|
MrYenko posted:What the hell is a kimwipe? A loving giant 4 ply (or was it 6?) reinforced paper towel.
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 17:16 |
|
|
It is something we wasted a crap ton of them on for anything we did because why the hell not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
They're no ordinary papertowels- they're lint-free and much softer. And cost like 3x more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
grover posted:They're no ordinary papertowels- they're lint-free and much softer. And cost like 3x more. Hence why we basically never get them in the commercial world. They're like giant Kleenexes, I find them hilarious for some reason. We were lucky to get lint-free wipes for the binoculars. For cleaning and all, we got bags of t-shirts from goodwill. Sometimes someone would cheap out and we'd get bags of whatever the hell from goodwill; I'm pretty sure I ended up mopping thinner off the deck with the remnant of someone's old wedding dress.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 21:27
|
|
|
Third World Reggin posted:It is something we wasted a crap ton of them on for anything we did because why the hell not. They are a bit expensive. My second captain had a hardon for NOT buying them. So any division that didn't have to cleanup hydraulic fluid didn't get the buy them and had to get rags & buckets of soap&water for regular cleanups.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
ded posted:They are a bit expensive. My second captain had a hardon for NOT buying them. So any division that didn't have to cleanup hydraulic fluid didn't get the buy them and had to get rags & buckets of soap&water for regular cleanups.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 01:31
|
|
|
grover posted:Yeah, I can see this; they're awfully expensive if you don't really need them. Sailors tend to use whatever's handy, so makes sense. Yep; I saw more sailors than I could count get a kimwipe to pick up a single dustbunny, and throw the whole thing away. By our second deployment, and as the sequester went into effect, our CO bought swiffer dusters and insisted on using normal mops/rags.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 01:44
|
|
|
ded posted:A loving giant 4 ply (or was it 6?) reinforced paper towel. 4, reinforced with a 1/2" nylon thread matrix. They were crazy durable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
The Navy way tends to be cleaning up the leaks forever instead of fixing whatever's leaking. That's hardly the safest path of action, let alone the cheapest. In fact if you have something leaking and making a mess in plain sight, that's a boon, since you can wipe up the easily accessible oil slick during your mandatory cleaning times instead of having to crawl somewhere clumsy. This is also counterproductive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:
It is beneficial. As long as it's dripping, you know there's fluid pumping in there. You can keep track of how much you need to add, but you always know that there's something in there. It's part of why you don't climb into a helicopter if it isn't leaking oil around somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 02:51
|
|
|
grover posted:Yeah, I can see this; they're awfully expensive if you don't really need them. Sailors tend to use whatever's handy, so makes sense. So they're basically Tech Wipes? Our shop was always stocked up with these things. Also,  $96 for 15?? I used to use these things as tissues and to stuff in the bottom on my dip cup.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 03:14
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:It is beneficial. As long as it's dripping, you know there's fluid pumping in there. You can keep track of how much you need to add, but you always know that there's something in there. Rubbish. I guarantee you there are more than enough sight glasses, flow indicators, thermometers, sound monitors etc on the drivetrain of an atomic submarine that you don't need leaky gaskets to tell you it's healthy. For that matter, by the time you noticed a change in leak rate you'd have wiped a critical bearing ages ago. It's also rubbish if you have a leaky mess on your port side whatever and its healthy exact clone on the starboard side is sparkling clean. Not everything is a whirlybird that needs to constantly soil itself to be happy, the Navy does have quite a bit of precision equipment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 03:26
|
|
|
Sacrilage posted:Yep; I saw more sailors than I could count get a kimwipe to pick up a single dustbunny, and throw the whole thing away. By our second deployment, and as the sequester went into effect, our CO bought swiffer dusters and insisted on using normal mops/rags. This was back in 96. Long before the current bullshit. On the other hand he was a loving badass CO who had a crazy amount of LoMs. http://www.la-ex.org/Read_History/Commanders/Rubenstein/rubenstein.html Which oddly are not listed on that bio.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 03:33
|
|
|
Mad Dragon posted:http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=kimwipe "delicate task wipes"
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 03:34
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Rubbish. I guarantee you there are more than enough sight glasses, flow indicators, thermometers, sound monitors etc on the drivetrain of an atomic submarine that you don't need leaky gaskets to tell you it's healthy. For that matter, by the time you noticed a change in leak rate you'd have wiped a critical bearing ages ago. You are mostly correct, but do you know how much time it will take to replace that part plus how much it will cost for the shipyard bubba to come out and do it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 16:01
|
|
|
ded posted:This was back in 96. Long before the current bullshit. That's awesome; I wish more CO's were inclined to think outside the box when it came to bucking the trend.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 16:29
|
|
|
At work we have fancy kimwipes for Lidar lenses and the vast majority of them are used to clean my glasses. They work really well at that!
