Now I'm no Nelson....
Discussion
ALawson said:
I don't suppose they both had the same waypoint in the GPS?
They could, but it still shouldn't result in a collision. Both vessels will have been fitted with radar and AIS, which can calculate the Closest Point of Approach and will sound an alarm if the CPA is less than an acceptable threshold. Of course this relies on the OOW actually being on the bridge to hear the alarm. More details:http://www.setsail.com/testing-radar-closest-point...
I am conversant with AIS, but usually relied on Mk1 eyeball myself, graveyard shift always a challenge to stay awake! Simply amazing that these things are designed to avoid being sunk during a war and yet the inevitable almost happens! You would have thought there would be multiple layers of protection in place, obviously not.
ALawson said:
I am conversant with AIS, but usually relied on Mk1 eyeball myself, graveyard shift always a challenge to stay awake! Simply amazing that these things are designed to avoid being sunk during a war and yet the inevitable almost happens! You would have thought there would be multiple layers of protection in place, obviously not.
The thing is: when they go to war, they are fully shut down inside and it takes ages to move around inside. Peacetime cruising a lot less so.And as for fuel consumption, a short Type 42 doing max speed ~30ish kt was burning a gallon of diesel every 12 yards.
GlenMH said:
The thing is: when they go to war, they are fully shut down inside and it takes ages to move around inside. Peacetime cruising a lot less so.
And as for fuel consumption, a short Type 42 doing max speed ~30ish kt was burning a gallon of diesel every 12 yards.
5,000 gallons per hour, or 147 gallons per mile. Must have big fuel tanksAnd as for fuel consumption, a short Type 42 doing max speed ~30ish kt was burning a gallon of diesel every 12 yards.
eldar said:
GlenMH said:
The thing is: when they go to war, they are fully shut down inside and it takes ages to move around inside. Peacetime cruising a lot less so.
And as for fuel consumption, a short Type 42 doing max speed ~30ish kt was burning a gallon of diesel every 12 yards.
5,000 gallons per hour, or 147 gallons per mile. Must have big fuel tanksAnd as for fuel consumption, a short Type 42 doing max speed ~30ish kt was burning a gallon of diesel every 12 yards.
(source: wiki)
cuprabob said:
HMS Belfast displacement is 11,550 tons
It was under 10,000 tons before a modernisation program in the 50s. This was due to an international agreement to limit the size of battleships, in the hope that there wouldn't be another arm's race like had happened before -and partly caused- WW1, where every imperialist power was building up their navies. For the Americans - their contemporary class to the Belfast was the Brooklyn class. One of these ships once decommissioned by the US navy was sold to Argentina and called the General Belgrano - which we sank in the Falklands conflict.
eldar said:
GlenMH said:
The thing is: when they go to war, they are fully shut down inside and it takes ages to move around inside. Peacetime cruising a lot less so.
And as for fuel consumption, a short Type 42 doing max speed ~30ish kt was burning a gallon of diesel every 12 yards.
5,000 gallons per hour, or 147 gallons per mile. Must have big fuel tanksAnd as for fuel consumption, a short Type 42 doing max speed ~30ish kt was burning a gallon of diesel every 12 yards.
EarlOfHazard said:
cuprabob said:
HMS Belfast displacement is 11,550 tons
It was under 10,000 tons before a modernisation program in the 50s. This was due to an international agreement to limit the size of battleships, in the hope that there wouldn't be another arm's race like had happened before -and partly caused- WW1, where every imperialist power was building up their navies.
FiF said:
So big hole in side of destroyer, sailors missing and injured, oil company reports a bit of damage to a valve.
'There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today' Admiral Beatty , Jutland 1916.
3x the weight. 'There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today' Admiral Beatty , Jutland 1916.
There's no need to build chunky monkeys any more. Speed and agility (relative) are more important.
Protecting a boat against a ramming attack from a 30k ton vessel probably isn't high up on the list of requirements. (Steering and navigability however
) hoagypubdog said:
Is someone taking out the US navy, one ship at a time?
Probably themselves if US naval history is anything to go byhttp://www.cracked.com/article_19637_the-5-crazies...
I really do wonder how this happens, one of presumably the most maneouvreable ships on the sea with a large crew of supposedly the best trained officers and men around and with some of the most advanced navigation electronics in the world getting rammed by a tanker. It's not like tankers are even capable of sudden changes in direction or speed, I wouldn't expect top level seamanship from them but surely a destroyer should be able to avoid them?
My bet is that the CO of the destroyer tried to assert their right as stand on vessel under the international COLREGs and failed to take into account that the watch officer aboard the tanker was asleep/hammered/gone for a piss.
My bet is that the CO of the destroyer tried to assert their right as stand on vessel under the international COLREGs and failed to take into account that the watch officer aboard the tanker was asleep/hammered/gone for a piss.
Boosted LS1 said:
My dad was a skipper on container ships. One night a ship felt a momentary judder but nobody could find a fault. It kept steering to port but nothing wrong could be found. Eventually somebody looked over the bow and discovered an impaled whale, head on. :-( and yes these ships can get a move on if they need to.
Was that the Maersk Norwich? Was quite famous for turning up in Rotterdam with a dead whale stuck on the bulb at the bow of the ship. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff