I like Ships too

[trysail]

What is up with the hawsepipe? Not enough overhang on the bow? Still those hawsepipes look like a lot of drag when she's laden and rolling in rough seas.

I noticed them, too. Unfortunately, I don't know the answer.


It's certainly nice to see somebody who uses the word laden and who knows what a hawsepipe is.


Do you think there are any officers aboard her who "came up throught the hawsepipe?"
*****grin*****

 

[JohnnySavage]

What is up with the hawsepipe? Not enough overhang on the bow? Still those hawsepipes look like a lot of drag when she's laden and rolling in rough seas.

Have to get the anchor clear of the bulbous bow and bow thrusters

 

[trysail]

Have to get the anchor clear of the bulbous bow and bow thrusters

That's a distinct possibility ( the bulbous bow).


The bow thruster(s)? I don't buy it. They are— as a generality— incorporated in the hull.

 

[thør]

The story was all over the place. I saw a report on Bloomberg and heard the half-babble that NPR aired.


Naturally, NPR couldn't be bothered to report that the vessel hasn't been owned by Exxon for many, many years nor did NPR mention that there have been at least three other owners in the intervening years. I wouldn't be halfway surprised to find out that 99% of the people who heard the NPR report were left with the impression that ExxonMobil still owned the vessel and sold it to the shipbreakers.

Facts are superfluous compared to public opinion!

 

[BusyAfternoon]

This is the Australian Navy doing a live torpedo practice maneuver on one of their decommissioned ships. They used a Mk 48 torpedo developed in the USA and used on all ships in our current USA submarine fleet. It is non-nuclear and not a contact weapon. It is designed to go off directly underneath the ship at about 50 feet under the keel. The "steam bubble" from the explosion is what breaks the ship in half. The effect is devastating as you can see from the video. It is called "whipping."


Whipping Ships

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIVhtr75gXs&feature=player_embedded

 

[chillywilly2]

Linky no work....but they sure do come up with some neat stuff to wreck stuff with nowadays

 

[trysail]

I'll be damned. Somebody built a replica of the J-Boat Ranger.
btw, I discover that she can be yours:

the J Class Ranger has an asking price of $ 16,000,000.

Original (1937) specifications:
Overall length: 135 feet 2 inches (41.20 m)
Length at water line: 87 feet (27 m)
Beam: 20 feet 10 inches (6.35 m)
Draft: 15 feet (4.6 m)
Displacement: 166 tons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_(yacht)


Replica specifications:
Length Overall (m): 41.55
Length Overall (ft): 136.32
Beam (m): 6.40
Beam (ft): 21.00
Draught Max (m): 4.80
Draught Max (ft):15.75

http://www.superyachttimes.com/yachts/details/513/

http://photos.marinetraffic.com/ais/showphoto.aspx?photoid=689404
Ranger

Note the near total lack of lifelines.

88' feet of leeward rail in the water!
http://photos.marinetraffic.com/ais/showphoto.aspx?photoid=317905
Ranger

http://photos.marinetraffic.com/ais/showphoto.aspx?photoid=576359
Moonbird

http://maps.google.com/maps/api/staticmap?zoom=7&size=500x350&center=17.90051,-62.82059&markers=color:red|17.90051,-62.82059&sensor=false&key=ABQIAAAAVpWBOdzQFdT6gwzFE0A6URRtU-IxEPKi1uUB7Ox-A4YoPayuXRREUfEbVwFa3n92rk66_RWecxCkGg



​

http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/default.aspx?level0=100

 

[thør]

http://photos.marinetraffic.com/ais/showphoto.aspx?photoid=689404
Ranger

Note the near total lack of lifelines.

88' feet of leeward rail in the water!
http://photos.marinetraffic.com/ais/showphoto.aspx?photoid=317905
Ranger

Pretty boat

Lifelines are over-rated.

 

[trysail]

Pretty boat

Lifelines are over-rated.

*grinning*


I don't know about that. They look pretty damn good to me when I'm sliding toward the ocean on me arse across a wet foredeck that's heeled over to 40°.

 

[thør]

*grinning*


I don't know about that. They look pretty damn good to me when I'm sliding toward the ocean on me arse across a wet foredeck that's heeled over to 40°.

But the toe rail saves you!

 

[ndoorfin]

the guy I sailed for couldn't swim
he would shrug his shoulders and say "you arseholes wouldn't come back for me"

 

[trysail]

the guy I sailed for couldn't swim
he would shrug his shoulders and say "you arseholes wouldn't come back for me"

Had he been screaming and throwing winch handles?


He might've been right.

