Follow TV Tropes
The Prinz Eugen is having its oil reserves pumped out to avoid a potentially hazardous leak. Some background. The ship in question was part of the nuclear tests carried out on Naval ships shortly after WWII. While the ship survived both shots, the second shot so thoroughly irradiated the ship they were unable to decontaminate her. The ship was still damaged during the test and was slowly sinking. They tried to beach the ship on a small island nearby but before crews could arrange it the ship capsized and sunk in shallow waters. Because it was so badly irradiated they left it in place. In the 70's they announced the ship should be safe enough salvage hazmat materials and prevent issues like the oil leak and should be done within the next 30 years. So ten plus years past that, we have been lucky, and they are pumping the oil stores out to avoid severe weather damaging the ship and causing a massive spill.
So I found a full fuel consumption chart last night.
How is it that a single destroyer at full steam burns as much fuel per hour as the fucking Yamato at cruise?
There fuel burn rates spiked 15 times over once they entered combat, while big ships was 6 times or less.
Thread is not counting my last post for some reason, and thus not updating on watch lists....
Edit: Nor does it seem to count this one, odd.
Edited by Imca on Sep 21st 2018 at 3:02:32 AM
A lot of people are reporting weird stuff with watchlists and posts not updating things.
It should mostly be fixed by this point.
It seems to be thankfully, asked a question above though.... seriously how does something so small burn that much fuel at full steam.
Well for one thing, a destroyer (let's assume a Fubuki class) would be moving a lot faster at full steam than Yamato ever would.
Given the physics of ocean travel (lots of resistance yet lots of momentum once going), anything trying to continuously go fast (with or without maneuvers) will burn tons of fuel compared to something simply maintaining momentum at a lower cruising speed. The ocean provides for a lot more resistance (especially something with low displacement) at a lot lower speeds than air ever will.
Then you have the transmission, if the gear ratio isn't very efficient or good relative to the weight and power, it costs more fuel because you have to run more revolutions per minute of the screws to get the same or more power. Like in a car, sure you can rev it up to 6000 rpm and be cruising at 65 mph in first gear but you'll be burning that gas up like it's nothing especially if you ever let up on the gas pedal because the gearbox will be trying to natively slow you down at that speed, rpm and gear setting. But shift to 5th gear and suddenly fuel use is a lot less while at speed and it won't be trying to engine brake you anywhere near as much. Yeah, it's a pain in the arse to accelerate at low speed in 5th gear and you can stall out easily but them's the breaks.
It could also be the engines on the smaller craft simply had to work harder to maintain the same speeds. Someone commented earlier that some of the WWII escort craft for larger warships were not as well designed and meant more for their cruising or patrol speeds as that is what they were usually built for long-term fuel use.
^ That would be true too. Most ships of the first half of the 20th century were built around a performance aspect, not necessarily fuel economy. Good power to hold lots of ammo and/or armor was one way, good speed was another, good handling especially in bad weather was another among other things.
Even in the 1940s we were still experimenting and learning how to do modern seamanship in the age of powered ships. After all only 50-60 years earlier compared to 1942, there were still tons of old school wind driven ships with centuries of experience at their backs.
I think the specific was the smaller ships were not necessarily meant to keep up with big Battleships with their beefy engines but built more around merchant escort, water patrols, and littoral missions. Their speed at the time was plenty enough but when the balloon went up and the big war happened flaws in the ideas became apparent.
The modern vessels seem to have largely learned from that and are built to move fast. Improvements in hull design definitely helped. Which IIRC the battleships had somewhat better hydrodynamic hull designs to make it easier to sail the large ships.
Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Sep 22nd 2018 at 3:06:50 AM
A.) There's probably some economies of scale going on
B.) Small ships generally have a higher top speed and each additional knot is a lot harder to accelerate to than the one before it (there's a reason that, despite having about 80% more horsepower than the South Dakota class, the Iowa class is only about 20% faster). However, since they're going to spend most of their time escorting large ships, they're likely optimized to get their best fuel economy at the cruising speed of the vessels they're escorting. Since they can pick up a lot of additional speed, they're running far outside of their most efficient conditions.
C.) Flank speed is literally "damn the fuel economy, give me everything the engine's got", and as much fuel as possible will be fed in to maximize power, which is very different from maximizing efficiency.
Edited by Balmung on Sep 24th 2018 at 4:19:11 AM
Right, so I don't know how much you guys actually like it when I dredge up stuff from the Japanese part of the planet to share with you guys, that you probaly wouldn't see other wise.... buuuuut.
