What's the minimum number of people that need to be on the

>>33342384
3

>>33342497
Ah, is that so? Would you happen to what positions they'd be in?

>>33342384

Normal complement is 300 for the entire ship.

>>33342754
driver gunner and commander.

>>33342497
>>33342828
>tankfag responds to naval thread
>total snows anon

sometimes /k/ sucks

>>33342384
It kind of depends how many ship functions/systems are going to be operational. An absolutely minimal skeleton crew would need to include 3 guys per shift for all of the critical functions such as steering and navigation, engines, and so forth.

If you start adding in extra roles like operating weapons systems/radars/etc. then you have to add in those people, too.

Systems like water provision can be alright for a while if tanks were full at the outset, but require maintenance and management after a certain point. Naval electrical systems have errors and failures all the time that need to be fixed if you want a ship in a fully-functional state. This increases over time as all sorts of small components like sensors and switches and lights wear out or expire and require replacement.

Another concern is fire. Normally, if a fire starts somewhere on a crewed ship, there are going to be people nearby who can use pumps to suppress the fire. But if you're on a skeleton crew, the nearest guy might be hundreds of feet away and will need to make a mad dash to get there in time.

Basically, the smaller the crew + the longer in operation = the shittier the ship will become.

>>33343261
As a thought experiment, what if the ship was fully crewed, but for some reason you wanted the absolute minimum number of people on the bridge?

>>33344402
>absolute minimum number of people on the bridge?
2. One on helm, one on all other general tasks. Everything else can be handled from CIC if absolutely necessary.

>>33344402
You cannot steal a Navy ship anon

>>33344563
not with that attitude

>>33344402
Helmsman, OOD, possibly a QMOW.

>>33342384
As with most US Navy ships in port. the onboard duty section (on a carrier we had 5 for a 1:5 rotation) is supposed to be the bare minimum number of crew needed to get the ship underway in an emergency, that's why there's a CDO (Command Duty Officer) assigned to each duty section, so you have a qualified senior officer capable of getting underway.

>>33344563
get past the gate (laughable) and a guarantee you could

>>33344563
Just watch me.

>>33343261
It's hilarious to me how much of a hard time the Navy has with operating a ship. Meanwhile you have the largest vessels in the world running with a crew of 18.

>>33345428
Right. Because merchies are running redundant DC in every compartment, redundant, very high performance engineering plants, weapons, several different types of sensors, a full aviation hangar, two RHIBs, life support for 300 people, comms and datalink feeds and throughputs for assets from DC to the Persian Gulf, etc.

Are you retarded?

>>33345449
Are you joking? Have you ever been on a DP3 subsea support ship? A drill ship? An RTA-flex powered box boat? Congrats on your LM2500's controlled by woodward automation from the early 90's, or your old B&W 600 lb boilers.

I've worked on both sides, and it's sad how little the Navy can manage basic rules of the road, nevermind operate a vessel with any sense of efficiency.

>>33345481
not even decent bait

step it up, son

>>33345566
So you have no legitimate argument and just claim bait, when faced with facts. Go back to your NEET basement and jerk off to a littoral combat ship.

File: 1473819638787.jpg (69KB, 640x795px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 640x795px

>>33345583
Oh, look. Yet another moron who's going to tell us how it really is, all about how we don't really need replacements for the Avenger class or ASW capacity replacement for the OHPs. Nope. MCM and ASW are totally unimportant. I mean, only 3 of the last 5 major combat damage incidents for USN ships have been mines. That means nothing.

>>33345593
Again, you're completely sidetracking the original point which is that the Navy operates their vessels poorly and inefficiently. I never said any of the shit words you just put in my mouth.

2/10, made me reply.

>>33345598
>you're completely sidetracking the original point
You brought up the LCS. You shit the bed. Now you get to lie in it.

>the Navy operates their vessels poorly and inefficiently
You keep saying these things. Yet you keep offering zero proof. Aside from the fact that merchant shipping operates hulls with two orders of magnitude less systems density compared to a USN hull with a couple dozen people.

If you're too dumb to understand why more systems means more crew, and why combat ships cannot be automated in the same fashion, well, you're too dumb to keep talking to.

File: 1427684155977.png (26KB, 640x189px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 640x189px

>>33345481
His argument is "Adding extra military features increases complexity, requiring more people to crew the ship"

Your argument is "you have never been on these civilian boats, so i'm right and the navy is shit"

Calling you bait is quite reasonable.
I'm not navy nor have I ever been to see, but his argument is a lot more sound just based on the way the world work for everyone.

>>33345620
>see
ha fuck me I need to sleep.

>>33345481
>a DP3 subsea support ship? A drill ship?
Are you going to tell me 18 people total crew these ships and run all the systems? Because you're a fucking moron.

>inb4 nevar sed dat
see >>33345428 and go fuck yourself with a sideways cactus

>>33344469
German F123 I was on I'd sa 0
>>33344602
> Helmsman
You certainly have a telephone in engine control and also in rudder room
> OOD
Why couldn't you drive from CIC?
> QMOW
for what?

File: 1456695265936.jpg (20KB, 305x326px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 305x326px

>>33344974
yeah bro totally just make sure you turn the ignition key on the bridge to start up the engine room like a car it only takes 30 seconds or so for the entire engine room to come up and it requires no people.

>>33348351

dude open architecture lmao you can just plug in and play on ur laptop

>steal a LCS
>the secretary of the navy sends you a hand-written thank you letter

>>33348377
dude lmao ur totes rite it eben turnz teh valves 4 U

>>33345896
>You certainly have a telephone in engine control and also in rudder room

Which adds unnecessary complexity and reaction time to the process. There's a reason the helm is on the bridge.

>Why couldn't you drive from CIC?

You could, but it's a really good idea to have somebody who can actually see what's going on around the ship. Not every hazard shows up on radar or sonar. This is why naval ships always have lookouts posted whenever they're underweigh. Having the OOD on the bridge means that the guy who's responsible for which way the ship is going can actually see where he's telling the helmsman to steer.

>for what

Because you have the OOD conning the ship and the helmsman steering the ship, both of whom will be getting critical information from the QMOW. Before you start going on about doing it from CIC, that adds layers of complexity and delay to the process.

Go back to the OP. Note the placement and usage of the word "effectively".

>>33348890
>Not every hazard shows up on radar or sonar.
why not?

>>33345428
And those vessels are doing nothing but travelling the same route, over and over and over. What's the first thing that happens when they have a casualty of any sort? They cry for help.

Somebody gets hurt, they beg for a medevac.

Those big ass merchant vessels are designed to operate on a fixed route for the lowest possible cost. They don't cope well with unexpected or abnormal anything.

Military vessels operate in unexpected or abnormal conditions as a matter of course. That is the only routine they know.

Your comparison is lame. It's like saying a farm tractor is superior to an SUV because the SUV can only haul groceries for a family, while a farmer can feed hundreds.

>>33348989
Because you don't see shoaling/bank/navigation channel markers on fucking radar and sonar, you idiot.

Without visual navigation and confirmation of markers against charts, you run the risk of taking the ship in for a beach day, which is an insta-sack for the captain and any OOD on duty at the time.

>>33348989
Some float, like shipping containers which frequently fall off container ships. No radar signature, no noise, just floating at or near the surface.

>>33349044
>Because you don't see shoaling/bank/navigation channel markers on fucking radar and sonar, you idiot.
rude
not everyone is a ship expert, seaman

>>33342384
Officer of the watch, lookout, helmsman, and a navigator

>>33349079
>not everyone is a ship expert, seaman
Some common sense is in order regardless, anon. It's like asking why you can't just black the windows in a plane and navigate completely by instruments, radar beacons and GPS at all times, including landing and take off.

>>33349153
I figured as much, but it's sucks that you have to insult the poor guys :\.

Good points, nicely explained.

>postan in a top thread

>>33345481
>DP3 subsea support ship

A high tech answer to a problem that Coast Guard buoy tenders have been solving daily since before the Civil War.

>A drill ship?

What percentage of the crew operates the ship, and what percentage operates the rig? You don't need the rig crew to run the ship.

>An RTA-flex powered box boat?

Packet injection Diesel engines is something that Fairbanks-Morse has been doing since the 1930s

Now, lets turn the question around so you can see how pointless it is:

Have you ever been on a nuclear powered aircraft carrier? A Vosper-Thornycroft 110' patrol boat? An icebreaker? A sailing barque? A medium or high endurance cutter? A 180' buoy tender? A minesweeper? A 47' surf rescue boat?

Well, I have, mister. And let me tell you, you're wrong because of it.

Now, about the second half of your post- what do you mean you've worked both sides? You're bisexual? What? Elucidate, pls. With pics.

>basic rules of the road

You mean like not being drunk on watch, like the skipper of the Exxon Valdez? Or being drugged out of your mind, like the pilot of the Cosco Busan? Or how about the SS Capricorn, which disregarded a whole shitload of ROTR in order to collide with and sink the CGC Blackthorn? Killed 27 Coasties on that one. Inb4 the Blackthorn was also in violation, she was experiencing an engineering casualty and wasn't under power.

>sense of efficiency

Wtf does this even mean? To begin with, Navy ships are very efficient. We've been designing naval vessels for a long time, we're pretty good at it. We also do really well at training our crews. Besides which, they also learn the most efficient ways of doing their jobs simply as a matter of saving time.

The more I look at it, the less sense your post makes. Is English not your native tongue?

>>33342384
i can only say from movies and historic videos it looked like a dozen or so people are needed.

pretty much the only thing a bridge does not need is a commander going all commando on the mainland instead of captaining his ship.

>>33349559
>Is English not your native tongue?
No. He's probably some slavaboo eastern European merchie who put a stint in the Russian Navy when he was in short pants and expects, through some fantastic leap of logic, that all navies are somehow that incompetent.

>>33349593
>looked like a dozen or so people are needed.

The bridge gets crowded during special evolutions. They pack people in for redundancy and load sharing. A normal watch section is considerably smaller. Figure, OOD, QMOW, BMOW, helm, lookout, and messenger. The last three typically rotate every 40 minutes or so. You might also see a JOOD and conning officer, depending on size of the crew and where they are in the training cycle.

File: b.png (2MB, 1103x732px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1103x732px

>>33348890
I was replying to >>33344402
And from the CIC I have been in you absolutely could see what's going around the ship

>>33349653
Ah. I see. Now I feel bad for being so hard on the poor little feller. Especially my comments regarding drinking and drugging on watch. I didn't realize I was being insensitive to his cultural mores.

>>33344614
I bet your nucs weren't in 5 section duty.
Also, if you were cold iron, it would take DAYS to get underway.
t. nuc

>>33349757
Ok. I was just responding to your response >>33345896
to my post >>33344602

Is your pic related to your point? I see you've circled what looks like a radome, and some other hardware. Video?

Video doesn't work as well as eyeballs. Does it give you the resolution and refresh rate to spot a nearly submerged drift net before you run over it and foul your screws? Or to pick up a floating tarp before you suck it into a seachest and kill your engines for a few hours?

The criteria was 'efficient' not 'economical'. Running a ship from CIC isn't as efficient as running it from the bridge.

>>33349770
One day I hope to be as salty as you, I am truly jealous of your knowledge and years at see. How long did you serve and what rank did you retire?

File: commandeer.jpg (110KB, 800x531px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 800x531px

>>33344563

>>33349916
yeah that is some optics used for aiming the main gun from the CIC in front of the radome
>Running a ship from CIC isn't as efficient as running it from the bridge
I aggree with that

>>33349720
op said operate efficiently i assumed it meant combat not just a watch.

