot enough, even steel.

Oh, and the Carrier fires...

This is a little outside the 30 year limit, but very important to the discussion at hand

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/shi p/cv-59.htm
"On July 29, 1967 the USS Forrestal was operating off the coast of Vietnam, when a Zuni rocket accidentally fired from an F-4 Phantom into a parked and armed A-4 Skyhawk. The impact caused the belly fuel tank and a 1,000 pound bomb on the Skyhawk to fall off, spilling JP5 (jet fuel) onto the flight deck and ignited a fire. The bomb exploded, causing a massive chain reaction of explosions fed by fuel and bombs from other aircraft that were armed and ready for the coming strike. Fuel and bombs spilled into the holes in the flight deck igniting fires on lower decks. This was the single worst loss of life on a navy vessel since the USS Franklin (CV-13) was bombed in WWII: 134 lost their lives, while an additional 64 were injured."

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/fires/
"Forrestal was operating off Vietnam at the time of the fire. A Zuni rocket was accidentally launched on deck (due to an electrical problem), hitting a parked A-4, and igniting its drop tank. The fire then spread to other aircraft, and bombs began to explode on deck. The fire burned for 13 hours, killed 134 crew and caused the loss of 21 aircraft, some of which were pushed overboard before the fire reached them. 7 holes were blown in the flight deck. Repairs took 7 months, requiring complete removal and reconstruction of the aft section of the ship down to the hangar floor. This was the worst carrier fire in postwar years. The ship has carried the nickname "Forrest Fire" ever since. Films shot during the fire are still show in the course of basic training for all sailors"

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/fires/
"Oriskany was operating off Vietnam at the time of the fire. Two sailors were storing flares in a space at the starboard forward corner of the hangar deck. One of the flares lit accidentally, and the sailor threw it into the locker and closed the hatch. The locker contained 650 flares, which quickly lit. The resulting fire caused extensive damage to the ship and killed 44 men. The entire forward section of the ship from the hangar floor up was gutted."

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/fires/
"Enterprise was operating off Hawaii at the time. The sequence of events was similar to the Forrestal fire, starting with a rocket overheating due to exhaust from a flight deck vehicle and "cooking off". The rocket hit another aircraft, which ignited and touched off a flight deck disaster. The fire was put out within 4 hours. Damage, although severe, was less extensive than that caused by Forrestal fire. The nuclear powered USS Bainbridge was one of Enterprise's escorts, and according to one of her sailors she vastly surpassed her rated speed of "30+" knots while racing to the carrier's aid. The next day the frigate escorted the carrier into Pearl Harbor, and the atmosphere was said to be not unlike prevailing mood when the previous USS Enterprise (CV 6) returned to Pearl Harbor the day after the Japanese attack. "

Oh, and the Carrier fires...

This is a little outside the 30 year limit, but very important to the discussion at hand

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/shi p/cv-59.htm
"On July 29, 1967 the USS Forrestal was operating off the coast of Vietnam, when a Zuni rocket accidentally fired from an F-4 Phantom into a parked and armed A-4 Skyhawk. The impact caused the belly fuel tank and a 1,000 pound bomb on the Skyhawk to fall off, spilling JP5 (jet fuel) onto the flight deck and ignited a fire. The bomb exploded, causing a massive chain reaction of explosions fed by fuel and bombs from other aircraft that were armed and ready for the coming strike. Fuel and bombs spilled into the holes in the flight deck igniting fires on lower decks. This was the single worst loss of life on a navy vessel since the USS Franklin (CV-13) was bombed in WWII: 134 lost their lives, while an additional 64 were injured."

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/fires/
"Forrestal was operating off Vietnam at the time of the fire. A Zuni rocket was accidentally launched on deck (due to an electrical problem), hitting a parked A-4, and igniting its drop tank. The fire then spread to other aircraft, and bombs began to explode on deck. The fire burned for 13 hours, killed 134 crew and caused the loss of 21 aircraft, some of which were pushed overboard before the fire reached them. 7 holes were blown in the flight deck. Repairs took 7 months, requiring complete removal and reconstruction of the aft section of the ship down to the hangar floor. This was the worst carrier fire in postwar years. The ship has carried the nickname "Forrest Fire" ever since. Films shot during the fire are still show in the course of basic training for all sailors"

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/fires/
"Oriskany was operating off Vietnam at the time of the fire. Two sailors were storing flares in a space at the starboard forward corner of the hangar deck. One of the flares lit accidentally, and the sailor threw it into the locker and closed the hatch. The locker contained 650 flares, which quickly lit. The resulting fire caused extensive damage to the ship and killed 44 men. The entire forward section of the ship from the hangar floor up was gutted."