 

[trysail]

It's nice to see the odd U.S.-flagged http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/flags/US.gif split rig. She's lovely.

http://photos.marinetraffic.com/ais/showphoto.aspx?photoid=448502
Rebecca


http://photos.marinetraffic.com/ais/showphoto.aspx?mmsi=338427000&imo=0

​

http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/default.aspx?level0=100

 

[Rolando2]

So you like ships? This kept me me dry land.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_popout&v=T4FIS1FnOQg

This is why I want to go back to sea!
There are 2 types of ships. Submarines or targets!

 

[thør]

I thought subs were boats and not ships?

 

[JohnnySavage]

I thought subs were boats and not ships?

Everything that's been posted in the last 4 months has been a boat!!! People got off topic.

 

[oggbashan]

This is the Australian Navy doing a live torpedo practice maneuver on one of their decommissioned ships. They used a Mk 48 torpedo developed in the USA and used on all ships in our current USA submarine fleet. It is non-nuclear and not a contact weapon. It is designed to go off directly underneath the ship at about 50 feet under the keel. The "steam bubble" from the explosion is what breaks the ship in half. The effect is devastating as you can see from the video. It is called "whipping."


Whipping Ships

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIVhtr75gXs&feature=player_embedded

The video is great. The commentary? A destroyer is NOT a 'battleship' and is not 'massive'.

The Mk48 works well on modern lightweight warships. It would be preferable to use a different torpedo, such as several of the Japanese WWII 'Long Lance' torpedos against a WWII armoured battleship equipped with torpedo protection. Even badly damaged battleships took a lot of torpedo hits to sink them.

 

[JohnnySavage]

The video is great. The commentary? A destroyer is NOT a 'battleship' and is not 'massive'.

The Mk48 works well on modern lightweight warships. It would be preferable to use a different torpedo, such as several of the Japanese WWII 'Long Lance' torpedos against a WWII armoured battleship equipped with torpedo protection. Even badly damaged battleships took a lot of torpedo hits to sink them.

Which negates your first sentence, and why a non-contact torpedo like the Mk -48 (Now, Mk-48 AdCap) is better. It uses the weight of the ship to break the keel. Having armor around the waist would only make a Mk-48 work better.

 

[IndieSnob]

I think this ship has sailed.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I think this ship has sailed.

That's the scuttlebutt.

 

[IndieSnob]

That's the scuttlebutt.

You wanna do what what with my butt?

 

[JohnnySavage]

Although, the Academy did nominate this one as Thread of the Year in the Under 1000 Replies category. I can hardly wait until the ceremony in June.

 

[thør]

That's the scuttlebutt.

You wanna do what what with my butt?

Navy guys doing what Navy guys do best.

 

[oggbashan]

Which negates your first sentence, and why a non-contact torpedo like the Mk -48 (Now, Mk-48 AdCap) is better. It uses the weight of the ship to break the keel. Having armor around the waist would only make a Mk-48 work better.

It is now impossible to prove either way. The WWII battleships were overengineered. Their keels were double or treble-skinned with crush zones to absorb explosive forces. Even breaking the keel wouldn't necessarily sink or permanently disable them e.g. HMS Belfast which survived a broken keel in the Arctic.

Battleships were also so much larger than destroyers. What could tear a destroyer in half might only dent the hull of a battleship. Of course I am assuming that the battleship is at action stations with watertight doors closed and damage control fully effective. Taranto, Alexandria and Pearl Harbor showed that battleships in harbour are more vulnerable.

The X-craft attacks on the Tirpitz were designed to act like the Mk 48 with larger charges. They damaged the Tirpitz but didn't destroy it.

 

[JohnnySavage]

It is now impossible to prove either way. The WWII battleships were overengineered. Their keels were double or treble-skinned with crush zones to absorb explosive forces. Even breaking the keel wouldn't necessarily sink or permanently disable them e.g. HMS Belfast which survived a broken keel in the Arctic.

Battleships were also so much larger than destroyers. What could tear a destroyer in half might only dent the hull of a battleship. Of course I am assuming that the battleship is at action stations with watertight doors closed and damage control fully effective. Taranto, Alexandria and Pearl Harbor showed that battleships in harbour are more vulnerable.

The X-craft attacks on the Tirpitz were designed to act like the Mk 48 with larger charges. They damaged the Tirpitz but didn't destroy it.

It's irrelevant how much 'skin' the keels had or how able they were to absorb explosive forces; that's not how the Mk-48 does it's damage. It blows the water from the center of the keel, leaving the entire weight of the ship resting on the bow and stern. The keel is broken by the sheer weight of the ship itself.

The X-craft deployed, essentially, mines. They were both proximity and contact, had less explosive force than a Mk-48, and were not designed to explode under the keel.