Showing posts with label Ships. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ships. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 24, 2025

The fascinating history of string and rope

 

A very interesting article in Hakai magazine tells the story.


In his 1956 book The Marlinspike Sailor, marine illustrator Hervey Garrett Smith wrote that rope is “probably the most remarkable product known to mankind.” On its own, a stray thread cannot accomplish much. But when several fibers are twisted into yarn, and yarn into strands, and strands into string or rope, a once feeble thing becomes both strong and flexible—a hybrid material of limitless possibility. A string can cut, choke, and trip; it can also link, bandage, and reel. String makes it possible to sew, to shoot an arrow, to strum a chord. It’s difficult to think of an aspect of human culture that is not laced through with some form of string or rope; it has helped us develop shelter, clothing, agriculture, weaponry, art, mathematics, and oral hygiene. Without string, our ancestors could not have domesticated horses and cattle or efficiently plowed the earth to grow crops. If not for rope, the great stone monuments of the world—Stonehenge, the Pyramids at Giza, the moai of Easter Island—would still be recumbent. In a fiberless world, the age of naval exploration would never have happened; early light bulbs would have lacked suitable filaments; the pendulum would never have inspired advances in physics and timekeeping; and there would be no Golden Gate Bridge, no tennis shoes, no Beethoven’s fifth symphony.

“Everybody knows about fire and the wheel, but string is one of the most powerful tools and really the most overlooked,” says Saskia Wolsak, an ethnobotanist at the University of British Columbia who recently began a PhD on the cultural history of string. “It’s relatively invisible until you start looking for it. Then you see it everywhere.”

Precisely when people began to twine, loop, and knot is unknowable, but we can say with reasonable confidence that string and rope are some of the most ancient materials used by humankind. At first, our ancestors likely harvested nature’s ready-made threads and cordage, such as vines, reeds, grass, and roots. If traditional medicine and existing Indigenous cultures are any clue, early humans may have even used spider silk to catch fish and bandage wounds. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of years ago, people realized they could extract fibers from the hair and tissues of animals, as well as from the husks, leaves, and innards of certain sinewy, pulpy, or pliant plants, such as agave, cannabis, coconut, cotton, and jute. By twisting these natural fibers around one another again and again, they formed a material of superb resilience and versatility.

. . .

Although string and rope began to take shape on land, it was the ocean that unleashed the full potential of cordage. The earliest watercraft were probably rafts lashed together from branches or bamboo, and dugout canoes carved from logs, such as the 10,000-year-old Pesse canoe discovered in 1955 during motorway construction in the Netherlands. At first, the only means of propulsion were oars, poles, and the whim of the currents. Sailing required a critical insight: that the wind, like a wild animal, could be caught, tamed, and harnessed. A mast and sail, which is really just a tightly knit sheet of string, could trap the wind; long coils of sturdy rope could hoist and pivot the sail. String transformed seagoing vessels from floating lumber to elegant marionettes, animated by the wind and maneuvered by human will.


There's much more at the link.

Most of us are never exposed to the intricacies of complex string and rope work, but sailors - particularly those on ships still powered by sail, rather than engines - deal with it every day.  I recall when I first went aboard a racing yacht in South Africa, and saw the skipper - a salty seaman indeed, the living definition of the term - splicing two lines together, not just as a simple joint, but one so carefully crafted that it could fit through a block without jamming it.  I didn't even know that was possible.

I've also read many books about how string and rope were vital in historic vessels.  Tim Severin's voyages of exploration, Thor Heyerdahl's adventures with Kon-Tiki and the Ra expeditions, and many others caught and have kept my imagination for decades.  After reading this article, they'll be even more interesting to me.

Peter


Thursday, July 3, 2025

An amazing, interesting and sometimes amusing history lesson

 

Did you know that Noah's Ark had a Mesopotamian counterpart?  Not only were the Ark narratives very similar between the two cultures, but a replica of the Mesopotamian "ark" - in reality a very large coracle-type design - was actually built and launched.

The project was the brainchild of Irving Finkel.  He describes it in the video below.  I highly recommend making time to watch it if you have any interest in history, sacred writings, or early ships.  It's a fascinating story, and Finkel is a very absorbing lecturer.




Prof. Finkel wrote a book about the project titled "The Ark Before Noah".  After viewing the video above, it's on my must-read list.



Fascinating!

Peter


Tuesday, February 18, 2025

A unique submarine battery recharging system?

 

I was intrigued to read that China may have come up with a unique way to recharge submarine batteries while underwater.


China’s new nuclear-battery attack submarine – a unique hybrid boat running on batteries like a conventional sub but which recharges them using a tiny nuclear reactor – could be the ultimate near-shore defence sub, and a big problem for US and allied forces in the western Pacific.

. . .

Most notably the type seems to have a unique propulsion system – one that sidesteps longstanding engineering challenges in order to deliver a quiet attack submarine for near-shore operations, one that can stay submerged for long periods of time in order to preserve its stealth. The Type 041 is reportedly the first submarine with a tiny nuclear reactor that, while too small to power the entire boat, is big enough to charge the batteries for submerged operations.

. . .

With its nuclear-charged battery, a Type 041 might be able to remain submerged for 20 days straight, according to Kirchberger and Carlson. That’s a 10-fold improvement in underwater endurance compared to traditional diesel-electric submarines.


There's more at the link.

This is particularly interesting news given new developments in battery technology, plus new modular small nuclear reactors.  The latter are particularly important, because current designs are intended to power a small town, or an industrial facility.  If all they have to do is recharge banks of batteries, they can be made even smaller - in effect, miniaturized.  It's not inconceivable that they could be reduced to the size of a small motor vehicle, which could easily be installed in a submarine hull in place of conventional diesel engines or air-independent propulsion (AIP) units.

There's another side to that, of course.  Some smaller countries such as Iran and North Korea build their own submarines, almost all of them using World War II-vintage diesel engines and lead-acid batteries.  They're relatively unsophisticated.  If such countries can buy or build small modular reactors, they could possibly build their own nuclear-recharged battery-powered submarines that would offer far greater range and speed than their old-fashioned units.  A few such submarines at "choke points" for maritime trade, such as off any one of dozens of major harbors, the entrances to the Suez Canal or Panama Canal, the Strait of Hormuz, the Strait of Malacca or the Bab-el-Mandeb, and maritime trade worldwide could take a massive hit.  The relative inefficiency of their old-fashioned batteries, with their lower capacity and endurance, wouldn't matter nearly so much if they could be recharged silently, on demand, without surfacing, by an on-board miniature reactor.

The USA long ago decided that all its submarines should be nuclear-powered.  There were good reasons for that, but it's resulted in very, very expensive and complicated vessels, and arguably not enough of them to accomplish all the missions and tasks expected of them.  Could nuclear-recharged battery-powered submarines affect that decision, making a greatly increased submarine fleet both affordable and effective?  It is to hope . . .

Peter


Tuesday, February 4, 2025

What a perfect response!

 

I laughed my head off (well, almost) after seeing a news report yesterday, and an almost immediate response to it on MeWe.

The report concerned the USS Preble, an Arleigh Burke class destroyer, testing its new laser weapon.  The article included this photograph (click it for a larger view):



I was delighted to see this response on MeWe minutes later (sorry, I can't link to individual posts on that social medium):



Talk about a snappy response that perfectly fits the photograph . . .



Peter


Friday, January 10, 2025

Will the US Navy build ships overseas?

 

Given the current parlous state of US shipyards and shipbuilding, is it time to seriously consider building our warships overseas?  The Telegraph thinks so.


When [the US Navy has] imported a design, such as the much loved Knox class and now the Constellation class (based on the French and Italian Fregate Europeenne Multi-Mission – FREMM – design), they have always built it in the US. 

As an aside, the Constellation class is a live case study in what happens if you select a foreign design and then meddle with it. It is now estimated that 85 per cent of the Constellation design is different to the FREMM, undoing any savings in cost and time and throwing away most of the guarantees of capability and reliability. President-elect Trump commented on it this week, saying, “people playing around and tinkering and changing the design… they’re not smart and they take something and they make it worse for a lot more money”. Given how the Franken-FREMM is taking shape, this is actually quite polite. 

Much of Trump’s interview was in response to the Congressional Budget Office’s “analysis of the Navy’s 2025 shipbuilding plan” which outlined the following key points:

First, the 2025 plan increases shipbuilding costs by 46 per cent annually in real terms compared to recent averages. The CBO estimates $40 billion yearly over 30 years, 17 per cent above Navy projections, with the total budget rising from $255 billion to $340 billion by 2054.

Second, the fleet would decrease to 283 ships by 2027 before growing to 390 by 2054 from the current 295. The Navy will buy 364 new ships, focusing on current generation and smaller vessels. Firepower will dip initially but increase as the fleet expands.

Third, a significant increase in the size of the industrial base, especially for nuclear submarines, is required.

So: can’t afford the plan, will reduce in size and lethality in the short term, major industrial expansion is required to reverse this decline. This makes for difficult reading for two reasons. First, it is clear the US cannot scale up its shipyards as it needs to on any reasonable time scale: it cannot even fully staff its existing yards, let alone open new ones. Second, you could change dollars and pounds and reduce the numbers (a lot) and a report on the Royal Navy would say almost the same.

Trump carries on in the same interview saying, “We’re going to be announcing some things that are going to be very good having to do with the Navy. We need ships. We have to get ships… We may have to go to others, bid them out, and it’s okay to do that. We’ll bid them out until we get ourselves ready”.

Looking for signs as to what he meant by ‘others’ and ‘bid them out’, many have looked to South Korea based on something he said last November shortly after being elected. “The US shipbuilding industry needs South Korea’s help and cooperation. We are aware of Korea’s construction capabilities and should cooperate with Korea in repair and maintenance. I want to talk more specifically in this area.”

As if to show the Trump effect, just the hint was enough to see Korean ship builders Hanwha Ocean and HJ Shipbuilding & Construction stock prices showing strong gains on the day (10 and 15 percent) while the shares of Hyundai’s shipbuilding subsidiaries and Samsung Heavy Industries increased a little (three percent).

It’s also not clear if he was referring to warships or support vessels but either way, South Korea has pedigree. He could certainly use them to build ships for the Military Sealift Command ... Fleet auxiliaries aren’t as complicated to build as warships, though more so than most kinds of commercial shipping. But Korean yards have also produced some very complex warships, including ones carrying the powerful US-made Aegis combat system – the gold standard of warship technology.

. . .

Consider this: Hyundai Heavy Industries’ shipbuilding division in South Korea is the biggest shipbuilder in the world. It produces most classes of warship, including submarines, as well as huge tonnages of commercial vessels. It has around 14,000 employees. This is actually fewer people than work in the shipbuilding divisions of BAE Systems plc, which are only capable of producing sharply limited numbers of warships and auxiliaries, very slowly and expensively.


There's more at the link (article may be paywalled).

I know "America First!" purists will scream blue murder at the thought of offshoring the Navy's new ships, but our own shipyards are simply too backlogged on current maintenance and construction to even consider working faster or harder.  In many cases, they're hampered by a severe shortage of skilled labor, which can virtually name its own price to work in other industries as well.

