Interesting that they had to add about 300 tons of steel to the Italian design to meet the USN's survivability standards. I take it that there's no NATO standard for this sort of thing?
https://www.defensen...gx-competition/
Posted 08 July 2019 - 2117 PM
Interesting that they had to add about 300 tons of steel to the Italian design to meet the USN's survivability standards. I take it that there's no NATO standard for this sort of thing?
https://www.defensen...gx-competition/
Posted 09 July 2019 - 0924 AM
Interesting that they had to add about 300 tons of steel to the Italian design to meet the USN's survivability standards. I take it that there's no NATO standard for this sort of thing?
interesting read.
i wonder how the aluminum hull based on the Independence class meets those same requirements?
Posted 09 July 2019 - 0926 AM
Posted 09 July 2019 - 0947 AM
Its a frigate. Are they planning on using them as icebreakers or something?
Posted 09 July 2019 - 1048 AM
Posted 09 July 2019 - 1925 PM
Its a frigate. Are they planning on using them as icebreakers or something?
By the time we're through with it, it's going to be a DDG-51, dammit
Posted 11 July 2019 - 1329 PM
Its a frigate. Are they planning on using them as icebreakers or something?
Posted 11 July 2019 - 1901 PM
Considering the number of collisions that Burkes have been involved with in recent times, the USN ought to be experts in damage control.
Posted 13 July 2019 - 1545 PM
Posted 13 July 2019 - 1709 PM
Posted 13 July 2019 - 1832 PM
I'm not knocking what the crew of the Stark achieved, but did one of the missiles knock out the main water main, preventing fire fighting, as happened on Sheffield? I don't think so. The Sheffield also sank in heavy seas under tow to South Georgia, days later. The Stark was operating in a relatively calm and confined area of ocean.
Posted 13 July 2019 - 2339 PM
Agree on the differences in environmental conditions, but its worth looking a bit deeper into some other stats.I'm not knocking what the crew of the Stark achieved, but did one of the missiles knock out the main water main, preventing fire fighting, as happened on Sheffield? I don't think so. The Sheffield also sank in heavy seas under tow to South Georgia, days later. The Stark was operating in a relatively calm and confined area of ocean.
Edited by 2805662, 13 July 2019 - 2351 PM.
Posted 14 July 2019 - 0212 AM
I'm not knocking what the crew of the Stark achieved, but did one of the missiles knock out the main water main, preventing fire fighting, as happened on Sheffield? I don't think so. The Sheffield also sank in heavy seas under tow to South Georgia, days later. The Stark was operating in a relatively calm and confined area of ocean.
Also, the warhead on the Stark did not detonate. Modern opinion is, the war head on the Sheffields Exocet in fact did.
https://en.wikipedia...Sheffield_(D80)
The initial Ministry of Defence (MOD) Board of Inquiry on the sinking of Sheffield concluded that, based upon available evidence, the warhead did not detonate.[17] However, some of the crew and members of the task force believed that the missile's 165 kilograms (364 lb) warhead had detonated.[12] This was supported by a MOD re-assessment of the loss of Sheffield, which reported in summer 2015. In a paper delivered to the RINA Warship Conference in Bath in June 2015, it was concluded that the Exocet warhead did indeed detonate inside Sheffield, with the results supported by analysis using modern damage analysis tools not available in 1982 and evidence from weapon hits and trials conducted since the end of the Falklands campaign.[18]
Id REALLY like to read a copy of that if anyone has one handy....
Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 14 July 2019 - 0214 AM.
Posted 14 July 2019 - 0246 AM
The warhead on Stark*s **first** Exocet didnt detonate, the second Exocets warhead did.
I'm not knocking what the crew of the Stark achieved, but did one of the missiles knock out the main water main, preventing fire fighting, as happened on Sheffield? I don't think so. The Sheffield also sank in heavy seas under tow to South Georgia, days later. The Stark was operating in a relatively calm and confined area of ocean.
Also, the warhead on the Stark did not detonate. Modern opinion is, the war head on the Sheffields Exocet in fact did.
https://en.wikipedia...Sheffield_(D80)
The initial Ministry of Defence (MOD) Board of Inquiry on the sinking of Sheffield concluded that, based upon available evidence, the warhead did not detonate.[17] However, some of the crew and members of the task force believed that the missile's 165 kilograms (364 lb) warhead had detonated.[12] This was supported by a MOD re-assessment of the loss of Sheffield, which reported in summer 2015. In a paper delivered to the RINA Warship Conference in Bath in June 2015, it was concluded that the Exocet warhead did indeed detonate inside Sheffield, with the results supported by analysis using modern damage analysis tools not available in 1982 and evidence from weapon hits and trials conducted since the end of the Falklands campaign.[18]
Id REALLY like to read a copy of that if anyone has one handy....
Edited by 2805662, 14 July 2019 - 0247 AM.
Posted 14 July 2019 - 0254 AM
If you find a copy, remember where you heard it.
Ive searched myself, and although usually lectures of this sort have an accompanying document, even if a transcript, ive seen nothing of it. Perhaps some of it is still classified.
Posted 14 July 2019 - 0344 AM
Posted 14 July 2019 - 0919 AM
If the Exocet had a better fuzing system, then things may have taken a different course.
Posted 14 July 2019 - 0928 AM
Generally most powerful damaging force in Exocet was leftover fuel as it started very hard to extinguish fires.
Posted 14 July 2019 - 0940 AM
If the Exocet had a better fuzing system, then things may have taken a different course.
Edited by Brian Kennedy, 14 July 2019 - 0941 AM.
Posted 14 July 2019 - 1126 AM
Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 14 July 2019 - 1126 AM.