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/fires/
"Enterprise was operating off Hawaii at the time. The sequence of events was similar to the Forrestal fire, starting with a rocket overheating due to exhaust from a flight deck vehicle and "cooking off". The rocket hit another aircraft, which ignited and touched off a flight deck disaster. The fire was put out within 4 hours. Damage, although severe, was less extensive than that caused by Forrestal fire. The nuclear powered USS Bainbridge was one of Enterprise's escorts, and according to one of her sailors she vastly surpassed her rated speed of "30+" knots while racing to the carrier's aid. The next day the frigate escorted the carrier into Pearl Harbor, and the atmosphere was said to be not unlike prevailing mood when the previous USS Enterprise (CV 6) returned to Pearl Harbor the day after the Japanese attack. "

Oh, and the Carrier fires...

This is a little outside the 30 year limit, but very important to the discussion at hand

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/shi p/cv-59.htm
"On July 29, 1967 the USS Forrestal was operating off the coast of Vietnam, when a Zuni rocket accidentally fired from an F-4 Phantom into a parked and armed A-4 Skyhawk. The impact caused the belly fuel tank and a 1,000 pound bomb on the Skyhawk to fall off, spilling JP5 (jet fuel) onto the flight deck and ignited a fire. The bomb exploded, causing a massive chain reaction of explosions fed by fuel and bombs from other aircraft that were armed and ready for the coming strike. Fuel and bombs spilled into the holes in the flight deck igniting fires on lower decks. This was the single worst loss of life on a navy vessel since the USS Franklin (CV-13) was bombed in WWII: 134 lost their lives, while an additional 64 were injured."

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/fires/
"Forrestal was operating off Vietnam at the time of the fire. A Zuni rocket was accidentally launched on deck (due to an electrical problem), hitting a parked A-4, and igniting its drop tank. The fire then spread to other aircraft, and bombs began to explode on deck. The fire burned for 13 hours, killed 134 crew and caused the loss of 21 aircraft, some of which were pushed overboard before the fire reached them. 7 holes were blown in the flight deck. Repairs took 7 months, requiring complete removal and reconstruction of the aft section of the ship down to the hangar floor. This was the worst carrier fire in postwar years. The ship has carried the nickname "Forrest Fire" ever since. Films shot during the fire are still show in the course of basic training for all sailors"

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/fires/
"Oriskany was operating off Vietnam at the time of the fire. Two sailors were storing flares in a space at the starboard forward corner of the hangar deck. One of the flares lit accidentally, and the sailor threw it into the locker and closed the hatch. The locker contained 650 flares, which quickly lit. The resulting fire caused extensive damage to the ship and killed 44 men. The entire forward section of the ship from the hangar floor up was gutted."

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/fires/
"Enterprise was operating off Hawaii at the time. The sequence of events was similar to the Forrestal fire, starting with a rocket overheating due to exhaust from a flight deck vehicle and "cooking off". The rocket hit another aircraft, which ignited and touched off a flight deck disaster. The fire was put out within 4 hours. Damage, although severe, was less extensive than that caused by Forrestal fire. The nuclear powered USS Bainbridge was one of Enterprise's escorts, and according to one of her sailors she vastly surpassed her rated speed of "30+" knots while racing to the carrier's aid. The next day the frigate escorted the carrier into Pearl Harbor, and the atmosphere was said to be not unlike prevailing mood when the previous USS Enterprise (CV 6) returned to Pearl Harbor the day after the Japanese attack. "

Which one?

CV-6
CVN-65

Note that these are the 7th and 8th USS Enterprise respectively.

Which one?

CV-6
CVN-65

Note that these are the 7th and 8th USS Enterprise respectively.

I suspect most of the naval fatalities over the last 30 years are due primarily to ship-board accidents. The USS Forrestal (CVA 59) was nearly lost due to an accidental misfire on the deck which killed 134 people. Apparently several others have experieneced similiar problems. In 1989, 47 people were killed when a turret exploded (see here).

Realistically, it's far, far too expensive to maintain a modern navy of any size. The age of ship-to-ship combat is over. The nations that have surface ships generally don't use them except as a platform for deploying land forces.

The USCG high endurance cutters have almost the same ballistic armament as a USN cruiser. Nonetheless, both ships have still been attacked by pirates.

I think you're thinking of Radiocarbon dating (aka "carbon dating"). Atomic weapon testing has affected the calibration of the data.

You may also be thinking of the need for pre-1945 "clean steel." This is the first explanation I found in a quick search.

