Jump to content

      












Photo

Esquimalt Naval Base


  • Please log in to reply
164 replies to this topic

#61 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,211 posts

Posted 20 March 2014 - 07:44 AM

There are lots of cases of people dying in confined spaces (i.e. in a ship's void) due to suffocation when a gaseous fire suppression system activates. 



#62 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 20 March 2014 - 07:52 AM

They do, it's called a steam turbine and is a very effective means of propulsion. It is not like it is a coal fired boiler or something of that ilk.

 

Well the US navy has over 270 ships, and they only have, from what I can tell, 7 non-nuclear steam-powered ones, and the last in that class used a gas turbine when it was built in 2004.  They certainly were very popular after WW1, but not so much after WW2.  So I stand by my assertion that the Protecteur is an old ship, with very outdated propulsion technology.  


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#63 tedward

tedward
  • Member
  • 1,974 posts
  • LocationJames Bay

Posted 20 March 2014 - 07:54 AM

Source please? I agree that these things probably should have been replaced by now, or at least supplemented and put into a secondary type role, but it's pretty routine for a vessel hull to be in service for 40-50 years, especially in a situation like this where I imagine the Protecteur has been deployed in pretty light duty roles.

 

Source: navy friend familiar with the history of the vessels and the procurement plans over the last few decades.

I don't know where you get the idea that over the lifetime of this vessel it has been confined to "light duty roles"? It has sailed the Pacific on a regular basis not been cruising the Salish Sea in calm weather all that time.


Lake Side Buoy - LEGO Nut - History Nerd - James Bay resident


#64 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,211 posts

Posted 20 March 2014 - 08:05 AM

Source: navy friend familiar with the history of the vessels and the procurement plans over the last few decades.

I don't know where you get the idea that over the lifetime of this vessel it has been confined to "light duty roles"? It has sailed the Pacific on a regular basis not been cruising the Salish Sea in calm weather all that time.

 

Light duty as in cruising coastal waters and never in any sort of combat role. Most of the Navy ships seem to be moored in Esquimalt Harbour most of the time anyway!

 

The USS Enterprise served in the US Navy for over 50 years...my point is that a 40+ year old hull in and of itself isn't the end of the world.



#65 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 5,778 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 20 March 2014 - 08:10 AM

There are lots of cases of people dying in confined spaces (i.e. in a ship's void) due to suffocation when a gaseous fire suppression system activates.

Really? Cause if death is blamed in suffocation from fire suppression?
I have heard co2 systems are hazardous but have never heard of any incidents from halon 1301, crea13 or fm200. Sure the purpose is reduction of oxygen levels but there's no way they would commercialize these if the risk was as great as the event it was designed to defeat

Edited by rjag, 20 March 2014 - 08:18 AM.


#66 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,211 posts

Posted 20 March 2014 - 08:28 AM

Really? Cause if death is blamed in suffocation from fire suppression?
I have heard co2 systems are hazardous but have never heard of any incidents from halon 1301, crea13 or fm200. Sure the purpose is reduction of oxygen levels but there's no way they would commercialize these if the risk was as great as the event it was designed to defeat

 

Yeah.

 

http://www.marineins...gine-room-fire/

 

http://www.epa.gov/o.../co2report.html

 

You can do more research if these aren't enough for you. CO2 is the most common fire suppression gas, as far as I know.

 

There is a way they could commercialize these systems and they have! The potential death of an engineer or two is weighed against saving the ship and potentially hundreds/thousands of crew and passengers. Engineers know the risks and are trained to get the hell out of voids and seal bulkhead doors before activating the system.



#67 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 5,778 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 20 March 2014 - 09:16 AM

Yeah.

 

http://www.marineins...gine-room-fire/

 

http://www.epa.gov/o.../co2report.html

 

You can do more research if these aren't enough for you. CO2 is the most common fire suppression gas, as far as I know.

 

There is a way they could commercialize these systems and they have! The potential death of an engineer or two is weighed against saving the ship and potentially hundreds/thousands of crew and passengers. Engineers know the risks and are trained to get the hell out of voids and seal bulkhead doors before activating the system.

CO2 is not as common as other clean agents due to volume requirements, but its used because its much cheaper. Sure it can harm you, but the examples I use are not CO2. With CO2 there usually is a requirement for breathing apparatus in the same area as its only recommended for non-occupied areas......unlike the examples I am talking about

 

http://www.vikingspr...r.com/fm200.php

http://en.wikipedia....ire_suppression

 

Anyway, I'm not here to argue with you, you make good points but all I'm saying is you cant generalise all fire suppression systems as being inherently dangerous...there are some really amazing systems available...check this out its a liquid that you can soak electronics and zero harm http://www.youtube.c...h?v=1E7Nr72rxB8


Edited by rjag, 20 March 2014 - 09:21 AM.


#68 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,211 posts

Posted 20 March 2014 - 10:33 AM

Anyway, I'm not here to argue with you, you make good points but all I'm saying is you cant generalise all fire suppression systems as being inherently dangerous...there are some really amazing systems available...check this out its a liquid that you can soak electronics and zero harm http://www.youtube.c...h?v=1E7Nr72rxB8

 

My knowledge on this subject matter is pretty much exhausted...I do know from my experience in the shipping industry that suffocation dangers around fire suppression systems are something ship engineers are trained on and have procedures for avoiding.



#69 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,195 posts

Posted 20 March 2014 - 12:18 PM

CO2 is not as common as other clean agents due to volume requirements, but its used because its much cheaper. Sure it can harm you, but the examples I use are not CO2. With CO2 there usually is a requirement for breathing apparatus in the same area as its only recommended for non-occupied areas......unlike the examples I am talking about
 
http://www.vikingspr...r.com/fm200.php
http://en.wikipedia....ire_suppression
 
Anyway, I'm not here to argue with you, you make good points but all I'm saying is you cant generalise all fire suppression systems as being inherently dangerous...there are some really amazing systems available...check this out its a liquid that you can soak electronics and zero harm http://www.youtube.c...h?v=1E7Nr72rxB8


That video link is awesome. Though the stock footage at the end was a tad dated ;-)

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#70 tedward

tedward
  • Member
  • 1,974 posts
  • LocationJames Bay

Posted 20 March 2014 - 12:29 PM

Light duty as in cruising coastal waters and never in any sort of combat role. Most of the Navy ships seem to be moored in Esquimalt Harbour most of the time anyway!

 

The USS Enterprise served in the US Navy for over 50 years...my point is that a 40+ year old hull in and of itself isn't the end of the world.

 

Actually no, it did not spend most of its life "cruising coastal waters". Did you not understand the words, "sailing the Pacific" where ocean conditions are significantly more harsh and wearing on a ship than the Salish Sea?

 

You cannot compare a combat vessel to a support vessel in that manner. The USS Enterprise is a freaking aircraft carrier FFS! The hull of a combat ship, especially an aircraft carrier is designed and built to a whole different standard than a supply ship. A supply ship is closer to a civilian cargo vessel than a freaking aircraft carrier in materials and design.


Lake Side Buoy - LEGO Nut - History Nerd - James Bay resident


#71 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,211 posts

Posted 20 March 2014 - 12:55 PM

Actually no, it did not spend most of its life "cruising coastal waters". Did you not understand the words, "sailing the Pacific" where ocean conditions are significantly more harsh and wearing on a ship than the Salish Sea?

 

You cannot compare a combat vessel to a support vessel in that manner. The USS Enterprise is a freaking aircraft carrier FFS! The hull of a combat ship, especially an aircraft carrier is designed and built to a whole different standard than a supply ship. A supply ship is closer to a civilian cargo vessel than a freaking aircraft carrier in materials and design.

 

Oh OK, the ship's worn out then, Ted said so.

 

Could you share the design drawings and detailed operational history of this vessel please?



#72 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 9,860 posts

Posted 20 March 2014 - 06:41 PM

Actually no, it did not spend most of its life "cruising coastal waters". Did you not understand the words, "sailing the Pacific" where ocean conditions are significantly more harsh and wearing on a ship than the Salish Sea?

 

You cannot compare a combat vessel to a support vessel in that manner. The USS Enterprise is a freaking aircraft carrier FFS! The hull of a combat ship, especially an aircraft carrier is designed and built to a whole different standard than a supply ship. A supply ship is closer to a civilian cargo vessel than a freaking aircraft carrier in materials and design.

Actually supply ships are built very rugged, next to an aircraft carrier the supply ship is the most important ship in a convoy and is usually protected by a phalanx of picket ships. So in essence it goes everywhere the warships go.


Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#73 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 9,860 posts

Posted 20 March 2014 - 06:44 PM

Really? Cause if death is blamed in suffocation from fire suppression?
I have heard co2 systems are hazardous but have never heard of any incidents from halon 1301, crea13 or fm200. Sure the purpose is reduction of oxygen levels but there's no way they would commercialize these if the risk was as great as the event it was designed to defeat

I have worked in areas protected by halon and there was a significant alarm and 30 second delay in dispersing the halon so that you would have time to exit the area, and close the door behind you.


Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#74 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 14,442 posts

Posted 20 March 2014 - 06:49 PM

I have worked in areas protected by halon and there was a significant alarm and 30 second delay in dispersing the halon so that you would have time to exit the area, and close the door behind you.

 

Halon is very effective at displacing oxygen and hence extinguishing fires. The reason why you need to evacuate spaces quickly is because you will suffocate without oxygen and not because Halon is toxic.



#75 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 9,860 posts

Posted 20 March 2014 - 06:50 PM

I overheard a DND guy talking about this ship (he had been to Hawaii dealing with this vessel). He said it will be scrapped when it arrives here. This must have have been a massive blaze to make the ship a write-off.

I thought the automatic fire suppression (Halon etc) on large ships was supposed to prevent these issues?

The usual manner of fighting a fire on a military ship is to crash stop all ventilation and electrical circuits except for water pumps and then throw mounds of water on it using fog nozzles.


Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#76 VANRIDERFAN

VANRIDERFAN
  • Member
  • 60 posts

Posted 27 March 2014 - 03:19 PM

Well they used to have twin Bofors but removed them years ago.

 

The gun they had was a twin 3' 50". She also had a pair of CIWS (one on the fwd house, the other on top of the hangar). All external defensive weapons have been removed.



#77 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 28 May 2014 - 09:57 AM

The nuclear-powered warship USS Nimitz will visit Victoria for a few days in mid-June, along with a crew of nearly 5,000.

Fast facts:

Top speed exceeds 30 knots.

Powered by two Westinghouse nuclear reactors driving steam propulsion units.

Expected to operate as Navy warship for about 50 years.

Typical Nimitz-class ship carries 80-plus combat aircraft.

Three two-inch diameter arresting wires on the deck bring an airplane going 150 miles per hour to a stop in less than 400 feet.
Home to about 6,000 Navy personnel.

Enough food and supplies to operate for 90 days: 18,150 meals served daily.

Distillation plants providing 400,000 gallons of fresh water from sea water daily, enough for 2,000 homes.

Nearly 30,000 light fixtures and 1,600 miles of cable and wiring.
1,400 telephones, 14,000 pillowcases and 28,000 sheets.

MORE: http://en.wikipedia....Nimitz_(CVN-68)

 (4 photos)

 

10173746_731596066904036_479542616939609


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#78 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 58,651 posts

Posted 28 May 2014 - 10:10 AM

What is the purpose behind these visits?


Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#79 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 28 May 2014 - 10:16 AM

What is the purpose behind these visits?

 

I think it is often crew R&R.  And no doubt the higher-ups learn a bit about our base, maybe a few minor shared shore exercises.


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#80 Hotel Mike

Hotel Mike

    Hotel Mike

  • Member
  • 1,972 posts

Posted 28 May 2014 - 10:16 AM

^ They could tell you Mike...but then they'd have to kill you. :cop:


Don't be so sure.:cool:

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users