>>33350083
He also said absolute minimum. Am I wrong in thinking you could get away with a helmsman and lookout/runner and do everything else on CIC repeaters if necessary? Genuine question, I don't know for sure.

What's the plan in a Burke for NBC operations with combat damage and seal compromise on the bridge, anyway?

I have work on normal merchant ship, the RFA (royal fleet auxillary) and worked on and with roayl naval vessels in that capacity. The Navy are very good at military stuff, but there seamanship is severely lacking due to how their deployments work. eg work on a ship for 2 years which goes to sea maybe a total of 6 months in that time compared to merchant navy which practice thier trade day in day out

followed by 1-2 years in a shore side role.

>>33350253
>comparing Royal Navy time at sea to USN deployment fraction for SUW
>still citing deployment fraction for the RN which is well under the norm over the last decade
>thinking because you were RFA you can speak knowledgeably to RN standards
>thinking RN OODs don't have on average just as much career experience and training as your average merchie, especially when you look at tasks handled as opposed to a merchie's total time on deck, most of which is spent in transit doing fuckall while OOD
>thinking RN command training isn't among the very best programs in the world
>still zero proof or hard numbers as to this supposed discrepancy

Sounds like someone's still bitter the RN wouldn't take them. Cheer up, little buddy. At least you're making the rest of us laugh. It's always hilarious when a bitter merchie hamplanet starts running his dickholster about the service that wouldn't have him.

>>33349928
20 years, DC1

Yea sea time for indivual saliors and officers is a lot less I not comparing how many miles the fleet does.

Well I do know the RN standards as all RFA personnel have to do the same courses as the royal navy and are taking on more and more off the RN's roles. Thats on top of there merchant skills.

RN OOD experience doesn't compare, to regularly transiting places like the tiawan straits or Singapore on a regular basis

Also when doing a RAS who normally has the con of both ships RFA or RN Cpt who once took a ship into portsmouth with 25 lookouts on the bridge and 200 people on mooring stations.

>>33350152
how redundant the workstations and controls are on a burke?

File: nottingham.jpg (45KB, 550x361px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 550x361px

Merchant navy giving the RN a lift home.

Also RN HQ has an RFA Cpt and Chief Engineer on permanent staff to advise the RN on seamanship and marine engineering

File: merch.jpg (185KB, 1300x1040px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 1300x1040px

Merchant navy pilot helping you park your wee boats

>>33342384
>What's the minimum number of people that need to be on the bridge of a destroyer for it to operate effectively?

2 Senior Chiefs or 45 Officers.

>>33350610
>using local pilots somehow shows bad seamanship rather than best practices anywhere in the world

wew lad

The point is all pilots at ed master mariners and no RN . A merchant navy OOW can legally CON any warship but navy officers can't CON anything but navy ships

>>33350508
>to regularly transiting places like the tiawan straits or Singapore on a regular basis
You make it seem like these things happen on a constant basis rather than transiting high traffic areas without local pilots maybe three or four times a year on average. It's not like warships operating as part of a group don't constantly sail under what merchies would term "high traffic conditions". You also ignore all the seamanship shit warships regularly execute on near-permanent basis which merchies hardly if ever do, things like sailing stations in a SAG or convoy, UNREP, working grids and clear corridors in MCM, directing and inspecting all traffic in the AO during sea control, etc.

Just keep digging yourself deeper, junior. This is hilarious.

>>33350899
>The point is all pilots at ed master mariners and no RN . A merchant navy OOW can legally CON any warship but navy officers can't CON anything but navy ships
So you're saying the RN should commission and train local pilots for every single port they visit? Are you retarded? This is how local anchorages and harbors have been handled for time immemorial. Local pilots are trained and certified to get ALL incoming and outgoing shipping in and out safely and undamaged. They're the ones that deal with local conditions and dangers day in, day out.

Thinking that this is somehow a knock on any service, military or otherwise, instead of very best practice, makes me think you've never actually sailed anything larger than a shit-filled diaper at the beach.

File: Strangelove is pleased.jpg (104KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1024x768px

>>33350253
>>33350508
>>33350550
>>33350610
>>33350899
This guy is a fucking gold mine for
>RN wouldn't take me so now I'm going to cry about it the rest of my life

holy fucking kek

File: 1458436176929.png (205KB, 500x280px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 500x280px

>>33350939
>you've never actually sailed anything larger than a shit-filled diaper at the beach.

File: SECOND.png (393KB, 610x457px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 610x457px

>>33349559
>Elucidate, pls. With pics.
I'm not buying this retard.

I bet he's the same moron who thinks we should build all fleet carriers on merchant hulls because
>muh merchant shipyards do it cheaper muh military only robs us

>>33350771
or 1 QM2

>>33344563
It's not like the Army who happens to leave the keys for the Hummers in the glovie. The captain takes them home. Morons

>>33350152
>Am I wrong in thinking you could get away with a helmsman and lookout/runner and do everything else on CIC repeaters if necessary?

Possibly. Very possibly. You could even move the helm to the steering gear room, if you were willing to accept the lag in response time. Then you could have one very lonely SN/SA manning a SP phone circuit on the bridge.

If seal integrity/positive pressure ventilation gets compromised, everybody in the affected area dons MOPP IV gear. I honestly have no idea if anybody has tried this fo feasibility in engineering spaces.

>>33349911
Was on an oil burner, Forrestal Class, Cats and Gear. Of course a lot of it was for show, but the basic idea was to insure that you had a functional unit, with continuity of command and operations, ready to mobilize.

>>33342384
Just one, yours truly.

>>33342828
kek
not American destroyers.

>>33342384
10

>>33348890
>underweigh

>>33351311
>implying there are "KEYS" to a warship.

>>33355973

Did you happen to hear a strange cracking noise pass over your head?

>>33355969
Derived from weighing anchor. A ship is officially underweigh the instant the anchor clears the bottom. The term is often misspelled 'underway'. That is incorrect.

>>33345428
You can go fuck yourself. Your exemplary 18 crew vessel has a hard time getting out of the way of a large weather system, a modern warship has 'a hard time' operating a ship because they are actually operating it, not just sitting around with their heads up their asses babysitting a lump of metal between two ports

>>33356114
>The term is often misspelled 'underway'
Tell it to Admiral Rickover and the USS Nautilus:
http://scnewsltr.dodlive.mil/2013/03/05/underway-on-nuclear-power/
>“Underway on nuclear power.”
>Those were the famous words broadcast by USS Nautilus (SSN 571) as she set sail for the first time on January 17, 1955, the first naval vessel in history to operate under nuclear propulsion.

While you are historically correct about the term "weigh", you are incorrect about the meaning of "way" in nautical terms. When a ship has "way", it is moving fast enough through the water for the rudder to provide heading authority. It is then said to possess "steerage way" or be "underway". Underweigh is used occasionally in writing as a colloquial alternative after about the mid-1700s (though the term usually only means the vessel's cable is "up and down", or the anchor is ready to be lifted off the seafloor after the cable has been run through the capstan), but the term used in all formal merchant or naval communications is underway.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=underway&*&dobs=underway
>Underway
>2. (of a boat) moving through the water.

>>33343261
>I can't read

>>33342384
>What's the minimum number of people that need to be on the bridge of a destroyer for it to operate effectively?

>Bridge

>>33355973
There are a bunch of keys needed to operate a warship

>>33344563
lol

>>33351311

I never met an army vehicle that had keys. They all were push-to-start, but we chained down the steering wheel

>>33343261
you need guys in the engine room if you actually need to go anywhere

>>33356188
Ok, fine. I'm still going to spell it underweigh.

>>33359144
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the special autism of /k/.

>>33359172
Nope, still not changing it.

>>33349757
>>33345896

greetings from another F123 /k/omrade.. Sophie_X rules the waves