|
Dante80 posted:It is a pretty big tradition. Some examples I just googled. There was also a CSS Virginia and a CSS Virginia II
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 01:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
Dante80 posted:This article is gold. That’s technically true (cruise ships are kept purposely less stable so their roll is more comfortable). And wedging poo poo under your mattress to avoid getting rolled off is a long standing merchant marine tradition, I’ve done it in... poo poo most of the ships I’ve sailed on. Also not mentioned, the predecessors to those ships also rolled like motherfuckers, some of them had barrels of water strapped on the upper deck to try and soften their roll.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 01:53
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:That’s technically true (cruise ships are kept purposely less stable so their roll is more comfortable). And wedging poo poo under your mattress to avoid getting rolled off is a long standing merchant marine tradition, I’ve done it in... poo poo most of the ships I’ve sailed on. There are horror stories about corvettes during WWII escorting convoys in the North Atlantic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 02:03
|
|
|
Maybe the coasties have turned into a bunch of soft nancyboys  Also it’s not a military organization in Canada, it’s part of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 02:05
|
|
|
priznat posted:Maybe the coasties have turned into a bunch of soft nancyboys They’re union.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 02:06
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:They’re union. drat commies  My uncle was a lighthouse keeper for a while (Trial Island off Victoria) and they used to drop supplies off by helicopter just because I guess (training?) It was pretty cool. Also despite being very close it was quite the ride over in a zodiac during rough weather. I had a blast but my mom was hanging on for dear life with eyes closed 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 02:21
|
|
|
The CCG abuses the poo poo out of helicopters. Helicopter some dudes to a beacon so they can paint it. Helicopter goes back to ship. Helicopter goes out and drop out lunch three hours later. Helicopter goes back to ship. Three hours later, helicopter goes pick up workers. Repeat the next day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 02:24
|
|
|
That’s some solid use of flight time hours, jeez.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 02:28
|
|
|
Edit: Hm, no China...Mazz posted:To circle back around to air power that article mentions the force on board is going to be a mix of US/UK birds. While it’s pretty likely because that’s the only way to really have enough tails at this point I’m curious about the possibility of that being the norm. AFAIK the RN isn’t actually buying enough 35Bs to have two full air wings, so regularly hosting Marine 35Bs to make up the difference kind of makes sense in a way. They get to offload the running costs of the planes onto the US for the most part while still maintaining more functional deployments. I know it’s not that simple but it does have some merit given the UK is probably never going to buy enough 35Bs for both QEs. I mean depending on where reliability and operating costs trend maybe not even 1. Gives the Marines something to do since they can't fit enough -Bs on their own boats to maintain manning/training/ops/etc. Godholio fucked around with this message at 03:13 on Feb 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 03:02
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:Everyone hold up a second: um hello if we thought of "track" "records" we wouldn't be buying ship designs from lockmart and BAE  wait
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 03:02
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Gives the Marines something to do since they can't fit enough -Bs on their own boats to maintain manning/training/ops/etc. The Marines don’t even have F-35Cs yet so any sourcing to ships beyond smalldecks is gravy. Most of their F-35Bs are intended to replace ground-based legacy F-18s. Hence replacing F-18s, Harriers, and Prowlers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 03:16
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:In related news, it took me an embarrassingly long time to understand metacentric height when I first encountered the term. I hope the Hero class didn't end up the way they are because they hired some chump with my level of skill and he thought, "Hey, these need to be rough water boats, I will blithely give them the greatest possible metacentric height! For stability!" e: Zorak of Michigan posted:Those tools get you answers, but they don't tell you that you're asking the wrong questions. Too much stability can give you a ship with a short, fast, potentially even whipping roll motion. It's very stable, if you're only looking for stability, because it rights itself very quickly when it starts to tip. You have to stop and think about how that motion will impact the crew. Longtime followers of procurement will nod sagely: It sounds like there was a basic design, which the fed gave tons of notes for, and all the changes increased the weight to the point the naval architects were all "it weighs too much" and then the feds were like "well delete some poo poo that we didn't want put on, oh, stabilizers, they can go" e2: Light googling shows they were a Danish design that worked quite well until the fed got ahold of it Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Feb 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 03:34