We could start by contracting for support ships - unarmed vessels.  These are basically merchant ships built to military specifications, perhaps with tougher hulls and plating to withstand prolonged sea time, plus specialized equipment for refueling and replenishment at sea.  There's no reason why actual warships could not be built as well.  South Korea already produces its own designs, armed with American weapons and electronics and technology.  To add a production line for Constellation-class frigates or Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyers wouldn't appear to offer any significant problem on the face of it.  It's certainly no more of a security risk than already exists, because almost all our current weapons systems have already been sold to South Korea and installed by its builders in their own warships.  If anyone planned to steal information about them, they've already had the opportunity.

I think this idea has tremendous possibilities.  Why not try it and see?

Peter


Tuesday, November 5, 2024

Making terrorism pay a handsome dividend

 

It seems that Houthi terrorists, backed by Iran, are making massive profits out of their blockade of the Bab-el-Mandeb and the sea areas surrounding it.


Intelligence cited by the Seahawk report confirms that the Houthis, in partnership with al-Shabaab and Somali pirates, have revitalised piracy operations along critical Red Sea and Indian Ocean shipping lanes.

“This strategic alliance allows the Houthis to exert control over shipping routes while financing their operations through illicit piracy proceeds and arms smuggling,” states the report.

“The expanding Houthi presence in Somalia signals a strategic escalation that poses immediate and long-term threats to regional stability and security,” warns the Seahawk report. “The alignment of Houthi, al-Shabaab, and Daesh interests underpins a coordinated front that is poised to disrupt maritime commerce, strengthen local militant capabilities and challenge international forces.”

The UN Panel’s investigation, meanwhile, revealed that the Houthis are using various networks of individuals and entities operating from multiple jurisdictions, including Djibouti, Iran, Iraq, TĂĽrkiye and Yemen, to finance their activities.

They employ various banks, shell companies, exchange companies, shipping companies and financial facilitators. The panel interviewed the officials of a few exchange and shipping companies and banks, who, requesting anonymity, confirmed the details of these operations.

The Houthi command even established a special committee to augment its military spending.

The panel’s sources conveyed that the Houthis allegedly collect illegal fees from “a few shipping agencies to allow their ships to sail through the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden without being attacked”.

Sources further informed the panel that these shipping agencies coordinate with a company affiliated with a top-ranking Houthi leader and that the fees are deposited in various accounts in multiple jurisdictions through the hawala network and through adjustments involving trade-based money-laundering.

While the UN Panel has not been able to independently verify this information, the sources estimate the Houthis’ earnings from these illegal safe-transit fees to be about $180m per month.


There's more at the link.

As always, follow the money.  The Houthi leaders aren't ideologically pure, theologically motivated nationalists at all - they're just grifters, extortionists, chiselers par excellence, as many people have been in that part of the world for untold centuries.  Just as Hamas and Hezbollah leaders have made literally billions of dollars for themselves out of the suffering of their people, so the Houthi leaders are following their example.  Iran, meanwhile, is profiting not only from its cut of all that money, but also from the disruption caused to its opponents by its satellite allies in Yemen, Gaza and Lebanon.

I think we need to ask Elon Musk to find a decently inhospitable planet somewhere, and export the entire extremist population of that region to it, using suitably sized rockets.  Let them try to extort rocks from each other there, and leave the rest of us in peace!




Peter


Wednesday, October 23, 2024

So... what were they up to?

 

The armed forces of the United States offer individual and unit awards for good performance, valor in action, leadership, etc.  They are usually equated to each other on a level.  For example, in the US Navy:

Therefore, the news that the Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarine USS Washington has just been awarded the Presidential Unit Citation is more important than it might seem at first sight.


"The award of the Presidential Unit Citation to the USS Washington is a profound honor, signifying the crew's exceptional dedication and strategic impact,” said Vice Adm. Rob Gaucher, commander, Submarine Forces. “Their work in challenging, high risk environments completing vital national level missions demonstrates the key role our submarines play in ensuring maritime security and global stability."

The PUC is awarded to any U.S. military unit that has distinguished itself by outstanding performance and heroism in action against enemy forces and is the highest unit award in the Department of the Defense.

During Washington’s deployment, the submarine, also known as the Blackfish, completed three demanding missions vital to national security that resulted in obtaining sensitive and unique intelligence information, where it executed the Chief of Naval Operations' maritime strategy by supporting national security interests and maritime security operations.

. . .

Washington steamed more than 37,000 nautical miles with the crew supporting diplomatic relationships by conducting port visits in Faslane, Scotland, and Grotsund, Norway. In recognition of the Blackfish’s exceptional service and dedication during operations in the strategic Arctic region, the Washington was awarded the newly announced Arctic Service Medal.


There's more at the link.

We don't know what the Washington did while on patrol, but it was sufficiently important and valuable to earn her the highest unit award the Navy has to offer, and also what may be the first ever award of the newly-created Arctic Service Medal.  Her crew will, of course, wear individual emblems signifying those awards on their uniforms.  What's more, this mission or missions took place during peacetime, not wartime, so the awards are doubly unusual.

Hmmm . . . Arctic service . . . heroism in action as an award criterion . . . one wonders what they were up to!  Veterans and well-informed observers can probably come up with some interesting possibilities.

Peter


Thursday, October 17, 2024

A sad, but inevitable end to a great ship

 

The SS United States was the fastest ocean liner ever built.  She snatched the Blue Riband for the fastest crossing of the Atlantic Ocean on her maiden voyage, both east-bound to Europe and west-bound to the USA, and never relinquished it to another passenger liner.




The advent of jet transport aircraft doomed the transatlantic passenger shipping market, and she was too expensive to operate on other routes or as a cruise liner.  For decades she's languished at moorings in Philadelphia while efforts were made to develop economically viable plans for her future.  Sadly, that process has now come to an end.