How about some B1 class cruiser submarine blueprints? Those intrest any one here?
^ Those remind me of Narwhal and Nautilus, the "submarine cruisers", incidentally of the same era as the Type B1.
That cross section was pretty cool looking.
Cross-posted with the Military Thread and, briefly, one of the sci-fi world building threads because I'm a fucking idiot before coffee:
Navy Captain charged with steering defense contracts to her own company.
Some days I wonder if the Navy has a bigger corruption problem than the other branches, or if the other branches have a bigger transparency problem than the Navy.
Also, the middle bit of the article takes a wild swerve into the plot of a Tom Clancy novel before getting back to the more mundane profiteering stuff.
I'd guess it's the transparency thing
WASHINGTON — In the event of a major war with China or Russia, the U.S. Navy, almost half the size it was during the height of the Cold War, is going to be busy with combat operations. It may be too busy, in fact, to always escort the massive sealift effort it would take to transport what the Navy estimates will be roughly 90 percent of the Marine Corps and Army gear the force would need to sustain a major conflict.
That’s the message Mark Buzby, the retired rear admiral who now leads the Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration, has gotten from the Navy, and it’s one that has instilled a sense of urgency around a major cultural shift inside the force of civilian mariners that would be needed to support a large war effort.
WASHINGTON — With Russia’s reemergence as a menace in Europe, the U.S. Army has been laying the foundations to fight once again on the continent it defended through most of the 20th century. But if war were to break out tomorrow, the U.S. military could be hard-pressed to move the number of tanks, heavy guns and equipment needed to face off with Russian forces.
And even if the Army could get there in numbers, then the real problems would start: how would the U.S. sustain them?
The U.S. sealift capacity — the ships that would ultimately be used to transport Army equipment from the states to Europe or Asia — is orders of magnitude smaller than it was during World War II. Combine that with the fact that the commercial shipbuilding industry in the U.S. is all but gone, and the U.S. can’t launch the kind of massive buildup of logistics ships it undertook during wartime decades ago.
By 2022, the United States will need “70,000 new people” for the nation’s maritime fleet, but the Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point, N.Y., and the six state maritime academies only graduate 900 per year and are at capacity, Paul Jaenichen Sr., the head of the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD), told the House Armed Services seapower and projection forces subcommittee on Tuesday.
He added that even with a new military-to-mariner program for separating service members—and other programs like it—the real issue is now those individuals would get credit for the necessary licenses required. He told the panel American mariners are “also a very aging work force” that could aggravate the shortfall in the future.
Addressing existing requirements for mariners in support of global power projection, Jaenichen said that while the administration can meet the requirement for immediate deployment, “the first crew rotation is critical.” After four to six months, he said, there were “not enough [mariners] for sustained operations.”
Edited by TairaMai on Oct 28th 2018 at 8:54:05 PM
The Huge Floating Dry Dock Holding Russia's Only Aircraft Carrier Has Accidentally Sunk.
Unconfirmed reports suggest the mishap has torn a 5 meter gash into the Kuznetsov's hull at/near the waterline.
How do you say "Whoopsies!" in Russian?
But, except for the bit where it sank, the floating dry dock worked perfectly.
EDIT: Having read the article, freaking yikes. I am a bit concerned that the buoyancy pump isn't designed to fail closed in the event of a power loss.
Edited by AFP on Oct 30th 2018 at 11:42:33 AM
Here is the BBC article.
Yup, confirmation on the crane tearing a gash through the deck.
Which is horrible optics for the Russian Navy, to be honest. Though considering the smoke Kuznetsov had been sending up a while back near Britain, it couldn't get a worse reputation unless it actually had sank.
Edited by AzurePaladin on Oct 30th 2018 at 10:34:35 AM
The Russian Navy is just not having a good time.
^ I'm not sure they've ever had a good time since Tsushima.
I feel like they're less concerned about the optics and more concerned about their carrier being halfway through an overhaul with no dry dock capable of doing the overhaul. Kuznetsov is as good as sunk until they figure that bit out.
It sounds like they’re insinuating foul play now. Wonder how long it is before they blame the Americans.
The Kuznetsov is a lost cause at this point. Russia’s proven they just don’t have the capability to operate an aircraft carrier.
Edited by archonspeaks on Oct 31st 2018 at 3:42:19 AM
Community Showcase More