Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Top navy admiral wants rust-free ships

gcaptain.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 206 posts

Re: Top navy admiral wants rust-free ships

#31

Post by wiredfool »

incompatible wrote: post #12
Victerius wrote: post #7

The Navy builds its ships with steel, and the grades of steel used in the construction can experience rust. Solutions: Switch to 100% stainless steel. Stainless steel is an alloy and contains a minimum of 11% chromium. This allows the formation of a protective film of chromium oxide which acts as a shield against rust. The protective film will re-form if damaged. Corrosion resistance can be further enhanced with the…

Stainless steel is pretty expensive, but I suppose it would be no big deal for the US Navy. I thought they used sacrificial anodes to stop rust.

I think that the sacrificial anodes work for places where it’s a hull in electrolyte, it wouldn’t necessarily work for salt spray in the superstructure.

Re: Top navy admiral wants rust-free ships

#32

Post by blagie »

qchris wrote: post #19
Victerius wrote: post #7

The Navy builds its ships with steel, and the grades of steel used in the construction can experience rust. Solutions: Switch to 100% stainless steel. Stainless steel is an alloy and contains a minimum of 11% chromium. This allows the formation of a protective film of chromium oxide which acts as a shield against rust. The protective film will re-form if damaged. Corrosion resistance can be further enhanced with the…

I don't know if there's a name for this phenomenon, but it's sort of like an invisible Chesterton's fence. "Just make them out of a different steel" feels like a idea that is elegant, but even as someone that's never built a ship, I have to imagine there's some good reason why they're built out the materials they are, and why a simple material change is unlikely to be a solution. Maybe I'm wrong (it's not like organi…

I don't know about modern ships -- I suspect a lot of this is classified -- but as an example, the WWII Bismark had a hull which was around a foot thick, as armor.

(1) Rust wouldn't go all the way through. Surface rust isn't a problem.

(2) You want high-quality armor; toughness is key. Steel composition should be primarily chosen for toughness-to-weight

(3) And cost, of course.

Stainless would have been expensive, and given little upside, and potentially a lot of downside in terms of less effective armor plating.

Obviously, modern ships are entirely different (much less armor, actually, instead relying on active defenses), but I assume there are sensible reasons for materials choices.

Re: Top navy admiral wants rust-free ships

#33

Post by tomohawk »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #25

Rust-free? How over budget should we go trying to make an all-aluminum and carbon fiber carrier? Is fiberglass ok or are we planning on making submarines too?

If you read the article, they talk about how commercial merchant marine vessels use modern coatings and materials, but that the US Navy has not approved their use after several years. Another failure.

The modern materials are required since the EPA outlawed the coatings they used to use that actually worked.

Re: Top navy admiral wants rust-free ships

#34

Post by caffeine »

edmundsauto wrote: post #26
Victerius wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Manning problems have existed for a decade, if not more. The Navy holds the sad record of being the worst managed branch of service. Steep budget cuts in the 1990s and again during sequestration have had severe effects that the Navy hasn't yet recovered from. But I don't know whether that's the cause of the problem. The Navy is an especially unique branch given that it's the only service that revolves around a relati…

While there have been budget cuts, the US Navy’s budget went from ~80B in 2001 to over 160B today. Given what the US spends as a % of GDP, it feels like this should be more than enough. From afar, the problem appears to be decision makers in the Navy refusing to reduce scope and deciding to understaff.

I think that’s not keeping up with inflation over the same period?

Re: Top navy admiral wants rust-free ships

#35

Post by ethbr0 »

sevensor wrote: post #17

This looks like the same phenomenon as the crisis in staffing nurses that was discussed here the other day. Careerist, indifferent management giving the people on the front line inadequate resources and then blaming them when things start to look shabby, or when someone dies. Scapegoating the people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, who are tired, inadequately trained, and inured to a climate of normaliz…

> Why does this malady strike the U.S. Navy and healthcare so severely?

Both industries substantially outsourced functionality in the 90s in an attempt to cut costs.

Consequently, they are now less empowered (vs historical levels) to effect change in their own processes in a timely manner.

Large organizations need to pay more attention to ossification of processes as a serious future risk, that needs to be balanced against immediate savings.

Re: Top navy admiral wants rust-free ships

#36

Post by ms512 »

iforgetti wrote: post #23
Victerius wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Manning problems have existed for a decade, if not more. The Navy holds the sad record of being the worst managed branch of service. Steep budget cuts in the 1990s and again during sequestration have had severe effects that the Navy hasn't yet recovered from. But I don't know whether that's the cause of the problem. The Navy is an especially unique branch given that it's the only service that revolves around a relati…

Where do you keep up with information like this? Do you have to work in the space or do you read certain periodicals or something else?

Jane's News [1] is a decent source for defense information.

[1] https://www.janes.com/defence-news/

Re: Top navy admiral wants rust-free ships

#37

Post by DiggyJohnson »

edmundsauto wrote: post #28
epolanski wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also like the part of looking sharp, this is also a non-zero factor in any field, including IT. Between two professionals, if one looks sharp, clean and fit, while the other one does not, it is hard not to conclude one has also more self discipline.

This bias is a consequence of what Kahneman called “What You See Is All There Is.” It’s bad logic and ascribing signal when it’s actually projections of the observer. That isn’t to say there is no effect - people might start to see themselves as more disciplined if they look sharp. “Look good, play good”, as my coach used to say.

I love that book, but I’m not sure Kahneman would agree that it applies here when we are evaluating not whether an individual looks sharp (imagine a salesperson on commission) but instead whether the individual+their work/domain/communication is sharp.

I find that to be a very valuable signal, and I’m struggling to imagine how I could be disagree with on this.

Re: Top navy admiral wants rust-free ships

#38

Post by 1970-01-01 »

americnt wrote: post #29

Was this upvoted by bots because of "Rust" in the title? Who cares if the US Navy's ships look like crap, this isn't a particularly intellectually stimulating topic, nor is it one that is of much interest outside of the US.

The Chief of Naval Operations seems to care quite a lot. He commands a fairly large amount of respect in the entire world.

Re: Top navy admiral wants rust-free ships

#39

Post by sidewndr46 »

tomohawk wrote: post #33
1970-01-01 wrote: post #25

Rust-free? How over budget should we go trying to make an all-aluminum and carbon fiber carrier? Is fiberglass ok or are we planning on making submarines too?

If you read the article, they talk about how commercial merchant marine vessels use modern coatings and materials, but that the US Navy has not approved their use after several years. Another failure. The modern materials are required since the EPA outlawed the coatings they used to use that actually worked.

I thought the military had exemptions on EPA compliance for stuff. For example: US Army tanks use depleted uranium projectiles. Those are definitely not good for the environment.
Post reply on HN