The SS United States and Penn Warehousing have officially settled their two-year-long dispute and the ship will now be turned into an artificial reef in accordance with a museum in Okaloosa County, Florida.

. . .

The statement continued by saying that since they couldn't save the ship in its current state and were under the time constraint of the court order, they had one of two options: scrap the boat or convert it into an artificial reef. The conservancy decided to go with the latter.

"This next chapter of the SS United States' story will bring tens of thousands of people annually from around the world to experience her," Gibbs said. "Okaloosa County has now allocated more than $10 million to reactivate the SS United States as the world's largest artificial reef in tandem with the conservancy's land-based museum and visitor center."

According to Gibbs, the conservancy is committed to creating a state-of-the-art museum infusing modern-day technology with original artifacts and artwork from the SS United States. They plan to incorporate one or both of the ship's funnels, radar mast and recreate areas on the ship using original materials. 

As for the next step, once the conservancy transfers the vessel's title over to Okaloosa County, the ship will leave Philadelphia's waters and head to Norfolk, Virginia, for extensive preparations for reefing over the next several months.


There's more at the link, and in the video report below.




It's sad that so few of the truly historical ships from the past have been preserved.  Britain has done moderately well with nineteenth-century vessels and a few from the twentieth, but in most other cases wars and catastrophes have destroyed famous ships and left few memories of them.  I suppose preserving the United States wasn't really an economical option, but I still regret her passing.  She was an icon of her age.

Author Stephen Ujifusa has written an excellent book about not only the ship and her designer, but of the entire transatlantic travel era that inspired her.



I have it in my library.  It's an entertaining and informative read for all those interested in ships and the sea.  Recommended.

Peter


Wednesday, October 2, 2024

Submarine schadenfreude? Not so fast...

 

There's been a certain amount of schadenfreude at the news that a new Chinese nuclear submarine sank at its shipyard mooring before it could be commissioned into the People's Liberation Army Navy.  It's since been salvaged, but it's going to take a long time (months for certain, possibly a year or more) to repair or replace all the water-soaked equipment in the hull before the ship can be declared operational.

However, we shouldn't be too harsh in our judgment of what may have happened - because the USA also lost a brand-new nuclear submarine, USS Guitarro, while it was still under construction.


On 15 May 1969, Guitarro was moored in the Napa River at Mare Island Naval Shipyard while construction was still underway. At about 16:00, a civilian nuclear construction group began to calibrate the aft ballast tanks, which required them to fill the tanks with approximately 5 short tons (4.5 t) of water. Within 30 minutes, a different, non-nuclear civilian construction group began an assignment to bring Guitarro within a half-degree of trim; this entailed adding water to the forward ballast tanks to overcome a reported two-degree up-bow attitude. Until shortly before 20:00, both groups continued to add water, unaware of each other's activities.

Twice between 16:30 and 20:00, a security watch advised the non-nuclear group that Guitarro was riding so low forward that the 1.5-foot-high (0.46 m) wakes of boats operating in the Napa River were sloshing into the sonar dome manhole, but the group ignored the warnings. At 19:45, the non-nuclear group stopped adding water to the ballast tanks and began to halt work for their meal break, leaving at 20:00. At 19:50, the nuclear group completed their calibrations and began to empty the tanks aft.

At 20:30, both the nuclear group, still aboard, and the non-nuclear group, returning from their break, noticed Guitarro taking a sudden down angle which put the forward hatches underwater. Massive flooding took place through several large open hatches. Efforts between 20:30 and 20:45 to close watertight doors and hatches were largely unsuccessful because lines and cables ran through the doors and hatches, preventing them from closing. At 20:55, Guitarro sank, leaving only her sail above water, earning her the nickname "Mare Island Mud Puppy".

In an attempt to correct what they thought was an out of trim condition, the non-nuclear construction team in the forward part of the boat purposefully defeated safety measures preventing accidentally filling ballast tanks while the sub was under construction. During construction, steel plates are welded over the ballast tanks flood ports to prevent water from getting into the tanks and putting the submarine in an unsafe condition. The construction crew put a fire hose down the tank's vent pipe and forced it past the check valve.


There's more at the link.

India's first ballistic missile nuclear submarine, INS Arihant, also sank at the quayside due to human error, and took months to repair.  So, yes, China's undoubtedly embarrassed by the loss of its newest, latest-generation submarine, but it's hardly alone in human error causing such damage.  One hopes that none of the vessel's crew or shipyard workers were injured or killed in the accident.

Peter


Thursday, September 12, 2024

Size matters!

 

Following on from our discussion yesterday about a sailing cargo ship versus a modern container ship, I found this photographic comparison interesting.  Click the image for a larger view.



There are more interesting size comparisons at the link.  Interesting viewing.

I think we don't understand just how big modern vessels have become until we see that sort of comparison.  Frankly, I wouldn't like to sail on either of them . . . too many people crammed together, with little privacy or chance for some peace and quiet!

Peter


Wednesday, September 11, 2024

That's all very well, but...

 

... it offers no economy of scale whatsoever.


The world’s largest sailing cargo ship is making its maiden voyage across the Atlantic Ocean. It left a port in France in early August, and it is on track to deliver 1000 tonnes of cognac and champagne to New York City by 3 September. Its shipments have a carbon footprint one tenth that of a standard container ship.

. . .

Anemos is no ancient seafaring vessel. Its cloth sails are deployed and handled using an automated system instead of human sailors, and its rigging system for controlling the sails was inspired by ocean racing vessels and designed using computer simulations.

