ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13843 posts, RR: 17
Reply 4, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 7373 times:
Some of the weakest ships as to build were some of the 'liberty ships' of the USA during WW II. Mainly for cargo use, but also to transport troops and for limited battle use, these ships were very famous for the quick build times, using prefabricated sections, extensive welding instead of rivets, with final assembly from keel to flotable in as little as less than 5 days. Earlier versions were designed to only really last about 5 years. They were also infamous with a relatively small number of them breaking apart in rough seas vs. that other ships at the time.
The quality of metal, cold weather stress in use in the North Atlantic, the techniques of manufacturing, engineering flaws, overloading along with a huge need for many such ships quickly and cheaply, since many were also lost to enemy led to a combination of decisions that caused their higher that desirable loss rates. Many had to be modified and many were scrapped over time as they had these flaws. Some were retained after WW II for military use, speciality use but most became the backbone of post-WWII shipping companies in Europe and elsewhere.
Quokka From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 7316 times:
Do you include submarines in the definition of ships? Would these not need to be fairly strong to withstand water pressure when submerged? Serious question, because I genuinely do not know. I haven't studied it at all and I know that shipwrecks can lie under the ocean for many years relatively intact but they are not moving through water. So are submarines subject to greater pressure and would their construction need to make them "stronger"?
KiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 10087 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 7284 times:
Some of the strongest ships would have to be ice breakers, platform supply vessels and standby vessesls. However any flaw in the design and you strong vessel could end up a lemon. In the case of standby vessels they can't leave there position watever the weather, they have to ride out whatever hits them, these are very strongly built ships.
Quoting gemuser (Reply 2): ICE Breakers, especially the Russian atomic powered ones.
What's interesting about these vessels is that they can't operate anywhere other than in the artic, if they go south, they overheat. A new class of atomic powered ice breakers is currently being designed.
Quoting 2707200X (Reply 1): Cruise ships have a lot of windows and glass a rouge wave can do damage and the water can make its way in, rough sea conditions often move tables and chairs around a room injuring passengers.
Quokka From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 7272 times:
Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 8): What's interesting about these vessels is that they can't operate anywhere other than in the arctic, if they go south, they overheat.
Sorry but I don't understand this. Are you saying only that they can not make the journey from the Arctic Ocean through warmer waters to the Antarctic, or that they can't operate in the Antarctic Circle?
hka098 From United States of America, joined Oct 2010, 556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 7271 times:
I know jack about sea vessels (other than I would rather stay off of them). I would think the Soviet Typhoon and Alfa class submarines would be some pretty tough customers. The Typhoon is the biggest sub and the Alfa was the fastest with it's titanium hull.
Shamrock137 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 6992 times:
Roll on / Roll off ferries seem to be particularly vulnerable in heavy seas if their is any type of failure in the bow door. Also even a small amount of water on the car deck can cause a loss of stability. The MS Estonia, a 155ft passenger ferry of this design sank less than 45 min after the bow door failed in a storm.
Geezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 6883 times:
Trying to determine what is the "strongest" ship is an impossibility; there are too many kinds of ships, each specifically designed for specific jobs.
Someone mentioned the Russian Typhoon class submarines. They are by far the largest subs ever built, and having a double titanium hull, it takes an awful lot to sink one, ( So far, no one has ever accomplished it. ) But are they the "strongest" overall ? That's a very difficult question to answer; They are designed to dive at very deep depths, but on the other hand, so are a lot of other submarines, I can tell you this; there are NO submarines, Russian, U.S., British or any other that can withstand the pressure at much more than maybe 1,500 feet. Inasmuch as there are places in the oceans that are over 30,000 ft deep, NO sub will EVER be able to dive anywhere near this deep without being crushed by the extreme pressure.
A lot of things are involved in making something "strong". Overall size has a lot to do with it, shape of hull, type of metal in hull, etc. Example; a Los Angeles class attack sub has a hull that is a perfect cylinder, with a hemispherical cap on either end. this is as strong as you can make a sub; without making it so heavy it would be useless. U.S.N. attack subs all have hulls of "around" 3" thickness; they are all able to operate at or below 1,000 ft. ( just how far below is classified )
They are also able to go quite "fast" submerged. Again, just "how fast" is classified. If you increased hull thickness to, say, 6", sure, you could dive much deeper, but the thing would be so heavy it would be much slower.
Actually, submarines have much in common with airplanes; they are all "purpose built" depending on their mission.
They are all designed to be "just strong enough", just "fast" enough, and just as safe as it is possible to make them.
