RN Destroyers: Type 42

Add your posts about Royal Navy ships in this section
User avatar
ivorthediver
Posts: 3659
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:42 pm
Location: Cambridge Shore Battery

Re: RN Destroyers: Type 42

Unread post by ivorthediver »

Well Harry , As our "Man from The Ministry" what is your opinion on the survivability of her systems /Machinery after being submerged for three weeks :?:

As for the Hull thats a whole new ball game [ or should that read HOLE new ball game ] , as the stress applied to the hull in lifting -placement -realignment in dry dock - I would have thought would have brought considerable sheer stress and distortion to her much like the distortion to a ship corkscrewing in heavy seas .

I refer to the actions not dissimilar to Hogging / sagging / torsion / shearing to a greater or lesser extent during all these manoeuvres made worse by the huge gash in her starboard sheer strakes, being built with a fine entry and run style configuration :o

Thats only my opinion and I'm sure that the EX [has beens] SPERTS [ drips under pressure] , will take all this into consideration prior to carrying out any work on her , but no doubt pressure will be brought to bare by the bean counters........ eh Harry
"What Ever Floats your Boat"
User avatar
Little h
Posts: 1727
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 6:53 pm

Re: RN Destroyers: Type 42

Unread post by Little h »

ivorthediver wrote: Thu Nov 15, 2018 11:48 am Well Harry , As our "Man from The Ministry" what is your opinion on the survivability of her systems /Machinery after being submerged for three weeks :?:
Well Ivor, the easy answer is to refer to the equipment types installed in compliance with an IP rating that will permit deluge or complete submersion, allowing exposure to certain volumes of sea water at depths thatwill have been certified.

But nothing is that easy, so I'll broach (not breach - that's already been done) just a few issues for consideration:-

Electronic systems; I'd guess will not survive for re-use
Electrical equipment & cabling; i'd guess will not survive for re-use
Machinery - jet engines; I really don't know what percentage of components would be reuseable after a complete rebuild.
Machinery - combustion engines; obviously every engine will have to be either stripped down or might they get away with a complete flushing out. Associated electrical/electronic parts will not survive for re-use.

We have had sufficient incidents of flooding in our ships that it must be possible to extrapolate information that will give us a clue .... what of the Nottingham (D91) as an example.... I recently posted info on that incident where there was copious flooding.
Little h
User avatar
ivorthediver
Posts: 3659
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:42 pm
Location: Cambridge Shore Battery

Re: RN Destroyers: Type 42

Unread post by ivorthediver »

Little h wrote: Fri Nov 16, 2018 10:05 pm
ivorthediver wrote: Thu Nov 15, 2018 11:48 am Well Harry , As our "Man from The Ministry" what is your opinion on the survivability of her systems /Machinery after being submerged for three weeks :?:
Well Ivor, the easy answer is to refer to the equipment types installed in compliance with an IP rating that will permit deluge or complete submersion, allowing exposure to certain volumes of sea water at depths thatwill have been certified.

But nothing is that easy, so I'll broach (not breach - that's already been done) just a few issues for consideration:-

Electronic systems; I'd guess will not survive for re-use
Electrical equipment & cabling; i'd guess will not survive for re-use
Machinery - jet engines; I really don't know what percentage of components would be reuseable after a complete rebuild.
Machinery - combustion engines; obviously every engine will have to be either stripped down or might they get away with a complete flushing out. Associated electrical/electronic parts will not survive for re-use.

We have had sufficient incidents of flooding in our ships that it must be possible to extrapolate information that will give us a clue .... what of the Nottingham (D91) as an example.... I recently posted info on that incident where there was copious flooding.
Re Nottingham D91 Harry :- where please so I can update myself with the findings you made on the subject

Thank you for replying and I will read the post you mention kind sir
"What Ever Floats your Boat"
User avatar
Little h
Posts: 1727
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 6:53 pm

Re: RN Destroyers: Type 42

Unread post by Little h »

ivorthediver wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2018 4:21 pm
Re Nottingham D91 Harry :- where please so I can update myself with the findings you made on the subject

Thank you for replying and I will read the post you mention kind sir
RN Destroyers: Type 42 thread in the Royal Navy forum, see:-
Little h wrote: Sun Oct 21, 2018 9:15 pm
ivorthediver wrote: Sun Oct 21, 2018 4:35 pm Lovely shots Jim .

What happened to" Nottingham " on the Swan in Sydney harbour please , don't remember that event :?:
A couple of PDF's you might find interesting Ivor.
1st; FOI request Courts Martial Result

2nd; a paper titled - Introducing Damage Structural Assessment to Onboard Decision Support Tools Marcus Bole, Graphics Research Corporation Ltd, UK (14 page PDF) several good images of the damage plus Damage Control issues discussed.

I have/had another report downloaded that deals fully with the grounding and the crucial assistance afforded to the crew - I'll attempt to recover it.
Little h
User avatar
ivorthediver
Posts: 3659
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:42 pm
Location: Cambridge Shore Battery

Re: RN Destroyers: Type 42

Unread post by ivorthediver »

Yes .......I read that Harry a while ago thanks but thats specifically about the structure which as very useful .
"What Ever Floats your Boat"
User avatar
Little h
Posts: 1727
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 6:53 pm

Re: RN Destroyers: Type 42

Unread post by Little h »

ivorthediver wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2018 8:43 pm Yes .......I read that Harry a while ago thanks but thats specifically about the structure which as very useful .
I disagree Ivor .... look at the right hand image and what it reveals (see below) .... flooding in the Forward Machinery Spaces .... and the ship was pumped out, returned to UK (£3M), refitted at a cost of was to be £23m but which I believe cost more. She was re-commissioned one year later and returned to service - eventually laid up in 2008, before being sold for scrap 2010.


Screenshot (3542).jpg


And now another PDF document;
Scroll to read PDF page 22 through to 24 under the section titled:- Damage Control and Marine Engineering Related Aspects - where-in there is a report on the extent of the flooded compartments, within which there was machinery and other equipment affected.

Then scroll down to PDF page 26 Para 27 and read from Marine Engineering to Para 34 Recommendations. These sections relate the extent of flooding, including migration through various equipment types into other machinery types.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Little h
User avatar
ivorthediver
Posts: 3659
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:42 pm
Location: Cambridge Shore Battery

Re: RN Destroyers: Type 42

Unread post by ivorthediver »

Having now read ALL of these documents Harry [ for which I'm very grateful ] it would appear that we are talking at cross purposes . :?

Whilst the reports go into detailed examples of where it flooded , how it flooded , what aggravated the flooding , what would have assisted in achieving stabilisation of the accident quicker , and the actions of the crew, and the inadequate provision of Damage control shoring material .....all of which is extremely interesting , and both dramatic and professional , it does not determine the information I was hoping for ....i e , how the damage to the items was determined as serviceable or not...rather than how they got wet .

In fairness your answer on Nov 16th @10.05 gave a summary , where ....what I had envisaged was a breakdown in general terms as to which areas required replacement / strip down / rework , but perhaps I wasn't clear in what I requested info on .

None the less the reports you very kindly reproduced were very informative and portrayed the drama and anxiety such a situation manifests in great detail for which I am grateful
"What Ever Floats your Boat"
User avatar
Little h
Posts: 1727
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 6:53 pm

Re: RN Destroyers: Type 42

Unread post by Little h »

ivorthediver wrote: Sun Nov 18, 2018 4:17 pm ............... it would appear that we are talking at cross purposes . :?

.......... it does not determine the information I was hoping for ....i e , how the damage to the items was determined as serviceable or not...rather than how they got wet .

In fairness your answer on Nov 16th @10.05 gave a summary , where ....what I had envisaged was a breakdown in general terms as to which areas required replacement / strip down / rework , but perhaps I wasn't clear in what I requested info on .
Not exactly at cross purposes Ivor. I am aware that you want to know which of the flooded pieces of equipment were fit for re-use and which had to be replaced ........... but then, so do I ;)

HMS Endurance was considered not economically viable for repair and was sold for scrap....so, HMS Nottingham becomes the next best ship for investigation, because, having suffered considerable flooding to machinery and other equipment she was repaired and put back into service one year later.

In an attempt to avoid cluttering the debate with reports on how the ship was kept afloat, I purposely selected the passages in the last PDF that dealt specifically with equipment that had been contaminated with sea water .... and it is only those that I shall be attempting to find itemised somewhere.

If such an itemised list can be found then we might establish the equipment that was repaired for reuse - as opposed to that which required to be scrapped and replaced (perhaps even canabalised ;) )

That is where I am up to with this topic (so far).
Little h
User avatar
ivorthediver
Posts: 3659
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:42 pm
Location: Cambridge Shore Battery

Re: RN Destroyers: Type 42

Unread post by ivorthediver »

As always Harry I am very grateful for all your hard work , and delighted you are happy to dig deeper into the outcome for us both .

One wonders what the Norwegians are contemplating doing with their recovered ship of the line so to speak as they will no doubt be anxious about further costs for repairs , and the skipper must be taking valium or opiates at present ;)
"What Ever Floats your Boat"
User avatar
Little h
Posts: 1727
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 6:53 pm

Re: RN Destroyers: Type 42

Unread post by Little h »

ivorthediver wrote: Sun Nov 18, 2018 4:59 pm ............... and delighted you are happy to dig deeper into the outcome for us both .
Drip-feeding of info as I find it Ivor.
Here are a few items of equipment the you can check off or add to your list of affected equipment.

--------------------------------

Source of the excerpts below;
The 52 page PDF - THE AUSTRALIAN NAVAL ARCHITECT Journal of The Royal Institution of Naval Architects (Australian Division)
Volume 6 Number 3 August 2002

Note; PDF pages 23 & 24 refer
Article titled:- Assisting Nottingham — an Engineer’s Perspective LCDR Giles W Rinckes RNZN

Well anyway, no matter how bad my situation is, I feel for the crew of Nottingham. I visited them on Tuesday afternoon
and met the engineer, Ian. He showed me around and I saw the missile magazine flooded,......
-----------------

The fibreglass dome around the sonar had been ripped half off and the sonar transducers were hanging down suspended by a mass of wires. Splits in hull plating further aft showed where the stresses on the hull have been too much to bear. The starboard stabiliser fin was ripped off the shaft that rotates it and one engine room was completely flooded due to the gap around the shaft where the structure had been distorted.
-----------------

Communications with the outside world were lost as power supplies to communications gear was shorted out.
-----------------

Other damage included contamination of water tanks, fuel and lube oil systems, aviation fuel, one engine room flooded which then flowed into a gearbox. Up front, water in two magazines, a mess deck full of water, electronic compartments and storerooms were lost to flooding.
-----------------

The water even leaked up the inside of cables and shorted out switchboards.

________________________

Derived from the damage mentioned above, I make that the following can be added to or checked-off a list of items that will require to be sorted or replaced:-

- Missiles
- affected missile magazine equipment
- Sonar dome
- Sonar transducers and associated wiring
- stbd stabiliser fin and poss the shaft
- susceptible(?) equipment in an engine room
- poss a shaft gland
- generator and/or cables associated with providing power to communications equipment
- gearbox
- ammunition
- affected ammunition magazines equipment
- susceptible(?) mess deck equipment
- electronic unknown number of compartments
- stores and any associated equipment within an unknown number of storerooms
Little h
Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Royal Navy”