This system lets Anemos transport one tonne of cargo over a kilometre while producing less than 2 grams of carbon emissions – a carbon footprint 10 times smaller than the huge container ships that transport most of the world’s goods, which emit at least 20 grams per tonne over a kilometre.

When primarily relying on wind power, the ship can reach speeds of more than 19 kilometres per hour – and it could potentially sail faster in stronger conditions such as the North Atlantic trade winds, says Le Grand. For backup propulsion, the ship uses two diesel-electric engines.

Anemos is part of a planned fleet of eight ships that could eventually transport 200,000 tonnes of goods annually while saving an estimated 40,000 tonnes of carbon emissions.


There's more at the link.

Sounds terrific, and terribly green, and all that sort of thing, until one considers:

  • A thousand-ton cargo is about one one-hundredth (often less) of what a modern container ship delivers on a single voyage, faster, and over longer distances;
  • For all its technological sophistication, the ship still relies on a notoriously fickle source of power - namely, the wind, which "blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes";
  • An eight-ship fleet carrying 200,000 tons of freight every year equates to the cargo capacity of two regular (or one super-large) container ship(s) carrying that much freight every month or two;
  • If the wind doesn't blow (or blow in the right direction at the right strength), diesel-electric engines take over, and take the "green factor" with them.
One has to admire the dedication to their principles of those behind this project.  It's certainly innovative, and in an environmentally conscious world, I'm sure there's a place for it.  However, it's never going to be able to carry the immense volume of global maritime trade, and can never hope to be economically viable except where an environmental premium can be charged for its cargoes (one that environmentally conscious customers can be trusted to pay, that is).

Peter


Monday, September 9, 2024

Shocking? No - just basic logistics

 

The Daily Mail is expressing horror at just how few of the Royal Navy's combat vessels are actually in service.


The 'utterly dire' state of the Royal Navy fleet can be revealed today, with not one of its six attack submarines at sea.

Only nine out of 25 warships and attack – as opposed to nuclear – submarines are active or deployed. 

The rest of the fleet has racked up a staggering 30 years of missed days at sea as vessels are either broken down, being modified or undergoing trials.

. . .

Retired Rear Admiral Chris Parry said last night: 'This situation is utterly dire – we haven't got enough ships to protect our aircraft carriers and we haven't got any attack submarines to protect our nuclear deterrent.'

It is understood that shortages of engineers and dry-dock facilities are exacerbating the situation.

The worst offenders in the naval fleet are assault ship HMS Bulwark and destroyer HMS Daring – which have both been inactive for more than seven years. 

The submarine HMS Ambush has apparently been idle for 765 days since taking part in Nato exercises in the Arctic in 2022.

Most alarmingly, the shortage of attack submarines has apparently led to US submarines being called on to protect the UK's 'bomber' submarines.

The four 'bombers', at least one of which has to be at sea, carry this country's nuclear deterrent. 


There's more at the link.

Sounds scary, doesn't it?  However, the scary bit isn't how few ships are actually in service - it's the low number of ships overall.  25 vessels is a pathetic size for a Navy that was once the leading fleet in the world.  It's not enough to begin fighting a serious war at sea, let alone win one.  Basically, it's a defeat waiting to happen.  The Royal Navy should be three to four times its present size to have even a ghost of a chance in a major war . . . but thanks to government income being wasted on welfare schemes and handouts to illegal aliens, there's no money to afford it.

The real problem is that in any given Navy, the number of ships available for deployment in peacetime is going to be approximately one-third of the total number of ships in service.  Want to keep four frigates at sea?  You need twelve in all.  Want to keep four aircraft-carriers deployed?  Again, you need twelve in all.  Those ships not ready for service are undergoing short- or long-term maintenance;  training new crews, for themselves and for others of their class(es);  resupplying and replenishing their resources;  exercising their crews to come together into an efficient, effective unit;  and doing all the routine shipboard tasks that naval veterans will remember all too well.  (Oh, yes - and they have to fit in liberty periods and leave for their crews, too!)

In wartime you can defer routine maintenance, if necessary, but then you have to deal with battle damage and replacing ships (and seamen) that are sunk.  Thus, you may be able to keep half your ships in the combat zone at any one time, but the others will be under immense pressure to fix damage, carry out maintenance, train replacement crews, and get back in the fight.

Yes, the Royal Navy is in a dire strait, but it's not because so few ships are fit for sea right now - it's that there are so few ships in the fleet as a whole.  In so many words, it's no longer a combat effective service.

Peter


Tuesday, September 3, 2024

Not your average travel menu...

 

While doing some book research, I happened upon an article from the Railway and Marine News, Vol. XIX, No. 4, April 1921.  It describes the task of feeding passengers aboard the RMS Olympic, sister ship of the Titanic.



THREE tons of meat are eaten in a single day, and every day on a voyage, on board a giant steamship in the busy season on the Atlantic ferry. The ship then carries 3,500 persons on each trip across the ocean.

Including her crew of 878, and long experience has shown her chief steward that a proper daily allowance of meat per person is about a pound and three-quarters. At that rate, the average total of meat taken from the refrigerators and cut up for cooking In various ways is 6,000 pounds a day.

This does not reflect the consumption of chickens, which averages 500 a day, nor ducks, geese, and turkeys, or 1,000 game birds consumed on each voyage, nor of fish, the latter averaging 3,000 pounds a day.

In addition to these staples, the people on board manage to dispose of 4,000 eggs daily and 480 quarts of milk every 24 hours. Passengers and crew consume butter at the rate of 200 pounds a day, and 2,700 jars of jam and 1,900 jars of marmalade disappear on the voyage like dew before the morning sun, the figures being for one of the world’s largest liners - the White Star Liner Olympic.

Fresh vegetables are an Important feature of every bill of fare. For each round trip, 25 tons of potatoes are taken aboard. They are consumed at the rate of about two tons a day while the ship is at sea-of these 600 pounds are mashed, and in proportion, while she is in port, for her crew are hearty eaters.

Three tons of carrots, three tons of turnips and 2,500 heads of cabbage, weighing about five tons, are also taken aboard for every voyage. A hundred crates of lettuce, a ton of Bermuda onions, or a similar quantity of Brussels sprouts are ordinary items in the ship’s victualling list.

When apples are ordered, 250 boxes are none too many for a voyage. Grape fruit comes aboard 100 boxes at a time and oranges In 200-box lots.

Included in the meat item of provisions for the voyage are 8,000 pounds of bacon and 2,500 pounds of hams, which are the primary salt meats carried. Lamb and mutton figure largely in the fresh meat supply, about 200 carcasses being taken on board for each voyage.


There's more at the link.

I compare those to the average meal on board an airliner today, whether short- or long-haul, and feel like crying.  Gone are the days when passengers were well treated - and well fed!  On the other hand, I daresay cruise liners must be at least close to the Olympic in the quantities of food taken aboard and served to passengers.  I've never taken a cruise, so I can't comment, but perhaps readers who have can share their experiences with us.

Peter


Friday, August 30, 2024

Looks like the Cape of Storms continues to live up to its original name

 

When, in 1487, Portuguese explorer Bartolomeu Dias became the first European to round what is today called the Cape of Good Hope, he named it "Cabo das Tormentas", or the Cape of Storms.  Upon his return to Portugal, King John II renamed it "Cabo da Boa Esperança" (Cape of Good Hope) because it was the first concrete evidence that a sea route around Africa to the Indian subcontinent was possible.  (It's also said that he wanted to encourage further exploration and settlement there, and felt that the new name would be more marketable!)

However, the stormy aspect of the Cape continues to make itself felt.  Many ships have come to grief in the gigantic rogue waves for which the area is notorious.  I remember going to the quayside in Cape Town in 1974 to inspect the Wilstar, a Norwegian supertanker that was clobbered by a rogue wave.  It made a hole big enough to drive a double-decker bus through it!



It seems the storms are as bad as ever.


Sailing around the Cape of Good Hope was regarded as foolhardy in the days of tall ships and wooden hulls. But even for the sophisticated vessels of today, there are dangers.

Two recent high-profile container-loss incidents – the CMA CGM Benjamin Franklin lost 44 boxes with damage to another 30 in July, and 99 containers were lost this month from CMA CGM Belem – have reduced confidence in the suitability of massive containerships for tougher ocean conditions.

And it could have been much worse: a bulk carrier, Ultra Galaxy, was caught in another of South Africa’s late-winter storms, capsized and broke-up off Cape Town.

. . .

One of the major contributing factors to the dangers around the Cape is ‘parametric rolling’, which occurs when the wavelength of the ocean’s surface matches the rolling motion of the vessel, gradually increasing the angle of each roll with every wave impact.

The stresses of heavy rolling can cause stacks of containers to buckle, damaging those lower in the stacks and causing those near the top to careen overboard.


There's more at the link.

This is adding to the difficulties caused by the Houthi blockade of the entrance to the Red Sea off Yemen, which has caused many shipping lines to divert their vessels via the Cape sea route.  Many of those ships were not designed for such conditions, being built specifically to cater to the requirements of the Suez Canal route, where weather is usually much less extreme.

I'm glad my seafaring days off the Cape are done.  There were some memorable moments . . .

Peter


Thursday, August 22, 2024

It is to laugh...

 

Some people seem to have been offended by the musical taste of the captain of the German frigate Braunschweig on its current visit to London, England.  He played the Imperial March from the second movie in the original Star Wars trilogy, The Empire Strikes Back, as his ship moved up the Thames River.  This apparently put certain English noses out of joint, so to speak.




I didn't see much wrong with it.  After all, he could have gone over the top and played something earlier from German musical history about England!  Lyrics are here, including an English translation.




I'm sure the French, the Dutch and the Spanish have equally insulting songs about England in their historical record, given the centuries-old history of warfare between those nations.  Heck, if we try hard enough, we could have a regular anti-British Eisteddfod on the Thames!



Peter


Friday, August 16, 2024

There's something very fishy going on here

 

You may recall that last year, an undersea pipeline and two communications cables in the Baltic were damaged.  Investigations revealed that a Chinese ship had sailed over them at about the time the damage was noticed.  Further inquiries confirmed that the container ship Newnew Polar Bear had dragged its anchor along the seabed and over the pipeline and cables.  Its anchor was later found in the vicinity.

I find that very strange, because the ship was not anchored at the time, so its anchor could not have dragged due to natural causes (e.g. tide, wind, weather, etc.).  It might possibly have fallen to the sea bed and been dragged along because nobody on the bridge of the ship noticed, but that's extremely unlikely.  The noise of its descent (chain rattling through the hawsepipe) and/or the drag of the anchor on the seabed slowing the ship and/or affecting its course, must surely have been noticed.  I don't see any way this could have happened accidentally - and that would mean that the ship was deliberately trying to sabotage the underwater facilities.

China has tried to excuse the incident on the grounds of bad weather.


“We hope that all parties will continue to advance the investigation in a professional, objective and cooperative manner and jointly ensure that the incident is properly handled,” the ministry in Beijing said in a statement in response to a query about Estonia’s misgivings.

. . .

An investigation conducted by China confirms that the vessel was responsible, but reportedly states that the damage was accidental and caused by a strong storm. 

Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur questioned that finding. 

