Shipbucket

CATZ is clearly entitled to his opinion and he's clearly aware of it. If you're not willing to pay attention to someone like Slade in his area of expertise, never mind trivial little things like photographic evidence, then you're also not worth my time.

What proof? None has been provided. And for you to make that statement, you have to assume I'm wrong in the first place.

And furthermore, you talk about evidence. But really I have all the evidence I need in the SeaJet. Nothing makes for better hard evidence than a 1/4 scale working model.
You know what? I was rude to you before. I apologized then and I apologize now. But just because you're a moderator doesn't mean I'm going to agree with you if in reality, I do not agree with you. And you said it yourself...you didn't know the conditions for the damage caused in that photo. So pardon me for taking you at your word on that. I mean, when you come right out and say you don't know the story behind the photo, that to me makes it pretty clear.

And I think all anyone has really proven...is that sort of thing is pretty rare. And not a common occurrence at all. Which just supports my original beliefs.

Doesn't prove anything since we don't know anything about this perfectly normal storm, as you claim. Furthermore, the turret housing appears to be made of fiber glass or some type of composite. Maybe if steel had been used, a little water wouldn't be an issue. If it's a severe storm, that doesn't count. If anything, that only proves that the wave piercing designs would be no worse off than the conventional bow ships.

And in fact, the damage to the USS Pittsburgh backs up my attitude towards the situation. A conventional bow will rise quicker upon hitting a wave. Putting stress on the hull of the ship. A wave piercing bow rises slower, due to less buoyancy in the bow. The bow of the USS Pittsburgh sheared off, vertically. Not horizontally.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

I think I know what the issue here is. Catz is talking about hull damage while the rest of us are talking about damage to things on the hull. I think he might have understood it to start with, but because he loves him some tumblehome/wavepiercing bow he didn't want to admit their flaws, so he stuck to his guns, and tried to make it about the hull damage, which was not what I started in on originally. A model, less than a quarter of the length of the full ship, with about 1/100th the displacement, tested in a lake. While models are great and wonderful, and I trust physical models more than computer ones (in many, but not all cases), sometimes they don't pan out when they are not subjected to representative conditions.

Then again, Sea Jet was designed to test the propulsion system, not the hull form so your implied claiming that it is a valid representation is misguided at best and dishonest at worst.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Well, 1/4'th the scale perhaps, but it's a lot more than Stuart Slade has backing him up. Of course, he's a chemical engineer. So no surprise there.



And, I've already addressed the damage to things on deck issue. If you build a fiberglass turret, it should be no surprise when it incurs damage. That's probably why you shouldn't build it out of fiberglass. Like I said, it just strengthens my argument. Especially since the turret was still in place on the deck. By the statements you've made, Tim, it should have been torn off! Instead it just tore off the flimsy cardboard cutout turret housing. I remember you stating that waves would miraculously tear off everything up to the deck-housing on that one design I posted utilizing a WPB and TH hull. If anything, that picture eric-t posted proves you were wrong. And the information I posted about the USS Pittsburgh supports my statements that conventional bows are prone to added stress during heavy weather.

And as for the Sea Jet, it has a wave piercing bow with a tumble-home hull. Maybe you didn't notice. probably not, since you like to ignore any facts which discredit your beliefs and statements.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

No, he's got a BS in Chemical Engineering and an endorsement in Marine Engineering. and has been an Analyst for a fair chunk of his life. He's also worked with naval architecture quite a bit too.
Now you are resorting to outright lies.
Sea Jet has a displacement that is 1/100th that of a Zumwalt. It tooled around in a lake. That isn't enough to convince me that it's sea worthy without a rather large and complicated active balancing system.

One other thing to think about with a Tumblehome hull and similar superstructure - what happens to the RCS and the ship rocks from side to side?

That's right it changes, and rather dramatically. Good way to get spotted.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Well Tim. I suppose you'll just have to wait for the DDG-1000's arrival then. I for one am. But when it does, I'll be ready to say, "Told ya so."

Besides, the DD(X) will have a complicated stability system installed. But so many ships these days do, it's really not anything out of the ordinary.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

True, but they don't rely on them to remain upright during bad weather.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.