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 03:52
|
|
|
I love it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 04:11
|
|
|
I'm sure I'm late to this party, but I read an article on CNN about us going into "Chinese" waters with some Naval General saying, "We will encroach upon whoever the gently caress we want according to international treaties, which we also will ignore if it suits us." Is being that blunt normal? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 04:30
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:It is a pretty big tradition. Some examples I just googled. lmao good to see procurement was just as hosed 200 years ago. USS Virginia (1825) posted:USS Virginia was one of nine 74-gun warships authorized by the United States Congress on 29 April 1816. It was laid down at the Boston Navy Yard, in May 1822, was finished about May 1825, and was kept on the stocks. Naval policy and the expense involved discouraged launching or commissioning the 74s except when the national interest clearly required it. Virginia remained on the stocks at Boston until it was broken up there starting in 1874.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 04:32
|
|
|
China wants to declare a 200 chunk of ocean next to other nations as China's exclusive territory. The US insists that they can't do that just because they put buildings on man-made islands. So we're doing freedom of navigation trips thru waters the UN recognizes as international waters. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 04:34
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:lmao good to see procurement was just as hosed 200 years ago. I wonder what the longest time a ship spent in drydock under "construction". I'd say surely that Virginia has to be the upper limit, but history has a habit of always managing to be worse than I expect.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 04:37
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:China wants to declare a 200 chunk of ocean next to other nations as China's exclusive territory. The US insists that they can't do that just because they put buildings on man-made islands. So we're doing freedom of navigation trips thru waters the UN recognizes as international waters. I was just amazed at the weird bizarro speak of the admiral or whoever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 04:50
|
|
|
Captain Log posted:I'm sure I'm late to this party, but I read an article on CNN about us going into "Chinese" waters with some Naval General saying, "We will encroach upon whoever the gently caress we want according to international treaties, which we also will ignore if it suits us." Got a link to the article?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 04:55
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Got a link to the article? Here you go! https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/02/10/politics/us-ships-south-china-sea/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 05:06
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:lmao good to see procurement was just as hosed 200 years ago. Unsurprisingly, it was mostly because Congress was deeply involved.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 05:10
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:lmao good to see procurement was just as hosed 200 years ago. To be fair, there is probably a logical explanation for not launching all the ships of the line they authorized building. Wooden ships are hideously expensive to maintain and wear out insanely quickly (many often they had a lifetime of a decade or so), and the Navy had plenty of ships to meet the needs of anything in that time period. By the time the civil war rolled around this kind of ship became obsolete quickly and wasn't necessary for the goal of blockading the Confederates. But between the 1820s and the 1850s or so it's nice to have a few extra large warships in Uncle Sam's back pocket that could be put to sea in a couple months if the need arose, without wasting huge amounts of money and manpower maintaining in peacetime rotting in a harbor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 06:36
|
|
|
The policy in question was Congress's attempt to simultaneously address the "As a coastal nation reliant on seaborne commerce, we really need a battle fleet" and "Battle fleets are expensive, and we don't want to spend any money on one if we can avoid it". This, of course, was policy after fighting two wars that a strong navy would probably have prevented in the first place. It was an incredibly stupid policy, and is not defensible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 06:57
|
|
|
Carth Dookie posted:Where have you been reading about this? I'm curious about the details of the Collins class replacement. I thought we had agreed to have a French design built here, but I thought it was inherently a diesel electric, I didn't realise we were building a converted nuke sub. I just did some amateur cursory googling / wikisurfing. Maybe check the sources given here as a starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Barracuda-class_submarine#Shortfin_Barracuda_conventional_variant
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 10:54
