The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

Status
Not open for further replies.
Captain_Swoop said:
Foam rubber?
Click to expand...

Hehe, not "foam rubber" of course. The Germans actually invented this in World War II, and a few of their U-boat types at the time had it. But the difficulty it posed to shipyards was deemed too great. The material the Germans used was actually regular old vulcanized rubber -- the same kind you'd make car tires out of. But it was milled in a particular way that captured acoustical energy. There are regularly space "holes" in the rubber, but not at the level you see in elastomeric foam.

The radar-absorbing material is a regular coating applied like paint. It's a descendant of the same coating applied to stealth aircraft such as the SR-71. The operators of air-refueling booms have to be specially certified to refuel stealth-coated aircraft precisely because the coating is so easy to mar. They have to plant the fuel probe in the drogue the first time, every time, without contacting the skin around it.

Modern submarines are, ironically, quite delicate.
 
Vixen said:
A ship will not sink unless its hull is breached in some way.
Click to expand...


Any ship that takes on enough water for whatever reason will sink, hull breach or no. A breach just makes this a lot more likely to happen.

Sewol sank without a hull breach.

This is why you shouldn't listen to Anders Bjorkman.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
It might well do. However, rubber tends to rot in water so might not necessarily be visible when inspected, should it have washed away.
Click to expand...

What makes you think the elastomeric compounds used in submarine anechoic titles rot in water?

What other physical effects occur in collisions that you're not thinking of, that affect the persistence of coating transfers?
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
Hehe, not "foam rubber" of course. The Germans actually invented this in World War II, and a few of their U-boat types at the time had it. But the difficulty it posed to shipyards was deemed too great. The material the Germans used was actually regular old vulcanized rubber -- the same kind you'd make car tires out of. But it was milled in a particular way that captured acoustical energy. There are regularly space "holes" in the rubber, but not at the level you see in elastomeric foam.

The radar-absorbing material is a regular coating applied like paint. It's a descendant of the same coating applied to stealth aircraft such as the SR-71. The operators of air-refueling booms have to be specially certified to refuel stealth-coated aircraft precisely because the coating is so easy to mar. They have to plant the fuel probe in the drogue the first time, every time, without contacting the skin around it.

Modern submarines are, ironically, quite delicate.
Click to expand...

I know, I was trying to get some information on this material that won't transfer in a collision.

I spent most of my naval career aboard anti submarine ships. I am familiar with the technology
 
Last edited:
Reformed Offlian said:
Any ship that takes on enough water for whatever reason will sink, hull breach or no. A breach just makes this a lot more likely to happen.

Sewol sank without a hull breach.

This is why you shouldn't listen to Anders Bjorkman.
Click to expand...

A missing bow is a hull breach.

There are lots of openings in a hull already. Engine rooms and machinery spaces have ventilators, air intakes for engines, exhausts, water intakes and outlets. Passenger ships have open stairwells and windows.

A 'breach' caused by a collision or grounding isn't needed. Two ships a week sink, plenty of them to flooding without a hull breach.
 
Anders Bjorkman? The 9/11 Truther who thinks a collapsing building can be simulated using pizza boxes?

Jesus.
 
Vixen said:
All of the survivors - including crew - gave an account that because of the hypothermia threat - and they all watched as their fellow passengers died of this and they all helped keep each other awake, plus they were looking out for helicopters and ships so that they could send out a flare - a supply of which was included in the life raft - they were terrified of falling asleep (as hypothermia makes one extremely sleepy) and never waking up.

Thus, these guys were rescued in the morning of 28 Sept 1994, suffering from shock, hypothermia, broken bones, cramp and a complete lack of sleep for over 24 hours.

Do you really think that a few hours later in hospital one of the crew is able to weakly gasp in the throes of a waking dream, shivering and aching all over, 'Officer, it was bow visor what fell orf, due to the poor design of the bow visor lugs and weak bolts' <fx falls back into longed for slumber>
Click to expand...
I'm sure this melodramatic scene works great in the movie in your head but it isn't any kind of historical record of what the survivors were initially able to tell their rescuers about what happened. You seem to wish to use it to quash any speculation that the authorities could have gained even the faintest idea of what happened until later. It is, to be kind, unconvincing.

Give us a break!
Click to expand...
You said it.
 
If the ship sank because it was rammed by a sub and the hull flooded rather than taking thousands of tons of water on to the car deck, why would it completely capsize?

If it was flooding from the lower decks up it would just settle in in the water.

Also what is the importance of the mysterious crew members if it was hit by a Swedish sub?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
It should be very obvious that Carl Bildt having said it was the bow visor, of course it had to be found without it.
Click to expand...

Imagine for a moment that it isn't "very obvious". Can you explain why it had to be so? Was it somehow impossible that he could survive the humiliation of have been seen to have repeated early reports which later turned out to be incorrect?

You appear to be inviting us to infer that after he said the bow visor had failed, if that turned out to be mistaken the evidence would have to be faked to make it seem true. Well, why?
 
Vixen said:
It might well do. However, rubber tends to rot in water so might not necessarily be visible when inspected, should it have washed away.
Click to expand...

A material which rots and washes away sounds unlikely to be selected to coat a submarine. Didn't you argue previously that the brackish Baltic seawater is particularly good at preserving wrecks?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Imagine for a moment that it isn't "very obvious". Can you explain why it had to be so? Was it somehow impossible that he could survive the humiliation of have been seen to have repeated early reports which later turned out to be incorrect?

You appear to be inviting us to infer that after he said the bow visor had failed, if that turned out to be mistaken the evidence would have to be faked to make it seem true. Well, why?
Click to expand...

Because it was a submarine and/or bombs on board of course.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
A material which rots and washes away sounds unlikely to be selected to coat a submarine. Didn't you argue previously that the brackish Baltic seawater is particularly good at preserving wrecks?
Click to expand...

That's different obviously.


maybe Swedish submarine foam rubber isn't very good?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
maybe Swedish submarine foam rubber isn't very good?
Click to expand...

It's superb! That's how the sub managed to bounce right off without suffering any damage to itself. Maybe it bounced off several times but the absorption was so good they didn't realise and they just gunned the engines to try to make progress. The last time they were going so fast they leapt right out of the sea and hit Estonia above the waterline.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom