| |
| Author |
Topic Options
|
Posts: 1804
 Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 7:00 am
You can't. You don't know what you're talking about. Ok. You are ignored.
|
Posts: 23062
Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 7:19 am
Winnipegger Winnipegger: I already answered that, but you guys are getting flippant. So I'm going to throw your own question back at you. Give me the official DND policy regarding navy ship refit life. And when that policy was written. Uh, no you didn't. You told us some story about a Winnipeg councillor who wanted to re-furbish a stadium, you never specifically mentioned where you got this outlandish idea that ships last for 60 years. All you have to do to understand the average life of RCN ships is look at how long our ships lasted historically. WW2 ships (built in the 1940s) like the original Tribal class destroyers were replaced in the late 1960s, the St. Laurents (built in the early 1950s) were retired in the late 80s/early 90s, the Restigouches were built in the late 50s and retired in the early 90s and so on. As you can see, ships have stayed in service about 35-40 years. FYI, ships do get old and the hulls do need to get replaced as new technology develops. The St. Laurents were built in the early 50s and within a decade were obsolete - not so much because of weapons or electronics, but because of the introduction of nuclear submarines, which were faster submerged than the St. Laurent's top speed. Even the Halifaxes, which are still very good ships, were designed for a role that really no longer exists - hunting Soviet subs. They are not nearly as suited for current roles like close-in shore duties and as such are vulnerable to assymetric threats, which is one more reason why they need to be replaced. Like it or not, warfare evolves and so to does the tools one needs to fight.
|
Posts: 23565
Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 7:50 am
Winnipegger Winnipegger: You can't. You don't know what you're talking about. Ok. You are ignored. Yeah...tap out after being called on to substantiate idiotic statement. Petulant child... 
|
Posts: 23565
|
Posts: 13404
Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 9:22 am
Here is a picture of the extremely obsolete General Belgrano going to the bottom with 324 dead. She was "only" 44 years old but was as obsolete as a square rigger at the end. She was sunk by two, wired-guided torpedo fired from a RN submarine. The Argentine cruiser had nothing in it's weapons suite to counter that threat.. to even detect that it was there. She was meant to see action another era, back when things like naval guns counted as important weapons. The General Belgrano was a proud platform for displaying flags and bunting ... "mui macho" are vessels bristling with big guns.
Now the generation of warships (that a few of us in this forum serve on) that was replaced by the 330 Frigates would be hitting their 60th year right about now. They were also completely obsolete to modern weaponry a good decade or more before they were decommissioned. Had we sent our men into battle in the 70's or 80's in DDEs and DDHs, no one would have come home from them and they would have been taken out so early that they probably would have contributed nothing of value for their deaths ... meaningless deaths.
Technologies change. Warship design is changing particularly rapidly, right now and unless the Canadian public is willing to send our service people into harms way in something other than floating coffins, don't bother at all. Either have a proper navy or sign over our defences to our allies. It looks good on paper, from an accounting standpoint to do the latter but you are making huge assumptions about the state of the world around you. Lift your head out of the ledger once in a while and try taking in a larger picture.
| Attachments: |
imagesY5YBANMN.jpg [ 5.55 KiB | Viewed 273 times ]
|
Last edited by Jabberwalker on Mon Aug 04, 2014 9:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
|
Posts: 23565
Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 9:34 am
|
Posts: 13404
Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 9:41 am
I see some similarities, here! If you hang onto your warships long enough, they come back into fashion!
| Attachments: |
1024px-US_Navy_Sea_Shadow_stealth_craft.jpg [ 126.49 KiB | Viewed 20 times ]
|
4587375756_ff1de77b0f_z.jpg [ 256.41 KiB | Viewed 266 times ]
|
|
Posts: 11907
|
Posts: 23565
|
Posts: 11907
Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 12:34 pm
Gunnair Gunnair:
His head exploded.
He'll soon offer you lectures on platoon tactics after an all nighter of COD.
 I can't wait. Have a few days more of work and then off to the 100th anniversary of the PPCLI. I hope my liver survives. 
|
Posts: 1804
Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 12:59 pm
I have work to do. Home business so don't get today off.
Claiming that you need new things just because they're new? That just says you can't be trusted with purchasing. A World War 1 destroyer used different bow design. And ships were put together with rivets; Titanic demonstrated why that's a bad idea. Today steel ships are welded, with smooth hulls. You could try to argue for a catamaran or trimaran, but they have great trouble in icy water. You could try to argue for composite hull, either fibreglass or carbon fibre, but large ships still have steel hulls. Most importantly, the ships proposed for replacement don't have any new hull design. They're just steel mono-hull ships, just like our current ships. So what's the point?
Old saying: don't be rude. Rudeness is a sign of weakness. When you ridicule, you are being rude. You may have studied platoon tactics, but I know computers, finance, and engineering.
|
Posts: 23565
Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 1:05 pm
Winnipegger Winnipegger: I have work to do. Home business so don't get today off.
Claiming that you need new things just because they're new? That just says you can't be trusted with purchasing. A World War 1 destroyer used different bow design. And ships were put together with rivets; Titanic demonstrated why that's a bad idea. Today steel ships are welded, with smooth hulls. You could try to argue for a catamaran or trimaran, but they have great trouble in icy water. You could try to argue for composite hull, either fibreglass or carbon fibre, but large ships still have steel hulls. Most importantly, the ships proposed for replacement don't have any new hull design. They're just steel mono-hull ships, just like our current ships. So what's the point?
Old saying: don't be rude. Rudeness is a sign of weakness. When you ridicule, you are being rude. You may have studied platoon tactics, but I know computers, finance, and engineering. No, you've strolled in claiming knowledge and within a few posts were handed a big steaming plate of humble pie, you just weren't smart enough to eat it. Secondly, you were offered links to prove your erroneous opinion, but refused to offer links to support yours. Thirdly, when confronted with evidence and when taken to task your own own lack of it, you shoved fingers in ears and claimed you couldn't hear us. In other words, you're in over your head, have been demonstrably shown that you are in over your head, yet you try to go deeper. There ain't any part of this discussion that you don't seem unwilling to bring dumb into. Just stop. 'nother old saying - The river is loudest at its shallowest, and man you're making a racket.
|
Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 1:07 pm
Metal fatigue for one. And even peacetime navies beat the shit out of their vessels in between overhauls. Maybe not to the extent that the Royal Navy did to Nelson and Rodney in WW2 by steaming the things for a quarter-million kilometers between major engine maintenance sessions, but the ships today still take a pounding. There's limits to the stress even the best-built ships can take. Pretending that there isn't is rather silly.
|
Posts: 13404
Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 1:46 pm
Thanos Thanos: Metal fatigue for one. And even peacetime navies beat the shit out of their vessels in between overhauls. Maybe not to the extent that the Royal Navy did to Nelson and Rodney in WW2 by steaming the things for a quarter-million kilometers between major engine maintenance sessions, but the ships today still take a pounding. There's limits to the stress even the best-built ships can take. Pretending that there isn't is rather silly. We have HMCS Haida near by. I visit her fairly often. When I retire, I will volunteer my time to her upkeep. She is just over seventy years old and she was retired at just under 30 years old. She spent the next three plus decades tied up ... just tied up .. on the Toronto waterfront near a sort of fair ground. Just sitting there, in fresh water (much easier on a hull than salty) with proper and regular painting, rust being attended to in the usual naval fashion, her hull got VERY thin ... gossamer thin and they had to do some work on her to make it safe to tow her 20 miles on Lake Ontario in good weather to her new home in front of HMCS Star in Hamilton. The ship was not let to go to rack and ruin, (although she is better cared for now under the auspices of Parks Canada by dedicated volunteers). The point of this is that metal fatigues. It wears out. Ships wear out. Sail straight west from Vancouver Island and you are on the biggest reach of wind and wave on the planet ... goes about a third of the way around. Sail East from the right-hand coast and you are immediately in the coldest, deadliest waters on Earth. The bottom of the North Atlantic is paved with hulks. The simple act of putting to sea beats the crap out of the ships. They are built to be light, fast and maneuverable (and radar, infrared stealthy, now) in modern times and the waters around Canada are the just about the toughest environment for ships that there is.
|
Posts: 1804
Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 1:53 pm
And I know how to relieve metal fatigue. Yes, my father was a welder, the best welder at the heavy equipment shop of the CN railroad until he retired. As a hobby I've studied blacksmithing, and for part of my bids for NASA contracts I studied metallurgy. I could tell you how to anneal a hull, but Gunnair probably wouldn't understand. In fact, if you were willing to anneal an entire hull in place in dry dock, the hull would last indefinitely. Then it's just a matter of updating equipment. Annealing is a very big job, but so is building a whole ship. I'll accept the 60 year life span without annealing. To make it that long, the ship has to be refit periodically. And refit is a very big job. From the way Gunnair is talking, I doubt he knows what's involved.
|
 
|
Page 4 of 6
|
[ 88 posts ] |
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests |
|
|
Forum Elite 
