On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:46:12 -0800 (PST), Typhoon502
wrote:

On Dec 10, 12:23*am, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" atlas-
wrote:
In article
3f72b032-2be2-4377-a180-01d7a81404fe@d2
1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com,


*Mike wrote:
StrategyPage.com

The Navy is looking for a solution that will not require extensive
modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks,
both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs.
This is shaping up as another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as
the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long
development of either aircraft.

Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts
of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you
compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can
easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more
recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a
real problem.

Use what NASA uses for the shuttle?
Wouldn't cost that much at all

It is a BIG f-ing "oops", and I think that the Navy's RFP is a little
silly. They want a product that doesn't require alteration to the
flight deck, is easily applied and repaired, and doesn't cost much.
Presumably it has to be environmentally friendly too. It wouldn't
surprise me if someone asked for it to be organic as well.

A product that meets your requirement is allum-impregnated teak.
I'd be quite astonished if the navy didn't know it, they read
history too. Of course, splinters from the stuff are painful and
tend to go septic, it costs terribly, . . . .

To me, it looks as if they know that they'll have to cut steel
but need to do some homework first.


I dunno, I'd assume that NASA could provide some expertise there, but
whether or not the Navy actually is willing to ask for it is another
story.

Peter Skelton