“For me personally, of course, it is very difficult to understand how a ship’s captain can fail to notice for so long that you have an anchor dragging along the bottom,” he told public broadcaster ERR on Monday. “But it is the task of the prosecutor’s office to complete the investigation.”

In late October, Finnish investigators found an anchor near the site of the ruptured pipeline, which was out of service for six months and cost €35 million ($39 million) to repair. The issue was raised by Finland’s then-president, Sauli Niinisto, during a call with Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping in January. 

Two underwater telecommunication cables linking Estonia to Finland and Sweden were also damaged at around the same time, though it is not clear whether the Chinese investigation found the same vessel to be responsible.

Criminal investigations in Finland and Estonia are ongoing.


There's more at the link.

I can't see it.  Sorry.  There's just no way such precise damage, inflicted on vital connectors between Scandinavia and the Baltic states, can be caused by an accidentally dragged anchor.  Somebody planned and carried out this act.

Thinking about it, China is closely allied with Russia;  and Russia is currently very unhappy with Finland (which has joined NATO and closed its border with Russia in response to that country's invasion of Ukraine) and the Baltic states, which are (rightly, IMHO) terrified of being invaded again by a country that occupied them after World War II and savagely repressed any nationalist attempts to regain their freedom until the fall of the Soviet Union made it possible.  They're very vocal about Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and have offered support to the latter country, which annoys the Russians no end.  Could Russia have liaised with China to "persuade" one of the latter's merchant vessels to disrupt trade and/or communications between those nations, as a reminder that their independence and freedom exist only at Russia's sufferance?

I suppose we'll never know for sure, but I strongly suspect something like that happened.

Peter


Friday, July 19, 2024

Chain reaction?

 

Here's an interesting and impressive video showing how giant ship anchor chains are forged.

A lot of people assume that the flukes, or "hooks", at the end of an anchor chain is what holds a ship in place.  Actually, that's seldom the case.  They're there to allow the anchor to "dig in" to the seabed, which in turn enables the chain to pay out in approximately a straight line from that point back to the vessel deploying it.  Usually, what keeps a major vessel anchored is the sheer weight of anchor chain paid out by the ship.  If, say, the water depth is 50 feet, you might find ten, twenty or even more times as much anchor chain paid out, laid out along the sea bed to act as a living "brake" against the forces of wind and tide.  The part of the chain that curves up from the sea bed to the vessel acts as a shock absorber, lessening the direct strain of the ship on the chain lying along the sea bed.  That chain weighs so much that to overcome its inertia and move whatever is attached to it takes a great deal of effort.  Even so, a big enough force (say, a major storm) can certainly accomplish that - which is why so many ships put to sea if a big storm approaches, to ride it out at a safe distance from the land.

See for yourself how big those chains can be.  The video title mentions "warships", but chains this big would apply only to the largest of them (say, an aircraft carrier or amphibious assault vessel).  Even bigger ones will be used aboard supertankers, ultra-large container ships, etc.




Here's how the process works.




Impressive!

Peter


Friday, May 24, 2024

The last resting place of a submarine legend

 

I was astonished - and pleased, of course - to learn that the final resting place of the submarine USS Harder, sunk in 1944, and of her legendary commanding officer, Sam Dealy, has been discovered.  Here's an extended video report.




Cdr. Dealey became famous in the Submarine Service (and probably equally notorious to the Japanese) for his deliberate attacks on escort vessels, taunting or luring them into approaching his submarine and then firing a "down the throat" attack right at their bows.  He sank at least five, and possibly six, Japanese destroyers in this manner, as well as his other victims.  His posthumous Medal of Honor citation attests to his success.


For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as commanding officer of the U.S.S. Harder during her 5th war patrol in Japanese-controlled waters. Floodlighted by a bright moon and disclosed to an enemy destroyer escort which bore down with intent to attack. Comdr. Dealey quickly dived to periscope depth and waited for the pursuer to close range, then opened fire, sending the target and all aboard down in flames with his third torpedo. Plunging deep to avoid fierce depth charges, he again surfaced and, within nine minutes after sighting another destroyer, had sent the enemy down tail first with a hit directly amidship. Evading detection, he penetrated the confined waters off Tawi Tawi with the Japanese Fleet base six miles away and scored death blows on two patrolling destroyers in quick succession. With his ship heeled over by concussion from the first exploding target and the second vessel nose-diving in a blinding detonation, he cleared the area at high speed. Sighted by a large hostile fleet force on the following day, he swung his bow toward the lead destroyer for another "down-the-throat" shot, fired three bow tubes, and promptly crash-dived to be terrifically rocked seconds later by the exploding ship as the Harder passed beneath. This remarkable record of five vital Japanese destroyers sunk in five short-range torpedo attacks attests the valiant fighting spirit of Comdr. Dealey and his indomitable command.


Cdr. Dealey was one of the star performers in the Submarine Service, and his loss - and that of his submarine and crew - was a severe blow.  They were commemorated with the launch of the Tang class submarine USS Harder in 1951.  I hope the discovery of the wreck of the USS Harder will be an opportunity to remember their deeds anew.

Peter


Tuesday, April 23, 2024

More about our fragile global Internet

 

Following our post about the deliberate cutting of Internet cables near Sacramento International Airport in California, disrupting operations there, I came across this article dealing with Internet cables globally, and how fragile they are.  It's frightening and disturbing to read about how fragile this infrastructure really is.


The world’s emails, TikToks, classified memos, bank transfers, satellite surveillance, and FaceTime calls travel on cables that are about as thin as a garden hose. There are about 800,000 miles of these skinny tubes crisscrossing the Earth’s oceans, representing nearly 600 different systems, according to the industry tracking organization TeleGeography. The cables are buried near shore, but for the vast majority of their length, they just sit amid the gray ooze and alien creatures of the ocean floor, the hair-thin strands of glass at their center glowing with lasers encoding the world’s data.

If, hypothetically, all these cables were to simultaneously break, modern civilization would cease to function. The financial system would immediately freeze. Currency trading would stop; stock exchanges would close. Banks and governments would be unable to move funds between countries because the Swift and US interbank systems both rely on submarine cables to settle over $10 trillion in transactions each day. In large swaths of the world, people would discover their credit cards no longer worked and ATMs would dispense no cash. As US Federal Reserve staff director Steve Malphrus said at a 2009 cable security conference, “When communications networks go down, the financial services sector does not grind to a halt. It snaps to a halt.”

Corporations would lose the ability to coordinate overseas manufacturing and logistics. Seemingly local institutions would be paralyzed as outsourced accounting, personnel, and customer service departments went dark. Governments, which rely on the same cables as everyone else for the vast majority of their communications, would be largely cut off from their overseas outposts and each other. Satellites would not be able to pick up even half a percent of the traffic. Contemplating the prospect of a mass cable cut to the UK, then-MP Rishi Sunak concluded, “Short of nuclear or biological warfare, it is difficult to think of a threat that could be more justifiably described as existential.”

Fortunately, there is enough redundancy in the world’s cables to make it nearly impossible for a well-connected country to be cut off, but cable breaks do happen. On average, they happen every other day, about 200 times a year. The reason websites continue to load, bank transfers go through, and civilization persists is because of the thousand or so people living aboard 20-some ships stationed around the world, who race to fix each cable as soon as it breaks.


There's much more at the link, including many graphics and illustrations.  I'd say it's essential reading for anyone who relies on the Internet to do their job(s) every day.  Fascinating, revealing, and worrying all at the same time.

Peter


Wednesday, March 27, 2024

Paying for the Key Bridge is going to be expensive

 

It's too early to speculate, but the destruction of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore is going to be very expensive to insurers, according to Lloyd's List.  (A "club", mentioned in the report, is a consortium or syndicate of insurers.)


According to the IG database, Dali [the ship that struck the bridge] is entered with Britannia, a London-based marine mutual. Britannia has been approached for confirmation.

The largest element of any payout will be the value of the Francis Scott Key Bridge, which was built in 1977 at a cost of $60m at the time, equivalent to over $300m today.

However, construction inflation has far outstripped consumer price inflation over the intervening period, and the replacement cost could be substantially higher.

No deaths have yet been reported, but fears are growing for the seven people still missing.

The lives of US citizens are deemed to be worth far greater compensation than the lives of third-world seafarers. P&I clubs generally offer single-digit million dollar payouts to victims' families, preferring the certainty of a quick settlement to costly protracted litigation in the US.

Delays to other vessels are not a P&I liability, although prudent shipowners will have delay cover. P&I clubs often offer delay cover as a sideline and will find themselves on the hook for much of it.

Britannia will be responsible for the first $10m of any claim on its own account. Once the bill exceeds this layer - as is certain to be the case with Dali - it is shared among IG affiliates through the pool scheme.

In the simplest possible terms, the other 11 members will chip in pro rata for the $10m-$30m tranche, after which liability is reinsured through Bermuda-based captive vehicle Hydra.

The general excess of loss programme, known as GXL in industry jargon, kicks in at the pool ceiling of $100m. GXL, which is funded by shipowners through a levy imposed per gross tonne, provides an additional $2bn of reinsurance in a three-layer structure.

A further $1bn of reinsurance cover - known as 'the collective overspill' - is purchased by the IG to provide protection in respect of claims exceeding the upper GXL cover limit of $2.1bn.

Major marine casualties are long tail events and it is often years before the full cost can be assessed.


There's more at the link.

The cost isn't limited to the ship and the bridge.  Business Insider reports:


Baltimore is among the busiest ports in the nation, seeing more than a million shipping containers pass through each year. The collapse — which closed the port to all maritime and most road traffic until further notice — is already beginning to wreak havoc on the supply chain.

The cost of building the bridge back fast enough to offset diversions as much as possible could saddle the government with a more than $600 million bill, David MacKenzie, chair of engineering and architecture consultancy COWIfonden, told Sky News.

The container ship, the Dali, is owned by a Singapore-based firm. The ship's charterer, Maersk, confirmed to Business Insider that vessel company Synergy Group operates the ship. 

However, the companies with cargo aboard the Dali will ultimately be responsible for the ship's damages and cargo costs.

. . .

An ancient maritime law known as "general average" dictates that companies with even a single container aboard a ship have to split the damages pro rata based on the number of containers, ensuring all the stakeholders benefiting from the voyage are splitting the risk, Petersen said.

The principle dates back hundreds of years and was originally meant to ensure sailors on board a ship weren't worried about specific cargo if a disaster required them to start throwing containers overboard, according to Petersen.

The majority of the financial fallout is likely to lay primarily with the insurance industry, according to media reports.

Industry experts told FT that insurers could pay out losses for bridge damage, port disruption, and any loss of life.

The collapse could drive "one of the largest claims ever to hit the marine (re)insurance market," John Miklus, president of the American Institute of Marine Underwriters, told Insurance Business.

He told the outlet that the loss of revenue from tolls while the bridge is being rebuilt will be expensive, as will any liability claims from deaths or injuries.


Again, more at the link.

If you add up all those costs and expenses, it's not impossible that insurers could be staring down the barrel of a $3-$4 billion dollar payout, perhaps even higher.  One hopes the insurers "laid off" at least part of the risk onto reinsurers, or some of them might end up bankrupt.

Peter