Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: PapaBear3625; ArrogantBustard; John O; Triple

Great links, thanks, esp the bottom one. Terrific article.

The monohull’s stern ramp system seems ideal, but those two “water-wing” boxes welded on either side of the transom might prove to be a liability to boat launch and recovery, or not. The water-wings seem a crude afterthought, probably after the boat weighed in over estimates. If this becomes a class, I’ll bet they revise the hull and eliminate the water-wings.


50 posted on 09/11/2012 11:29:18 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]


To: Travis McGee
The monohull’s stern ramp system seems ideal, but those two “water-wing” boxes welded on either side of the transom might prove to be a liability to boat launch and recovery, or not. The water-wings seem a crude afterthought, probably after the boat weighed in over estimates. If this becomes a class, I’ll bet they revise the hull and eliminate the water-wings.

I'd expect them to stay. Would require a major redesign to get that bouyancy into the ship. They don't appear to interfere with launch and recovery

51 posted on 09/11/2012 12:44:22 PM PDT by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

To: Travis McGee
The monohull’s stern ramp system seems ideal, but those two “water-wing” boxes welded on either side of the transom might prove to be a liability to boat launch and recovery, or not. The water-wings seem a crude afterthought, probably after the boat weighed in over estimates. If this becomes a class, I’ll bet they revise the hull and eliminate the water-wings.

I'd expect them to stay. Would require a major redesign to get that bouyancy into the ship. They don't appear to interfere with launch and recovery

52 posted on 09/11/2012 12:44:41 PM PDT by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

To: Travis McGee; John O
As the article on the bottom of #48 notes, the mission bay is only 3 feet above the waterline (versus 15 feet for the USS Independence).

The top article in #48 has

Cmdr. Randy Garner, the ship’s Gold Crew skipper and the man in charge for Freedom’s trial deployment to 4th Fleet, said the “tanks” ride above the waterline and would only come into play “to give the ship additional buoyancy, if, for some reason, we were lower in the water.” Which is to say, if the Freedom took damage in combat and started to sink, Navy engineers think its water wings would help the ship stay afloat, or at least delay its sinking until everyone could get off.
If you had combat damage that compromised the water-tightness of the transom, and the ship started to sink, having the mission bay fill with water would be very unhappy-making.
53 posted on 09/11/2012 2:31:38 PM PDT by PapaBear3625 (Charlie Daniels - Payback Time http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWwTJj_nosI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson