Talk:Sea Fighter (FSF-1)

Armor
Aluminum does burn, but guess what - so does steel! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Aluminum doesn't catch fire, as says the rumors. What aluminum does do, is melt at a lower temperature then other metals more commonly used for armor protection. I know of the cases during the Falkland's War, where aluminum hauled ships seemed to catch on fire, and burn, but this was not the case. Instead the cause was the result of flammable material coating the aluminum (paint, oil, grease) that would ignite, then melt the aluminum. It is safe to say that aluminum is probably not an ideal material to use in warship armor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.8.79 (talk • contribs)

USS Belknap QED96.245.3.22 (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. aluminum is one of the most common metal structural materials used in engineering. if it is not the 2nd most common (behind steel), then it is certainly number 3. essentially all metal structures (this includes vehicles) are made from iron, steel (which is an iron alloy), or aluminum. other metals are used as alloying agents or in extremely rare cases (like titanium) the main structural material. aluminum is used in a very large percentage of the aerospace industry (both as the main fuselage material, and in non-fuselage structural components, and even electronics). aluminum is increasingly being used as the material of choice for production performace automobiles. I am not just talking about extremely expensive supercars. I am talking about cars that are less than $100,000 and are made in production volumes of over 10,000 units per year.

the main concerns with aluminum as a component of ARMOR: aluminum is very soft, very expensive, (in most alloys) very malleable, and relatively "special" when compared with the all pervasive steel (thus special welding tools, special bolts, special rivets, etc)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.52.200 (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

SWATH
Sea Fighter is not a SWATH design. It's a conventional, high-speed catamaran. SWATH multi-hulls are very narrow at the water's surface and often have pontoon-like underwater structures. Sea Fighter's hulls do not do this.

Sea Fighter Catamaran Hulls

Typical SWATH Hulls —Preceding unsigned comment added by B.Smitty (talk • contribs) 14:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed eroneous and citation needing indirect reference to the HMS Sheffield
As noted in the HMS Sheffield wikipedia entry, the ship was made entirely of Steel, and was not an example of an exocet ignited aluminum craft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.34.254.68 (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Article needs to be made current
The lead says the Sea Fighter is "under development." Other parts of the article say it is done with development: it has been "built" and placed "in service." The contradictions should be cleaned up. N2e (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

BMT
This article suggests that the Sea Fighter is an American concept and development. In fact Sea Fighter was designed by the British company BMT Nigel Gee and Associates Ltd who continue to be associated in development. The refusal of an American co-ordinator to accept the British sourcing suggests an anti-British bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.134.133 (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith in other editors, your addition was removed because it was unreferenced nothing to do with national bias. Please read reliable sources and citing your sources it may also need to meet our notability standards. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

concerns
the concerns section state that some people have concerns about aluminum melting or catching fire but these people are not referenced. the only reference in the section is for the physical characteristics of aluminum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.177.30 (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)