Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Littoral Combat Ships

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cruiser
    replied
    Originally posted by surfgun View Post
    The fuel on board was limited by reports due to restrictive regulations of the range at Hawaii.

    http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...nado/87371686/
    Thank you.

    Leave a comment:


  • surfgun
    replied
    The fuel on board was limited by reports due to restrictive regulations of the range at Hawaii.

    http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...nado/87371686/
    Last edited by surfgun; 22 Jul 16,, 19:19.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cruiser
    replied
    Originally posted by surfgun View Post
    ... They down loaded the fuel amount aboard the Harpoon to target the old FFG Crommelin that was only twenty miles away. ...
    I don't understand this. Are you saying the amount of fuel in a Harpoon is calculated for distance to target? Surely this is only done for practice, or target shooting. Still, seems like a subpar test. I mean, the more parameters that are altered in a test - compared to a real world scenario - then the less valid the test is.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by Squirrel View Post
    GTFO! Well..,this will be in a "Lessons Learned " post mission brief...wouldn't want to be the CSO or GUNNO in that wardroom.
    I think they're just happy that a Harpoon could be fired off the nose of an LCS without causing any problems.

    But yeah, I bet some other people are really unhappy right now

    Leave a comment:


  • Squirrel
    replied
    Originally posted by surfgun View Post
    Actually no! They down loaded the fuel amount aboard the Harpoon to target the old FFG Crommelin that was only twenty miles away. It missed or fell short.
    GTFO! Well..,this will be in a "Lessons Learned " post mission brief...wouldn't want to be the CSO or GUNNO in that wardroom.

    Leave a comment:


  • surfgun
    replied
    Actually no! They down loaded the fuel amount aboard the Harpoon to target the old FFG Crommelin that was only twenty miles away. It missed or fell short.

    Leave a comment:


  • Squirrel
    replied
    Originally posted by surfgun View Post
    Video: Coronado fires a Harpoon at RIMPAC.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZWk031xh8o
    OMG! They still work!

    Leave a comment:


  • surfgun
    replied
    Video: Coronado fires a Harpoon at RIMPAC.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZWk031xh8o

    Leave a comment:


  • JRT
    replied
    Originally posted by kato View Post
    The usefulness of the shock tests as performed is typically considered limited as they only test for a uniform blast wave from abeam at various strengths that doesn't stress just single hull sections or shear forces like an actual live fire explosion would - but to a limited extent that simulates an impact wave from a distant nuclear explosion. The procedure has been performed identical since at least the 80s.
    While I do understand that you are much better informed about the subject matter...

    My understanding is that these tests provided simulations of blasts of mines, with levels of magnitude, depth and proximity designed to simulate examples of actual mine blasts (not in close contact). The effects from these would be unrepresentative of effects from distant nuclear explosions.
    Last edited by JRT; 20 Jul 16,, 23:57.

    Leave a comment:


  • JA Boomer
    replied
    Originally posted by kato View Post
    Nah, that's nothing new for the shock trials. By the time the Flight IIA DDGs were tested in 2001 four were in full commission, two had been launched and five were on construction. By the time the Flight I DDGs were tested in 1994 three were in full commission, three had been launched and six were under construction.
    No sh*t. Interesting.

    Leave a comment:


  • kato
    replied
    Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
    Wow. Is it just me, or do programs these days (LCS, F-35, ect.) delay testing and evaluation way too long?
    Nah, that's nothing new for the shock trials. By the time the Flight IIA DDGs were tested in 2001 four were in full commission, two had been launched and five were on construction. By the time the Flight I DDGs were tested in 1994 three were in full commission, three had been launched and six were under construction.

    Leave a comment:


  • kato
    replied
    Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
    Just out of curiosity what are they using to create that explosion?
    For the DDG-81 shock trials - 15 years ago - they used a 10,000 lbs HBX-1 * charge in a steel container (5 ft diameter, 5.6 ft long) suspended at 200ft depth under a pontoon which itself would be towed 2,000 ft behind another ship.

    The usefulness of the shock tests as performed is typically considered limited as they only test for a uniform blast wave from abeam at various strengths that doesn't stress just single hull sections or shear forces like an actual live fire explosion would - but to a limited extent that simulates an impact wave from a distant nuclear explosion. The procedure has been performed identical since at least the 80s.

    * around 39% RDX, 38% TNT, 17% aluminium, 6% various fillers including wax.

    Leave a comment:


  • JA Boomer
    replied
    Originally posted by surfgun View Post
    Well it looks like damage was substantial to LCS Jackson.

    http://www.janes.com/article/61985/a...s-shock-trials
    Wow. Is it just me, or do programs these days (LCS, F-35, ect.) delay testing and evaluation way too long? Shock testing a navy class half way through it's production run seems to me to have limited benefit compared with shock testing the prototype or first production ship.

    Leave a comment:


  • surfgun
    replied
    Well it looks like damage was substantial to LCS Jackson.

    http://www.janes.com/article/61985/a...s-shock-trials

    Leave a comment:


  • tbm3fan
    replied
    Just out of curiosity what are they using to create that explosion?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X