Section G.7: Salvage of German WWII U-Boats

"All steel made since the detonation of the first atom bomb in 1945 has contained tiny amounts of radioactivity. This is because the atmosphere now contains trace amounts of radioactivity. The steelmaking process involves the use of large amounts of air, which transfers the radioactivity to the steel. Instruments and equipment used for measuring radioactivity must be free from extra background radiation, so post-1945 "new" steel cannot be used for these purposes."

I guess firing off a few of these is just increasing the market value of non-radioactive steel. Time to do some salvage!

Ships made out of aluminum are hugely vulnerable to damage from a relatively cheap cruise missile, as proved in the falklands (was that the sheffield? One of you brits or argentines help me out here).

Your example of HMS Sheffield is in any case incorrect and is covered in the sci.military.navy FAQ:

There are many misconceptions and incorrect stories regarding the use of aluminum in warship construction.

One common story is that HMS Sheffield, a destroyer sunk during the 1982 Falkland War, was lost because her alleged aluminum superstructure made her more vulnerable to damage. This story is completely untrue, because Sheffield's superstructure was not aluminum. Like all ships of her class, her hull and superstructure were entirely steel. Aluminum played no role in her loss.

Two Royal Navy warships lost during the Falklands War did have aluminum superstructures, and their loss is incorrectly attributed to this feature. Ardent was hit by seven 500- and 1000-pound bombs, plus at least two more bombs which failed to detonate, and sank some six hours after the attack. Any warship of her size, regardless of aluminum or steel construction, would likely be sunk by this many bombs, so aluminum cannot be blamed here. Antelope, another aluminum-superstructure ship, was struck by two bombs, which lodged in the ship but failed to explode. Later, while one of the bombs was being defused, it exploded, blowing a major hole in the hull and starting a large fire. The fire eventually reached the magazines, causing these to explode. Again, an aluminum superstructure appears to have little connection to the ship's loss, which was caused by the explosion of the bomb and the magazines.

A related story claims the US Navy and Royal Navy abanonded aluminum superstructures, in favor of steel, as a result of the Falklands war. Since aluminum superstructures played little or no role in the Falkands losses, this story is obviously untrue. The Royal Navy's switch to steel appears to be a result of a 1977 fire in the frigate Amazon. In the US Navy, the switch from aluminum to steel superstructures was a result of the 1975 collision between the carrier John F. Kennedy and the cruiser Belknap. The collision caused major fires aboard the cruiser, and her aluminum superstructure essentially melted; she was reduced to a badly burnt hulk. This incident lead to a decision to adopt steel superstructures in the next new warship class, the Arleigh Burke (DDG 51) class destroyers. This decision had been made prior to the Falkands War.

How many delusions of grandeur does everyone else have?

- The Galactica needs bigger engines. Those puny pipes sticking out don't look like they do jack squat.

- The Galactica needs to be BIGGER. You get the sense that she's about the size of a modern aircraft carrier. That's big, but nowhere near as big as the concept of a "BattleStar" calls for.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZT Wrong answer.

Russia has one. At least six other nations maintain at least one true aircraft carrier. Including those dastardly evil french, whose Nuclear powered Charles De Gaulle holds 40+ aircraft. China has been supposedly working on a supercarrier for years, but nothing has been confirmed, though 'chinese interests' bought the Varyag the second of the ex. USSR's carriers. Supposedly to become an "entertainment complex." A list of other nations who have kept carriers or plan to can be found here

Now, as for having 13 aircraft carriers. Technically there's 15 (a list can be found here), with two (Ranger and Independance) in mothballs at Bremerton, Wash. 16 if you want to count the America, but she's due to be scrapped. Of those 15, Three; The Kitty Hawk, Constellation, and Enterprise, were all commision in 1961. Any one of those ships could stand to be retired. Granted the Kitty Hawk went through a major upgrade recently, a 40 year old ship is still a 40 year old ship. It's also one of two non-nuke carriers (the other being the Kennedy, next oldest in line) still in service.

Those six carriers will likely all be out of service by the time the George H.W. Bush hits the water. Independance and Ranger will probably be property of the Gillette and bic razor blade companys, Kitty Hawk and Constellation won't be far behind.

Given our Military policy (!= foreign policy) of being able to project force quickly, anywhere in the world, A fair number of carriers makes sense. Not to sound like a classic republican hawk, but We don't have to wait and see who will allow us use of airbases, we don't have to worry about what country will bitch and moan about airspace. What once took months now takes weeks.

Given that we've decided to play world cop and send in American forces to try and solve to world's problems, these fit in well with our military strategy. 15 is definatly overkill, but that number will decline. The new carriers will be cheaper than the old, making those carreiers prime tagets for scrapping.

