3 ms·
> What? You don't think a massive midships collision would disrupt of power distribution? It absolutely should not in 2017. That is a lesson that the Royal Na
by dingaling 9y ago
> What? You don't think a massive midships collision would disrupt of power distribution?
It absolutely should not in 2017. That is a lesson that the Royal Navy learned in 1982, along with separated armoured trunks for fire-fighting water.
Otherwise one bomb, or one Exocet-class weapon, is all that is required to mission-kill one ship.
Wind the clock back to 1945 and there are examples of destroyers remaining semi-operational after Kamikaze strikes; that's a ton of explosives going off. The Fletcher-class USS Newcomb stayed afloat after five Kamikaze strikes and kept manouevring and firing!
Unfortunately there is an increasing naval acceptance of lesser mercantile standards in shipbuilding.
- jabl 9y ago> separated armoured trunks for fire-fighting water. Huh? They do that? I'd always assumed that space and weight would be at such a premium that they would pump fire-fighting water from the sea instead of storing it onboard.. > Wind the clock back to 1945 and there are examples of destroyers remaining semi-operational after Kamikaze strikes; that's a ton of explosives going off. The Fletcher-class USS Newcomb stayed afloat after five Kamikaze strikes and kept manouevring and firing! Given the general level of carnage in WWII, I'd guess you'll be bound to find outliers like the USS Newcomb you mention. As well as outliers in the other direction, such as capital ships exploding after a single large caliber hit (HMS Hood).
- chipsa 9y agoThey do pump water from the sea for fire fighting. But you need piping to move the water from the sea into the ship. Pipes tend not to work well when they have holes in them. So you need to protect them, or have more than one, or both.