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:You are mostly correct, but do you know how much time it will take to replace that part plus how much it will cost for the shipyard bubba to come out and do it? The Navy thinks time is free, and the time spent not fixing it is spent cleaning up after it anyway. The real reason for not fixing is that no one wants to be responsible for routing a work package to people who had no idea anything was 'broken' to begin with, and having to answer the resulting questions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:It is beneficial. As long as it's dripping, you know there's fluid pumping in there. You can keep track of how much you need to add, but you always know that there's something in there. This right here is the dumbest thing I think you've ever said tbh
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
also kim wipes are mad loving ownage if you have to clean up oil and stuff enjoy your sponge or w/e
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
genderstomper58 posted:This right here is the dumbest thing I think you've ever said tbh It's an old helicopter joke. I'm not always serious when I post. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 03:14
|
|
|
Cool NSL presentation, for those interested; it's been going on all week.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 02:47
|
|
|
Sacrilage posted:Cool NSL presentation, for those interested; it's been going on all week. I saw that at Joel's blog. I'm quite curious as to what direction Ohio replacement program is going to take. If you ask me, just strip USAF of all the nukes and have USN handle it with boomers. You can't beat the element of surprise, both for deterrence and second strike capability.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
Having warheads other countries can aim at reliably is to some degree a net positive for deterrence. How long deterrence matters is a different question. There are still people drumbeating the idea of putting nuke SLBMs on Virginia classes, which I think is a completely blockheaded idea for a variety of reasons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
I've always thought that SLBM were the smart way to go. Maybe have the air force focus on nukes delivered by stealth bombers and have the navy worry about ICBMs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
almighty posted:I saw that at Joel's blog. I'm quite curious as to what direction Ohio replacement program is going to take. If you ask me, just strip USAF of all the nukes and have USN handle it with boomers. You can't beat the element of surprise, both for deterrence and second strike capability.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:I've always thought that SLBM were the smart way to go. Maybe have the air force focus on nukes delivered by stealth bombers and have the navy worry about ICBMs. Eh, ICBMs were what basically neutered our bomber forces, and it'd be kind of weird for the Navy to manage all our nuclear missile bases inland.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 23:12
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Having warheads other countries can aim at reliably is to some degree a net positive for deterrence. How long deterrence matters is a different question. Yeah, well I live in a country that benefits from USAF B-62s being present in joint bases under Nuke sharing program. It's a pretty smart incentive to prevent non-nuke nations to develop their own weapons, but then again, I believe minimizing the nuclear arsenals is the key trend to the zeitgeist, especially for the superpowers. I believe in US superiority in Nuclear capability and the deterrence that brings about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Eh, ICBMs were what basically neutered our bomber forces, and it'd be kind of weird for the Navy to manage all our nuclear missile bases inland. Bombers are quite useless in our age IMHO, except for gimmicks such as B-2.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Eh, ICBMs were what basically neutered our bomber forces, and it'd be kind of weird for the Navy to manage all our nuclear missile bases inland. The Air Force isn't exactly awash with glory over missile management right now, and putting a couple seamen and officers in a hole and locking the door for a week has closer analogues to shipboard life than anything else the USAF does. Also in the long run it makes more sense to associate Space Command stuff with the Navy (again, because deep space ops are closer to deep ocean ops than anything atmospheric) and those rockets and the doomsday ones go somewhat hand in hand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
Sorry, what I meant was 'all icbms should be slbms' because silent nuclear powered submersible mobile icbm silos are the coolest thing ever. Its like something out of science-fiction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:The Air Force isn't exactly awash with glory over missile management right now, and putting a couple seamen and officers in a hole and locking the door for a week has closer analogues to shipboard life than anything else the USAF does. Also in the long run it makes more sense to associate Space Command stuff with the Navy (again, because deep space ops are closer to deep ocean ops than anything atmospheric) and those rockets and the doomsday ones go somewhat hand in hand. Crimson Tide anyone? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:The Air Force isn't exactly awash with glory over missile management right now, and putting a couple seamen and officers in a hole and locking the door for a week has closer analogues to shipboard life than anything else the USAF does. Also in the long run it makes more sense to associate Space Command stuff with the Navy (again, because deep space ops are closer to deep ocean ops than anything atmospheric) and those rockets and the doomsday ones go somewhat hand in hand. True, but whose to say the Navy will manage it any better? The officer corps of the Air Force just needs a swift kick in the pants. Baloogan posted:Sorry, what I meant was 'all icbms should be slbms' because silent nuclear powered submersible mobile icbm silos are the coolest thing ever. Yeah, true. However, if your entire nuclear missile force is submarine bound and the country you face has decent anti-submarine forces, you've just lost all your nuclear deterrent forces.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:True, but whose to say the Navy will manage it any better? The officer corps of the Air Force just needs a swift kick in the pants. And which country has 'pretty decent' ASW forces right now?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
almighty posted:And which country has 'pretty decent' ASW forces right now? Russia, I don't know about China, but they regularly hold ASW drills.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 23:52
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Russia, I don't know about China, but they regularly hold ASW drills. AFAIK, holding drills barely equals to having a competent counter to the US submarine force. However, I'm a little bit worried about the waning USN ASW capabilities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
Actually that is a good point and a good reason to keep hella ICBMs on land. What if the chinese become really good at ASW? They can't ASW in North Dakota.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 00:01
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:Actually that is a good point and a good reason to keep hella ICBMs on land. What if the chinese become really good at ASW? They can't ASW in North Dakota. I'm more terrified of rabid unicorns devouring me than the thought of China nuking the US, if for no other reason than the US is too economically important to China.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:I'm more terrified of rabid unicorns devouring me than the thought of China nuking the US, if for no other reason than the US is too economically important to China. I know, its a silly point, but a point none the less.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 17:16 |
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:The Air Force isn't exactly awash with glory over missile management right now, and putting a couple seamen and officers in a hole and locking the door for a week has closer analogues to shipboard life than anything else the USAF does. Also in the long run it makes more sense to associate Space Command stuff with the Navy (again, because deep space ops are closer to deep ocean ops than anything atmospheric) and those rockets and the doomsday ones go somewhat hand in hand. It's always Space Navy in science-fiction (except for Stargate I guess and we all saw how that ended up)  almighty posted:And which country has 'pretty decent' ASW forces right now? How are the Brits doing these days, still hemorrhaging institutional knowledge like none other?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 00:18
|
|