I think our current leadership is hovering around 50% full of shit, but they have nothing to due with this carrier or the next.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZT Wrong answer.

Russia has one. At least six other nations maintain at least one true aircraft carrier. Including those dastardly evil french, whose Nuclear powered Charles De Gaulle holds 40+ aircraft. China has been supposedly working on a supercarrier for years, but nothing has been confirmed, though 'chinese interests' bought the Varyag the second of the ex. USSR's carriers. Supposedly to become an "entertainment complex." A list of other nations who have kept carriers or plan to can be found here

Now, as for having 13 aircraft carriers. Technically there's 15 (a list can be found here), with two (Ranger and Independance) in mothballs at Bremerton, Wash. 16 if you want to count the America, but she's due to be scrapped. Of those 15, Three; The Kitty Hawk, Constellation, and Enterprise, were all commision in 1961. Any one of those ships could stand to be retired. Granted the Kitty Hawk went through a major upgrade recently, a 40 year old ship is still a 40 year old ship. It's also one of two non-nuke carriers (the other being the Kennedy, next oldest in line) still in service.

Those six carriers will likely all be out of service by the time the George H.W. Bush hits the water. Independance and Ranger will probably be property of the Gillette and bic razor blade companys, Kitty Hawk and Constellation won't be far behind.

Given our Military policy (!= foreign policy) of being able to project force quickly, anywhere in the world, A fair number of carriers makes sense. Not to sound like a classic republican hawk, but We don't have to wait and see who will allow us use of airbases, we don't have to worry about what country will bitch and moan about airspace. What once took months now takes weeks.

Given that we've decided to play world cop and send in American forces to try and solve to world's problems, these fit in well with our military strategy. 15 is definatly overkill, but that number will decline. The new carriers will be cheaper than the old, making those carreiers prime tagets for scrapping.

I think our current leadership is hovering around 50% full of shit, but they have nothing to due with this carrier or the next.

Also, the Columbia was named after a famous US naval vessel. According to this link , it was one of the first US ships to circumnavigate the globe, though I head that it was _the_ first.

YF-12A not A-11. The A-11 was the original name for the SR-71 airframe. The SR-71 BTW was supposed to be called the SR-17, but LBJ screwed up the public announcement, and thenceforth, SR-71 it was.

SR stands for Strategic Reconaissance. YF stands for Service Test Fighter. A full explanation of the codes is available here. Data comparing YF-12A and SR-71 is available here and on many other websites. For some strange reason, it's a popular subject for air freaks :-)

All you never wanted to know about the A-12, YF-12A, D-21 Drone, and other SR-71 "Blackbird"-related variants is available here, and the YF-12A section of the same site here. It's an auto-translation from the original French, but pretty darn good - quiet progress in this area has been significant over the last few years, though it's still got a a way to go.

It seems only a matter of time before other countries developed their own surrogate weaponry, and the idea of the high-tech Drone War -- machines warring with one another -- moves to the next level.

Beyond what else was state in your article, you statement here makes it sound "so simple".

Fact of that matter is that in 1930, America had the 18th largest military if you could even call it that. With the Great Depression and the fact that WWI was that war to end all wars (ya right), the US quickly demobilized much of the military. It was not till the rising threat of Germany and Japan in the mid 30's that the US acted to start "building" there military up.

Fact of the matter is, the US have not stopped. I remember statements from many other countries in 1990 that "oh .. the USA is going into another Vietnam" You will never win against them. And honestly, many countries had there "we told you so" speech prepared.

Well after complete destruction of Iraq and the loss of 300-400 military personal, many countries folled up with "omfg". Though no link can be found, the Sec of Defense for the former Soviet Union was stated we need to "start" developing these weapons.

Scarey fact is that these weapons were being developed as early as the 60's in America where as most other countries are just today starting to to plan these weapons.

Point being, America has a very large techno jump over any other country in the world in weapons.

Another issue is deployment. China has 2.5 million troops, almost doubling the US's active duty. Ya great .. big whoop. How do you get them from point A to point B. China does not even have an aircraft carrier. The Soviets are in the same boat (or lack thereoff). They have "had" an aircraft carrier, was in service for three years and is now being sold to India.

The concept of large scale "drone wars" is far, far away. And honestly, I do not even consider the Afganastan conflict your so called drone war. It was a large army (Northern Alliance) with a few special forces with radios and laser markers telling the bombers where to drop there payload. Beyond that it was Soviet tanks, AK-47's,Nissan Pickup trucks, blood, sweet, and tears. About as conventional as it comes.

Not really related:

SAMOVAR

[Norway] SAM Obstruction in Velocity, Angle and Range. Electronic jamming pod fitted to Tiger-PAWS aircraft.