Erie Fred
Member
- Messages
- 5,237
- Location
- Erie, Pa USofA
Nope, there is a song, played every November on the local radio stations so no-one forgets it:Didn’t the “Edmund Fitzgerald “ disappear without trace?
Nope, there is a song, played every November on the local radio stations so no-one forgets it:Didn’t the “Edmund Fitzgerald “ disappear without trace?
No armour plating/reactive armour on modern RN ships (not sure where you would put it?) , American Arleigh Burke destroyers had some sensitive areas protected by Kevlar matting IIRC but that’s the only thing that could be classified as any sort of “armour” that I’m aware of.I've seen a few sets of plans for aluminium boats and the thickness of the plates does not seem to scale up with the size of the boat like you would expect.
Seems to be more dependent on what the boat is designed to do, something that you can drive up onto the beach won't be the same as something that need to go on a trailer once a week etc..
I suppose it makes sense as a 1m2 area of sheet won't be exposed to any more pressure regardless of the boat size.
Do modern warships have the explosive plating like tanks? That's how they get away with using thinner steel on them I think?
I watched something recently on the building of a mega-tanker. They were using "extra thick" steel to reduce the risk of the oil cargo contaminating the environment and I think they said that was 30mm or so..
I can only tell you what he said to me , it was after a comment I made to him about it being a bit on the old side , they were fitting the ski ramp on as we were working on it .The Falklands vintage Hermes was definitely not armoured - certainly would have been constructed of thicker steel than the Invincible that was also there but it’s unlikely an Exocet would have simply bounced off.
Generally the operations room that has all the stuff required for fighting the ship (radar displays, weapons controls etc and where the captain sits when things are getting hairy) is below the waterline so in some way protected from missiles/gunfire etc (a torpedo would seriously ruin your day though…)
British wartime carriers had deck armour.Hermes was built to merchant standards. Maybe they meant the older Ark Royal which being an Audacious class *was* armoured. Not much but still 1.5" minimum armour, increasing to 4.5" in places. Decommissioned of course 3 years before the Falklands war.
Thinner outer shell is all about the framing behind. Also if you too much armour plate, the ship become very heavy. Altering the way it handles different sea conditions. Dont forget the below waterline volume needs to displace more water mass than the total weight of the ship or it will not float.Do modern warships have the explosive plating like tanks? That's how they get away with using thinner steel on them I think?
I watched something recently on the building of a mega-tanker. They were using "extra thick" steel to reduce the risk of the oil cargo contaminating the environment and I think they said that was 30mm or so..
No - Citadel usually refers to the bit that’s under positive pressure, allowing nuclear/chemical nasties to stay outside and clean air in. It’s most of the ship, save for a few odd places like the hangar (impossible to seal due to the massive door!) and some outside compartments.Is that the bit they call "the citadel"?
The OPVs, built for Brunei I believe. They were finished and then he refused to take them. Sat for ages but did go somewhere few years agoThey were never paid for, or we fell out with them, can’t remember what.
Either which way, they were still tied up alongside in Barrow last time I was there.
No idea what it was it an earlier life, but it was definitely built to military spec, as was the ruling in the USSR at the time, apparently. I've tried googling it, but nothing comes up other than MMSI #423087100 and no real detailsProbably wasnt originally built for civilian work, and then sold off. This one began life as a Russian floating dry dock for submarines. The middle bit was new, front and backend were from the submarine dry dock.
View attachment 385251
That number comes up with Ship 011 - very USSR!No idea what it was it an earlier life, but it was definitely built to military spec, as was the ruling in the USSR at the time, apparently. I've tried googling it, but nothing comes up other than MMSI #423087100 and no real details
Last time I saw it was in Singapore, parked up with me as part of a skeleton crew. I spent a xmas and new year sat on it in the eastern anchorage, waiting for work.....maybe 20 years ago
I've looked on a couple of seismic survey facebook groups, hardly a mention of her.That number comes up with Ship 011 - very USSR!
Interested to find out more about her but nothing on Google. It seems that name was re allocated after the one your were on got de mobbed.
This looked like this before the conversion and the big cut up. Interesting project.Probably wasnt originally built for civilian work, and then sold off. This one began life as a Russian floating dry dock for submarines. The middle bit was new, front and backend were from the submarine dry dock.
View attachment 385251
Singapore isa touch place to be laid up during the party season. A lot of well built stuff often build outside the USSR for Russia was sold off in the early yo mid 90s. Quite possibly how some of 5he folk got so rich!No idea what it was it an earlier life, but it was definitely built to military spec, as was the ruling in the USSR at the time, apparently. I've tried googling it, but nothing comes up other than MMSI #423087100 and no real details
Last time I saw it was in Singapore, parked up with me as part of a skeleton crew. I spent a xmas and new year sat on it in the eastern anchorage, waiting for work.....maybe 20 years ago