( The U.S.N. is very "big" on safety, but even they have lost two SSN's so far. )
If you want to see something that is REALLY strong, ( although it is not classified as a "ship" ), the bathyscaphe "Trieste" is, to this day, the only manned vessel ever to reach the bottom of deepest place in the world's oceans. In 1960 it reached the bottom of the Mariana Trench, near Guam, a depth of 35,797 feet. the thing is essentially a 50ft long tank filled with gasoline for buoyancy, with a 7ft diameter sphere suspended beneath it for the 2 man crew. Suffice to say, spheres are VERY strong.
To make something the size of a submarine, that could withstand 35,000 feet........probably need to be 6 feet thick !
( I'm just guessing ) ( and it would probably sink under it's own weight )
A modern aircraft carrier ? A very strong ship.........just "strong enough" to accomplish it's intended purpose.
It's very safe to say, all modern submarines are very "strong" ships, but they can also ALL be lost, destroyed, sunk; either by "accident", ( U.S.S. Thresher , U.S.S. Scorpion ), and at least 3 Russian SSN's.
All modern warships are very strong, but none are "impervious" to being "lost".
BTW...........I don't know where this thing about nuclear ice-breakers being unable to operate in "warmer" waters came from ?
If that really is the case with a particular Russian vessel, then it has a very poorly designed cooling system ! The U.S. Navy has a lot of nuclear powered vessels, submarines, aircraft carriers, cruisers, etc etc, and I GUARANTEE you, any one of them is capable of going ANYPLACE in the world's oceans !
Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 16694 posts, RR: 28
Reply 18, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 6872 times:
Quoting Geezer (Reply 17): If that really is the case with a particular Russian vessel, then it has a very poorly designed cooling system !
Why? If you can use the surrounding frigid water as a heat sink, why bother with the complicated cooling system? And what sort of icebreaker would need to operate in warm climates, and there isn't a whole lot of need for the Russians to operate in Antarctica.
Quoting Geezer (Reply 17): The U.S. Navy has a lot of nuclear powered vessels, submarines, aircraft carriers, cruisers, etc etc, and I GUARANTEE you, any one of them is capable of going ANYPLACE in the world's oceans !
As does the Soviet/Russian Navy on vessels that need to be able to go anywhere. But there isn't much reason why they should go out of their way to make sure that their icebreakers can work in the Persian Gulf. After all:
Quoting Geezer (Reply 17): they are all "purpose built" depending on their mission.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
gemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 6268 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks ago) and read 6824 times:
Quoting Geezer (Reply 17): If that really is the case with a particular Russian vessel, then it has a very poorly designed cooling system
I'd say its very clever, SPECIALIST design! These ships are designed to serve the Russian north coast for as long a season as possible, a location where cold ambient water is never in short supply. The Russians have sent ice breakers to Antarctica in the past, but i have no idea if they were atomic powered.
KiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 10087 posts, RR: 14
Reply 22, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6724 times:
Quoting gemuser (Reply 20): The Russians have sent ice breakers to Antarctica in the past, but i have no idea if they were atomic powered.
Not the nuclear powered ones. They have two types of nuclear Ice Breakers in service, 2 with shallow draft built in Finland for rivers Taimyr class and 4 operational Arktika class (6 constructed) for the Arctic.
The newest Russian Icebreakers are the conventially powered Moscow and St Petersburg built at Baltisky Shipyard in St Petersburg. I got to go onboard St Petersburg for an inspection of equipment my company supplied. These can and will also be used in the Antartic supporting Russian activities down there.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21652 posts, RR: 53
Reply 23, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6684 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 18): Quoting Geezer (Reply 17):
If that really is the case with a particular Russian vessel, then it has a very poorly designed cooling system !
Why? If you can use the surrounding frigid water as a heat sink, why bother with the complicated cooling system?
The cooling systems always work with sea water in every case (even for non-nuclear propulsion). The main variables for differing sea water temperatures would be pump capacities and pipe diameters. The complexity isn't much different.
Some soviet-era technology is known for cutting corners on certain specs, but I would still be surprised if there were many if any icebreakers which would be incapable of operating in a warm climate. Possibly not at peak performance, but then again there usually isn't much ice to break in the tropics.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 18): And what sort of icebreaker would need to operate in warm climates, and there isn't a whole lot of need for the Russians to operate in Antarctica.
The Soviet Union and later Russia has been conducting research on Antarctica for scientific and possibly strategic reasons. Icebreakers are a necessity there.