Obviously you must have missed the part where I mentioned the
Visby had a fair number of fire retardation methods to make sure it
doesn't catch fire. But yeah, in your bid to find fault in what I
wrote, you decided to cherry pick what I wrote. I said it was a bad
idea and I stand by it. Not to mention, none of the above fires
involved rocket fuel with oxidizers which most anti-ship missiles
have and that burns really really hot.
Me Cherry Pick ... ? I beg to differ. Let's pick apart
your entire post shall we?
You laid out your stand quite succintly, right from the start, by
stating that "Actually composites for a ship is a very very bad
idea". When there are actually a lot of ships/boats out
there built out of composite materials. Yes, Fibreglass is a
GFRP and a composite. There are shipping standards for GFRP
constructed vessels ... imagine that standards for bad ideas?
You then sensationalised your claim by pointing out an example of a
Norwegian minesweep (Orkla) that "literally burnt itself out into
ashes very very fast." Missing the point totally that the
design flaws in the Orkla was what contributed to it burning and
sinking. Not really because it was a composite per se.
Let's not even mention the allusion that the ship burnt into ashes
when in reality only a section of the hull was burnt out. Or
that in one of your cited sources, there was an example of a
composite minesweeper that survived an engine fire for several
hours ... where the properly treated composite material was cited
as a factor in containing the fire.
You then contrasted that with the Visby where the "Swedish put in a
lot of effort to make sure the Visby has a lot of fire
retardation". This as a follow on statement to the Orkla
which seems to make it that you are implying that Composite
ships have to go through extraordinary lengths to be safe.
FYI, even Aluminum/Steel used in Ship Building have to be fire
proofed using intumescent coatings or fire proof insulation.
So what is so extraordinary about composites having to be flame
proofed? Fire proofing of composite materials is a standard
process for all composite vessels. The Orkla suffered from
poor design, the Visby is implementing good design ... nothing
extraordinary about that.
In case you try to argue that fire proofing for steel is easier,
the USN is dissatisfied with the weight required for fire proof
cladding material/blankets for fire proofed steel. They
issued a request for alternatives and noted that current
lightweight, spray-on passive flame retardant materials do not work
for steel apliques, they work pretty well for GFRP surfaces.
Then the final non-sequitur, "when it gets hit by a anti-ship
missile, all that rocket fuel with oxidizers is simply going to
burn the ship up." All ships regardless of
composite/aluminum/steel construct are going to be in trouble if it
gets hit by an AShM with leftover fuel. HMS Sheffield burned
merrily despite being an all-steel construct.
Your second post continues along the same vein,
Your first line is really a case of the pot calling the kettle
black ... "Notice one of the first few lines on the article:
Composites are combustible." What about just a few pages
later where an example was cited of the British Minesweeper (HMS
Cattistock)? So who's cherry picking now?
I'm not even going to go into the rest of the 2nd post. "Keep
the composites out of the superstructure" ... so composites for the
engine room is okay now? After all your cautionary rhetoric
of the first post?
You go around making grand claims in a very authoritative tones,
and when called to put up, you backtrack, qualify your statements
as being "clearly hyperbole", bluster and get abusive.
Purlease ... sounds like you're a sock puppet for someone.
Also, to nit pick, doesn't "Fire" go out when it has sank into
water? The ship burnt a huge hole in the hull and sank before the
fire spread across the entire ship. Obviously it wouldn't burn all
to ashes. The engine room definitely did reduce itself to
nothing.
Nitpick all you want, it doesn't change the fact that a lot of
shipboard fires, even on steel ships have reduced the compartments
to nothing ... a twisted mess basically. What does that tell
us about your attempt to convince a lay audience with smokes and
mirrors?
It also does not change the fact that composites are combustible
ON THEIR OWN. Which is why I mentioned the Visby example and to
further expand that, there are water vents at the side of the
helicopter hanger to put out any fire due to fuel leaks etc. on the
hanger deck.
Yes, composites in raw state can burn .. but so can a lot of
materials including all fixtures and fittings (and these are the
main fire hazards). The issue with material safety for
shipbuilding is not just combustability but also the materials
ability to limit the spread and prevent growth of the
fire. Untreated steel, likewise, fails in both regards due to
the temperature on the backwall going above the flashover point of
attached fittings/fixutres. So steel needs to be
treated. Composties need to be treated. So untreated
composites burning is a be-all and end-all to ship fire
safety? Good thing you don't write building codes.
And you give too much credit to people working in DSTA to know
what the fuck really goes on there and you definitely have no
fucking clue as to what goes on there. So shut the fuck up. The
only thing what DSTA Is good for is to compare this and that
without knowing the technical specifics. If they even need a morsel
of help, they have to run to DSO to get an education.
With regard to the Bedok ship, I will believe it when I see the
data reports on
1. The temperature tolerance of the composite material
2. How thick is the material
But wait, I don't think you have those don't you?
Gee ... that speaks for itself doesn't it. You know best,
with no credentials, no proof, no data ... and when asked for
proof, turn it around and ask others to show proof? Dude, you
made the claim in the first instance.
Yeah .. throwing in a few choice swear words is going to
intimidate others enough to make them back down.
I'm sorry, but obviously I was talking in terms of a hyperbole.
It doesn't change the fact that water splashing around increases
the RCS. Now, assuming you wish to go continue burning strawmans
away, by all means. I'm not interested in talking to an idiot who
goes around "sensationalising" issues himself. ALso, it is also
obvious you are exaggerating all the above since short of encasing
the ship in ice, there's no way the a frigate far less than the
size of a Nimitz would ever have an RCS of a Nimitz.
Since we're talking about technical issues, it may be prudent
not to engage in too much hyperbole. Given the supercilious
tone in your post, please then continue to treat me like an
idiot.
Oh great and all knowing F_N ... please explain how much the RCS
actually gets expanded by in rough seas and how that is so, amidst
all the increased random noise from whitecaps.
