bxr307@csc.anu.oz (06/29/90)
From: bxr307@csc.anu.oz
So the problem of whether or not HMS Sheffield's Aluminium
superstructure burn or not has reared its ugly head once more. Here
is part of an essay I wrote a couple of years ago for a part of a
Master of Defence Studies course I was undertaking at the
Australian Defence Force Academy here in Canberra, Oz. The essay
was concerned with the effect of technology upon naval design and
strategies.
...In many cases for large superstructures even steel has been
replaced with other, lighter materials such Aluminium.
However since two major accidents interest in Aluminium
as part of ship structures has waned. The first accident
involved the USS Belknap in a collision with the Carrier USS
John F.Kennedy on 23 December 1975, causing the Belknap to
burn severely and melt her superstructure. The second was the
case of the USS Worden which was hit by accident with a Shrike
anti-radiation missile (ARM) off Vietnam in 1972. Missile
fragments caused spalling and splinters to break off the
Aluminium superstructure with considerable damage.(26)
Another well know case was the HMS Sheffield which was
*reputed* [my emphasis added] to have an aluminium
superstructure which burnt after being hit by an Exocet in
1982. However the Royal Navy had learnt from these earlier
accidents and the Type 42 class did not have aluminium
superstructures. Instead they were constructed entirely of
steel.(27) Those ships in the Falklands that did have
considerable Aluminium in their superstructures, the Type 21
Class of Frigates, suffered no losses through the burning of
their superstructures.(28)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes.
(26) p.31, Friedman, N., `Surface Combatant Lessons', in (Watson,
B.W., &, Dunn, P.M., Eds., Military Lessons of the Falkland Islands
War: Views from the United States, 1984).
(27) p.30, Ibid.,
(28) Woodward, A.R., `Aluminium in Naval Construction', Janes
1983-84 Naval Review.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Now if you really wish to discuss what destroyed the Sheffield
we should really discard the military myth that she was constructed
of Aluminium. Rather the major facters, according to the Royal
Navy review committee which sat after the war and investigated the
loss of Sheffield concluded that it was the:
(1) The use of non-shielded electrical and electronic cabling
sheathed in materials thats gave off toxic chemical smoke when
burnt. In addition the cable runs were not adequately
compartmentalised and as a result were believed to have been one
of the routes through which the fire spread so quickly.
(2) The use of large quantities of plastic materials in
bedding which produced toxic smoke when burnt.
(3) An inadequate ventilation system. It lacked the ability
to have sections completely isolated allowing not only the spread
of toxic smoke, but also the fire itself. It also lacked the
ability to clear the large amounts of toxic smoke, fast enough to
make a difference.
(4) Inadequate fire fighting equipment onboard.
(5) Inadequate training of the crew in coping with such a
catastrophic event as occurred when the Exocet hit.
They decided that it was the first three reasons which were
the major deciding factors. The amount of toxic smoke given off
was such that it prevented fire fighting procedures to occur as the
masks supplied were not designed to cope with the chemicals
produced by the burning plastic, in the concentrations to be found
in a burning ship. As a consequence the fire got quickly out of
control and grew to such an extent that it was impossible to fight
it. At no point was there any evidence that the *steel*
superstructure had actually burnt. Rather it had melted, if
anything.
Hopefully this will once and for all lay to rest this myth in
this newgroup (until someone else brings it up :-( ).
Brian Rossmalloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy) (06/29/90)
From: malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy) In article <1990Jun28.025910.19410@cbnews.att.com> rollhaus@dtoa3.dt.navy.mil (Rollhauser) writes: > Some fire pumps couldn't be operated, and there wasn't enough > pumping capacity remaining to fight the fire. Breathing apparatus ran > out of air. Eventually, fire spread near the magazines, and Sheffield > was abandoned. She was finally sunk by the Royal Navy. The fire aboard the Sheffield was eventually controlled; the ship was placed under tow with the intention of removing her from the war zone so that further repairs could be conducted and the ship returned to England for refit. However, the Sheffield and the towing vessel ran into a storm; because of the loss of structural integrity as a result of the missile and fire damage, the Sheffield broke up and sank. Had the two ships not encountered storm seas, the Sheffield would have been saved. Sean Malloy | Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | "The morning was death San Diego, CA 92152-6800 | with birdsong." malloy@nprdc.navy.mil | -- _The Wizardry Compiled_