Actually, the Freedom has an aluminium sjuperstructure as well, its that the Freedom has a steel hull whereas the Independence has an aluminium hull... Some wonder whether the aluminium hull will eventually lead to stress fractures?
Which would you go with for the LCS.
- Thread starter Belesari
- Start date
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #22
Aluminium / Magnesum
seriously? Thats a recipe for disaster. Didnt they once make gernades out of magnesium and they banned them because they were so evil?
----------------------------------------
Is there a way to strengthen the aluminum or to lighten the steel if they went for that? I think the navy might just need to accept a loss in speed for affordability and such.
seriously? Thats a recipe for disaster. Didnt they once make gernades out of magnesium and they banned them because they were so evil?
----------------------------------------
Is there a way to strengthen the aluminum or to lighten the steel if they went for that? I think the navy might just need to accept a loss in speed for affordability and such.
Magnesium has been used as a component in aircraft and racing cars for quite some time now. Structurally, it's light and fairly strong and its high flashpoint doesn't make combustion an extreme issue. However, it can burn, and when it does it burns hot and very, very fiercely.
IIRC, the XB-29 had serious magnesium combustion problems which lead to at least one loss. However, this was due to a design error and some technical issues, and it was solved.
speaking of aluminum construction and flammability, I read there is no smoking allowed aboard USS Independence
while not directly related to the effictiveness of the design and engineering of the ships' construction, I feel a never-lit-smoking-lamp provides an immeasurable hit to the fighting effectiveness of the ships' crew. Even the non-smokers will find themselves affected when in the company of cranky, and morale sinking, nicotine shorted sailors
source pending a post count greater than 10
while not directly related to the effictiveness of the design and engineering of the ships' construction, I feel a never-lit-smoking-lamp provides an immeasurable hit to the fighting effectiveness of the ships' crew. Even the non-smokers will find themselves affected when in the company of cranky, and morale sinking, nicotine shorted sailors
source pending a post count greater than 10
Smoking is a dying habit.
Even in industries and professions where smoking was common (eg construction) it is becomming so rare that most construction sites are now smoke free and not a whole lot of issue with that(atleast in Australia, US seems to be simular). Oil rigs are also a no smoking zone (usually).
If phased in over 10 years no smoking ships won't be a big issues as smokers retire, die off or move to shore based duties. I don't think it will be that hard for the USN to crew a few smoke free ships.
Smoke free construction sites still let you light up a cigar at the right times (finish slab, finish building , lock up etc) but was at foremans call.
Even in industries and professions where smoking was common (eg construction) it is becomming so rare that most construction sites are now smoke free and not a whole lot of issue with that(atleast in Australia, US seems to be simular). Oil rigs are also a no smoking zone (usually).
If phased in over 10 years no smoking ships won't be a big issues as smokers retire, die off or move to shore based duties. I don't think it will be that hard for the USN to crew a few smoke free ships.
Smoke free construction sites still let you light up a cigar at the right times (finish slab, finish building , lock up etc) but was at foremans call.
All USN ships are non-smoking in the interior, been that way for more than 10 years. Remember that fire on the George Washington more than a year ago that caused $70 million in damage? That was from some idiots smoking outside of a designated area topside and illegal stowage of HAZMAT.speaking of aluminum construction and flammability, I read there is no smoking allowed aboard USS Independence
while not directly related to the effictiveness of the design and engineering of the ships' construction, I feel a never-lit-smoking-lamp provides an immeasurable hit to the fighting effectiveness of the ships' crew. Even the non-smokers will find themselves affected when in the company of cranky, and morale sinking, nicotine shorted sailors
source pending a post count greater than 10
So far the crew of LCS-1 and 2 are hand picked by Millington, non-smokers could of been one of the requirements since the USN has been stressing a tobacco free life style for as long as I can remember.
@ StingrayOZ
besides your example of the oil rig, each of those other smoke free locations weren't surrounded by miles and miles of ocean. While I am certainly an anti-smoking person and in favor of all the anti smoking measures taken by the military and civilian sectors I still feel it is a sticking point as far as morale is concerned to treat the smokers like pariah because of some poor design choices
@AegisFC
I'm aware of the smoking requirements aboard a surface ship even though I never deployed during my time in the Navy (a fact I am quite sad about) but I was unaware of the hand picking of crew for LCS et al. Regardless, that will not be the case, I imagine, when there are dozens of LCS hulls afloat in the fleet.
Beyond the smoking thing, I just wouldn't feel comfortable aboard such a ship. I had a family member that was aboard the USS Cole during the 2000 attack who luckily survived but who knows how badly that type of damage would have affected an all aluminum construction? Besides the increased fire hazard there could also be a heightened risk of terminal stress fracture throughout the hull and super structure, who knows? Be it a missile or a couple of guys in a rhib with bombs strapped to their chest, they're not going to care that there's no smoking. I fear an all aluminum construction may prove too much of a liability.
Anyway, on to another topic: Anyone else find it slightly amusing that the Navy let the cat out of the bag on the speed of the CVNs by the 40knot speed requirement on LCS? No, not a serious point I'm making, just jokes
EDIT: 40 knots, not 40 kilotons
besides your example of the oil rig, each of those other smoke free locations weren't surrounded by miles and miles of ocean. While I am certainly an anti-smoking person and in favor of all the anti smoking measures taken by the military and civilian sectors I still feel it is a sticking point as far as morale is concerned to treat the smokers like pariah because of some poor design choices
@AegisFC
I'm aware of the smoking requirements aboard a surface ship even though I never deployed during my time in the Navy (a fact I am quite sad about) but I was unaware of the hand picking of crew for LCS et al. Regardless, that will not be the case, I imagine, when there are dozens of LCS hulls afloat in the fleet.
Beyond the smoking thing, I just wouldn't feel comfortable aboard such a ship. I had a family member that was aboard the USS Cole during the 2000 attack who luckily survived but who knows how badly that type of damage would have affected an all aluminum construction? Besides the increased fire hazard there could also be a heightened risk of terminal stress fracture throughout the hull and super structure, who knows? Be it a missile or a couple of guys in a rhib with bombs strapped to their chest, they're not going to care that there's no smoking. I fear an all aluminum construction may prove too much of a liability.
Anyway, on to another topic: Anyone else find it slightly amusing that the Navy let the cat out of the bag on the speed of the CVNs by the 40knot speed requirement on LCS? No, not a serious point I'm making, just jokes
EDIT: 40 knots, not 40 kilotons
Last edited: