EU referendum are you in or out

[F-ZeroOne]

I vaguely recall reading something like Saturn would float in Earths oceans, if you could somehow contrive a way for it to fit.

[PFVA]

I see, that explains why they navigate in such shallow water too and why they are getting bigger and bigger.

(Something tells me I'm not going to like to see that thing parked in the river by downtown Lisbon. It's going to be like being a gigantic building in the water)

[KlaxonCow]

I see, that explains why they navigate in such shallow water too and why they are getting bigger and bigger.

Yes. Although, after what happened with the Costa Concordia, whether it's actually wise to do this is another matter.

And, of course, the ultimate reason why they keep getting bigger and bigger is: more passengers = more money.

In physics, size matters. Because, as a ship is a hollow thing, then we can note the surface area to volume ratio. As things get bigger, then their volume is going up by the cube, while the surface area is only going up by the square.

This is a thing in biology that limits the size of animals. Because, as an animal gets bigger, then the amount of surface area - skin - that it has to radiate out its heat does not increase at anywhere near the rate at which its internal volume - which is generating all that heat - increases. The bigger the animal, the harder it is to stay cool.

(Also, by the same token, it works in reverse too - in that babies and small children feel the cold more than adults do, as they've got a higher surface-area-to-volume ratio. Which is why you need to be more careful about keeping babies warm and wrapping them in a blanket.)

But, for ship building, this is all to the good. As you're creating a (mostly) hollow object, so the bigger you make it, the volume - which is mostly air, that's much less dense than water - is proportionally increasing far faster than the surface area (the hull - or "skin" - of the ship).

So, yeah, it might seem counterintuitive, but the bigger they make these ships, the more shallow in the water they tend to be, even though the weight is going up - because what matters for floating is density, and that's actually going down, the bigger and bigger they make these floating monsters.

[Dio]

Which is why where you put the weight is what really matters. Fortunately, engines, propshafts and propellers are heavy things and they all want to be below the waterline.

[KlaxonCow]

Which is why where you put the weight is what really matters. Fortunately, engines, propshafts and propellers are heavy things and they all want to be below the waterline.

Indeed. Didn't comment on that aspect, simply because I 100% agree with you.

You also don't want to make a ship top heavy. Ships get buffeted around by the ocean waves, so if all your weight was up top, your centre of gravity is higher and it's more likely to exceed its base, causing the ship to topple over. Which wouldn't be good.

Plus, if you're putting weight up top, then you've got to have structure below it that can support that weight. Which is unnecessary, as you can just put the heavy bits at the bottom, and really heavy things would require a lot of structure to support them, which would, itself, probably be big and heavy too.

Also, heavy things at the very bottom of the ship would implicitly act as ballast too, helping to keep it stable. Balancing against the weight above water.

Basically, factor all these things in and the only logical choice is to put it all at the bottom.

[zip accident]

Which is why where you put the weight is what really matters. Fortunately, engines, propshafts and propellers are heavy things and they all want to be below the waterline.

Indeed. Didn't comment on that aspect, simply because I 100% agree with you.

You also don't want to make a ship top heavy. Ships get buffeted around by the ocean waves, so if all your weight was up top, your centre of gravity is higher and it's more likely to exceed its base, causing the ship to topple over. Which wouldn't be good.

Plus, if you're putting weight up top, then you've got to have structure below it that can support that weight. Which is unnecessary, as you can just put the heavy bits at the bottom, and really heavy things would require a lot of structure to support them, which would, itself, probably be big and heavy too.

Also, heavy things at the very bottom of the ship would implicitly act as ballast too, helping to keep it stable. Balancing against the weight above water.

Basically, factor all these things in and the only logical choice is to put it all at the bottom.

Except battleships. There is probably a way to put a lot of weight in the bottom of them, but the armour and guns have to be on top.

[Dio]

True, although they also wanted to be as low and squat as possible as well so as to be smaller targets, except for the gun directors.

[Mayhem]

I sent a parcel containing a gift value 20 pounds about, really, from UK to Italy ..

Took over 3 weeks to get here !!

When it arrived ( today ) my dad had to pay 10 EUR of "customs" to get it, 10 EUR OVER A 20 POUNDS VALUE !!!

.. THANK YOU BREXIT

Now you tell me "if it's like that" WHO is ever going to do "commerce" with UK/EU ???

Actually this has nothing to do with Brexit. Well, okay, yes it does because it's about goods coming into the EU from outside the EU, but substitute UK for US, Canada, Australia, Japan, China etc, and the same result. Basically in July the EU decided that the value limit on goods entering the EU from outside before they get taxed was going to be reduced to zero. So EVERYTHING gets taxed now from outside regardless of what it is or how much it's worth. Gifts are exempt, but I believe they are looking to crack down on this too as it's being abused.

[gilesgoat]

I sent a parcel containing a gift value 20 pounds about, really, from UK to Italy ..

Took over 3 weeks to get here !!

When it arrived ( today ) my dad had to pay 10 EUR of "customs" to get it, 10 EUR OVER A 20 POUNDS VALUE !!!

.. THANK YOU BREXIT

Now you tell me "if it's like that" WHO is ever going to do "commerce" with UK/EU ???

Actually this has nothing to do with Brexit. Well, okay, yes it does because it's about goods coming into the EU from outside the EU, but substitute UK for US, Canada, Australia, Japan, China etc, and the same result. Basically in July the EU decided that the value limit on goods entering the EU from outside before they get taxed was going to be reduced to zero. So EVERYTHING gets taxed now from outside regardless of what it is or how much it's worth. Gifts are exempt, but I believe they are looking to crack down on this too as it's being abused.

I think it's ABSURD 10 EUR of tax over 20 pounds value !!!

It should have been 2 .. 3 pounds at most !

[gilesgoat]

True, although they also wanted to be as low and squat as possible as well so as to be smaller targets, except for the gun directors.

From the little I know/seen boats I think are more likely going to be hit via torpedoes ( even a boat itself, yes the boat NOT the submarine, has some sort of "torpedoes launchers" ) and/or self targetting missiles rather than direct hits from cannons

The boat I was on, I kinda remember, had the possibility to launch up to 8 not-so-small missiles that were also remotely guided with a special radar/camera system and they also had some "auto target/lock system" (*)

You can see the missile launcher on the back, each one of those 'segments' is a missile.

https://www.naval-technology.com/projec ... corvette8/

Now you can't see it from outside, but I know they have torpedoes as well.

All those sperical things contain parabolas for special point/track radar systems, the white small round antenna is the radar for the missile control.

The boat in fact is very low and has .. "a number of other things" to make itself less targeteable.

(*) do you know boats have a sort of "ID transponder" similar to aircraft that send some "ID code" ?

[zip accident]

Battleship:





Not just Warship.

[Mayhem]

I think it's ABSURD 10 EUR of tax over 20 pounds value !!!

It should have been 2 .. 3 pounds at most !

VAT is 22% in Italy, so yeah it was probably 3 Euros VAT and 7 Euros for the priviledge of having Italian customs handle paying it for him in advance. If sellers have an IOSS registered number, they can have buyers pay the VAT in advance and bypass the handling charges.

[F-ZeroOne]

True, although they also wanted to be as low and squat as possible as well so as to be smaller targets, except for the gun directors.

From the little I know/seen boats I think are more likely going to be hit via torpedoes ( even a boat itself, yes the boat NOT the submarine, has some sort of "torpedoes launchers" ) and/or self targetting missiles rather than direct hits from cannons

The boat I was on, I kinda remember, had the possibility to launch up to 8 not-so-small missiles that were also remotely guided with a special radar/camera system and they also had some "auto target/lock system" (*)

You can see the missile launcher on the back, each one of those 'segments' is a missile.

Hi, Giles. Battleships, a specific class of warship, were expected to be engaged by heavy naval guns mounted on other battleships, and the armour was mounted in the expectation that (generally speaking) incoming shells would either come in from the side or "plunge" from above. The invention of the torpedo that could be launched from submersibles and high speed smaller warships (this is where we get the term "Destroyer", they were originally "Torpedo Boat Destroyers", intended to intercept torpedo carrying small boats) meant that many battleships had anti-torpedo measures below the waterline such as "bulges", hollow spaces designed to absorb the detonation.

There was also the "battlecruiser", which was usually about as heavily armed as a battleship but less heavily armoured, with greater emphasis on speed.

Of course, these precautions didn't entirely account for torpedo carrying or dive bombing aircraft. Very roughly, during World War II submarine launched torpedoes probably accounted for more shipping than aircraft but many of their victims were unarmoured merchant vessels or more lightly protected destroyers, cruisers and aircraft carriers. Of course, warships would usually be attacked by both torpedo bombers and dive bombers at the same time.

These days, anti-ship missiles are probably going to be the main threat against warships but submarine launched torpedoes are still a significant danger.

The missile launcher in your pictures is a Sea Sparrow Surface-to-Air Missile system.

[gilesgoat]

True, although they also wanted to be as low and squat as possible as well so as to be smaller targets, except for the gun directors.

From the little I know/seen boats I think are more likely going to be hit via torpedoes ( even a boat itself, yes the boat NOT the submarine, has some sort of "torpedoes launchers" ) and/or self targetting missiles rather than direct hits from cannons

The boat I was on, I kinda remember, had the possibility to launch up to 8 not-so-small missiles that were also remotely guided with a special radar/camera system and they also had some "auto target/lock system" (*)

You can see the missile launcher on the back, each one of those 'segments' is a missile.

Hi, Giles. Battleships, a specific class of warship, were expected to be engaged by heavy naval guns mounted on other battleships, and the armour was mounted in the expectation that (generally speaking) incoming shells would either come in from the side or "plunge" from above. The invention of the torpedo that could be launched from submersibles and high speed smaller warships (this is where we get the term "Destroyer", they were originally "Torpedo Boat Destroyers", intended to intercept torpedo carrying small boats) meant that many battleships had anti-torpedo measures below the waterline such as "bulges", hollow spaces designed to absorb the detonation.

There was also the "battlecruiser", which was usually about as heavily armed as a battleship but less heavily armoured, with greater emphasis on speed.

Of course, these precautions didn't entirely account for torpedo carrying or dive bombing aircraft. Very roughly, during World War II submarine launched torpedoes probably accounted for more shipping than aircraft but many of their victims were unarmoured merchant vessels or more lightly protected destroyers, cruisers and aircraft carriers. Of course, warships would usually be attacked by both torpedo bombers and dive bombers at the same time.

These days, anti-ship missiles are probably going to be the main threat against warships but submarine launched torpedoes are still a significant danger.

The missile launcher in your pictures is a Sea Sparrow Surface-to-Air Missile system.

Thanks to Wikipedia now I even know "approx" how much they cost, they did tell me that occasionally they shoot one - with no explosive - "in a special area of the Mediteranean Sea" for exercise and that each one they launch has "significant costs" ..

According to Wikipedia :

Unit cost

US$956,000 (FY2016)[2]
US$1,795,000 (FY2021) (average)

I am NOT sure ( don't think so ) they can recover it once is shoot ( even if it does not explode ) BUT I remember they told me "there's this specific area of the sea" ( somewhere around/below Sardinia in the middle of the sea ) which is very heavilly patrolled and where "it's forbidden to dive/etc/withouth permissions" because apparently the sea bed is "littered with weapons and crap" some of which COULD potentially be recovered and maybe put to work again.

So probably some of the remaining of those missiles are still on the seabed resting.

Now "given what I saw of the Italian navy" ... they would not be able to pull a rock out of the sea even if there'd be a GIANT X marking the spot and the rock would be already tied with a hook that says "connect here and pull me up" ..

First they would not find the boat(s) to go there, then someone would take 2 weeks to get close to the X, then maybe another 4 weeks to put the boat on the spot, meanwhile they'll ran out of provisions/fuel/etc. because they have an autonomy ( true for those type of boats ) of MAX 20 days , then they'll realize they don't have a crane or such to pull the rock out, then they'll have to return back looking for a crane, then it'll turn out the Italian navy doesn't have one or was supposed to have one that is still 1/2 installed since 1959 on a boat that is no longer fit for the sea, then they'd had to find a crane somewhere else, meanwhile time has passed the government changed 3 or 4 times, then when they found the crane ( rented ) someone lost the documents about the X, the people in charge at time retired and the mission to recover the rock expired. Then they'd need to start a new mission but meanwhile they ran out of time about the crane rant that during all that time was unused but they had to pay the rent for, at this point the total costs went over 100 times the value of the rock but "they still keep going" .. so they need a new crane, the boats that were supposed to be used for the mission meanwhile went out of use and no longer operating .. etc. etc. .. and then "to make it short" in 2027 they'll pass a law stating that to recover rocks from the sea "should not be done for envirronemental reason" ..

.. meanwhile .. the rock already been turned the size of a pebble corroded by the sea water and waves ...

And if you think that's sarcastic BELIEVE ME I'VE SEEN MUCH WORSE, this is "far" from the truth in the sense the truth is even weirder than that !!!

[merman]

Sigh, I see the right wing tabloids are trying to stir up Polexit now.

Poland’s problems aren’t caused by the EU, anymore than Britain’s were.