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:The policy in question was Congress's attempt to simultaneously address the "As a coastal nation reliant on seaborne commerce, we really need a battle fleet" and "Battle fleets are expensive, and we don't want to spend any money on one if we can avoid it". This, of course, was policy after fighting two wars that a strong navy would probably have prevented in the first place. 1812 is the obvious one but what’s the second war you mean?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 11:28
|
|
|
Pontius Pilate posted:1812 is the obvious one but what’s the second war you mean? Barbary Wars?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 11:35
|
|
|
The Quasi-War with France. This two-year naval conflict was fought entirely because the new US had pathetic naval forces that were far, far too weak to protect American commerce.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 11:52
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Barbary Wars? Duh, that’s probably the other one. It’s late and I’m not exactly sober, forgive me. Please continue to not talk about China. e: ^^ sure, yup, makes even more sense
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 11:53
|
|
|
Tetraptous posted:
That's pretty much how it works for all carriers. They require an enormous amount of training, maintenance and working up. You can generally write of 50% of their availability for those sorts of things at a minimum. This short Rand study has some numbers and greater detail. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9316/index1.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 12:42
|
|
|
priznat posted:Also it’s not a military organization in Canada, it’s part of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. "Excuse me, what is--[PA squelch, 20mm cannon charging] WHAT IS THE SEX OF THAT CRAB?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 14:31
|
|
|
Captain Log posted:Here you go! quote:The operation was carried out "to challenge excessive maritime claims and preserve access to the waterways as governed by international law," Cmdr. Clay Doss, a spokesman for the US Navy's 7th Fleet, told CNN. That's bizarro speak?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 15:07
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:The Quasi-War with France. This two-year naval conflict was fought entirely because the new US had pathetic naval forces that were far, far too weak to protect American commerce. And yet did rather well for themselves overall against the French...
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 15:28
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:"Excuse me, what is--[PA squelch, 20mm cannon charging] WHAT IS THE SEX OF THAT CRAB?" Harpoon ASMs for whale watching boats that got too close to an Orca..
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 15:43
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:That's bizarro speak? No? That's a pretty accurate statement of the US policy on why we are conducting freedom of navigation ops in the South China Sea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 16:18
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:No? That's a pretty accurate statement of the US policy on why we are conducting freedom of navigation ops in the South China Sea. The US isn't a party to the UNCLOS so its kinda ironic. Or its a weird reference to this cold war incident where the US and USSR found out that their official translations actually said subtly different things about freedom of navigation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Black_Sea_bumping_incident quote:At the time, the Soviet Union recognized the right of innocent passage for warships in its territorial waters solely in designated sea lanes.[2] The United States believed that there was no legal basis for a coastal nation to limit warship transits to sea lanes only.[3] Subsequently, the U.S. Department of State found that the Russian-language text of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Article 22, paragraph 1 allowed the coastal state to regulate the right of innocent passage whenever necessary, while the English-language text did not.[1] Following the incident, the Soviet Union expressed a commitment to resolve the issue of innocent passage in Soviet territorial waters.[1]
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 16:22
|
|
|
UNCLOS was a mistake. Not in the matter of the South China Sea. Just, in general.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 16:27
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:No? That's a pretty accurate statement of the US policy on why we are conducting freedom of navigation ops in the South China Sea. That's my point. I didn't see anything in that article that's "bizarro speak" or weird in any way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 16:35
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:UNCLOS was a mistake. The general concept of UNCLOS was a mistake, or the specific details within? I'm genuinely curious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 16:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
Potato Salad posted:"Excuse me, what is--[PA squelch, 20mm cannon charging] WHAT IS THE SEX OF THAT CRAB?" “THIS IS A FISHERIES PROTECTION VESSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS, HEAVE TO AND PREPARE TO BE BOARDED” (Repeat in French if in Central or Atlantic regions)
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 16:56
|
|