To: wyattearp; SampleMan
These pics just do not show enough damage t me. I am beginning to wonder about them.
... and the more I look at those pics, the more I wonder if they are indeed pics of the ship after it was hit or not.
Notice the marks next to the small hole just forward of the helo deck which we think or thought is damage form the hit. That hole looks exactly the same size as the discharge hole forward of it at the water-line, making me think maybe that is a discharge hole with some staining, and not a damage hole at all.
Now, maybe the staining came from internal fires and maybe, in the first pic there is evidence of a hit on the helo deck. But not much, and it just makes me wonder if those pics are indeed strike pics or not. I guess we shall see.
Even if just the missile hit and the warhead did not detonate, I would expect much more evident damage. And, if was a near miss and still mission killed the ship and killed four sailors, I would still expect to see more damage.
What do you guys think?
142 posted on
07/15/2006 6:48:45 PM PDT by
Jeff Head
(God, family, country)
To: Jeff Head
Well, what do we really know?
At this point we know a missile was fired. The ship sustained some damage (at least a temporary mission kill), and four sailors appear to be dead.
So what happened? In all likelihood, this ship did not sustain a serious hit. I say this because of the low loss of life and no serious fire damage. Even a dud would produce more if it entered the superstructure.
A substantial blow to the hull (hammer blow or explosive) can lead to a mission kill. Electronic systems get knocked offline.
If the hit was in the stern, it may have detonated external after a glancing blow. The bow or stern are least sensitive areas of even a small ship. Or if oblique enough for a CIWS engagement, the missile may have detonated close in, or come apart and hit the ship as a grab bag of components.
A ship of this size does not take an ASCM into its bowels and return under its own power.
So I postulate that the missile did not penetrate the main structure of the ship.
To: Jeff Head
Well, what do we really know?
At this point we know a missile was fired. The ship sustained some damage (at least a temporary mission kill), and four sailors appear to be dead.
So what happened? In all likelihood, this ship did not sustain a serious hit. I say this because of the low loss of life and no serious fire damage. Even a dud would produce more if it entered the superstructure.
A substantial blow to the hull (hammer blow or explosive) can lead to a mission kill. Electronic systems get knocked offline.
If the hit was in the stern, it may have detonated external after a glancing blow. The bow or stern are least sensitive areas of even a small ship. Or if oblique enough for a CIWS engagement, the missile may have detonated close in, or come apart and hit the ship as a grab bag of components.
A ship of this size does not take an ASCM into its bowels and return under its own power.
So I postulate that the missile did not penetrate the main structure of the ship.
To: Jeff Head
Jeff if one hit the ship we are seeing it was topside and went through the deck. That alone would do significant damage to a limited area accounting for the stained discharged ports. If it didn't detonate it still could have wreaked a few hours havoc on support systems. The could have taken a hit that still left them mission capable. If they used hull numbers this would help a lot LOL. I know what water Discharge ports look like and what Ventilation ports look like. That one is for water or sewage etc. Ships use sea water for many operations as they eliminate the need for air cooled radiators, Condensers, and other equipment that would be air cooled. Heat on a ship especially one with electronics is not a welcomed thing. We even used water cooled condensers on our ice makers.
165 posted on
07/15/2006 7:42:00 PM PDT by
cva66snipe
(If it was wrong for Clinton why do some support it for Bush? Party over nation destroys the nation.)
To: Jeff Head
"Notice the marks next to the small hole just forward of the helo deck which we think or thought is damage form the hit. That hole looks exactly the same size as the discharge hole forward of it at the water-line, making me think maybe that is a discharge hole with some staining, and not a damage hole at all." ![](http://webpages.charter.net/aircover/USAflag.gif)
That does not look like a damage hole to me, but rather an exhaust port. However, the soot is in **front** of the hole, indicating that fire came out of that port with the ship moving little if at all.
Otherwise, the soot would be behind the exhaust port.
166 posted on
07/15/2006 7:43:16 PM PDT by
Southack
(Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: Jeff Head
These pics just do not show enough damage t me. I am beginning to wonder about them. You and me both. The small hole forward of the helo deck is present on other pics of other ships of that class. That is not a missile hit. Somebody else did some research (don't know if it is on this thread or not), and the ship has a backup diesel propulsion system. In one pic, there is black soot around the after hole, in another there is black soot around both. Looks like exhaust ports to me.
If the missile flew in the helo hanger, I keep wondering "where's the damage?" They reported fires so severe that they almost lost the ship. The pics are showing no blistered or blackened paint, no warped bulkheads, no soot, no firefighting equipment, no fire watch on deck, nothing. I don't know, man. I am getting more and more skeptical as this goes along.
Add to that the fact that they said that they were providing the AAW for the task force, and they turned off their AAW capabilities? WTF?
The only smoke that I am seeing has mirrors involved.
183 posted on
07/15/2006 9:51:33 PM PDT by
wyattearp
(Study! Study! Study! Or BONK, BONK, on the head!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson