en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/278801 Comments by engineermack http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/history-question.html#IDComment13133173 Semi Paratus period, without a doubt. There are plenty of lessons there. Those who forget the past....? Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:34:01 +0000 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/history-question.html#IDComment13133173 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/not-now-chief-im-in-zone.html#IDComment13133076 Absolutely the best. I was the first to ever grunt, and I love the interpretation. Someday he's gonna be Commandant. Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:25:50 +0000 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/not-now-chief-im-in-zone.html#IDComment13133076 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/maritime-enforcement-specialists.html#IDComment12758401 The establishment of this technical rating field reminds me of a conversation I had with my Commanding Officer over 25 years ago. He was kind enough to ask me my opinion, and I mentioned the breadth of knowledge we were required to hold was astonishing, that even if we studied full time for the law enforcement, technical, rating, operational, military, and practical needs of our jobs, we could easily still be found wanting in one area or another. I am glad to see this rating; it is a very positive move. I'm very happy it exists now. The persons who moved this forward deserve congratulations for a landmark effort. Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:30:46 +0000 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/maritime-enforcement-specialists.html#IDComment12758401 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/controller-worst-nightmare.html#IDComment12758183 I'll certainly look at the full report, but let's also acknowledge the endless hours of sar watchstanding training all Coasties go through as opposed to any other maritime organization. There's a reason we were put through the paces we suffered, and this is exactly it. I disliked the commercialization of SAR and I think it's dead wrong (you defend the merchie.) Any takers? 'The Commercialization of SAR - Dead Wrong' or 'Private Sector SAR - Lives for Dollars'! Which is it? Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:09:05 +0000 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/controller-worst-nightmare.html#IDComment12758183 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/controller-worst-nightmare.html#IDComment12562899 The men and women in the Rescue Coordination Centers RCC's around the country do an oustanding job often based on imperfect information and slanted and biased reports. While I often moaned and groaned about having to run another search leg, or investigating flare sightings on the 4th of July, I recall my own days behind the radio with the log and phone and teletype and direction finder and, yes, cb radio (back in the day), with the weapons close by and ready to go. Invariably nothing would happen for long periods of time, and then all the communication devices would start at once. Fascinating, how that worked. I challenge anyone to do the job any better than we do. The combination of experience, wisdom, brains, and yes, brawn, behind those speakers is highly formidable. Mistake? If any mistake was made, it was in listening to a merchie and believing they were relating anything approximating the truth. That's the only mistake I believe anyone may have made in this case. We allow merchantmen far too much leeway because we understand the environment, and if a merchantman is insistent on misleading the RCC, then there's little the RCC can do. Mistake? I don't think so. Sat, 13 Dec 2008 23:50:35 +0000 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/controller-worst-nightmare.html#IDComment12562899 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/guardian-ethos.html#IDComment12506645 Interesting. But, once one saves a life and keeps coming back to do it over and over again, are any words really necessary? Fri, 12 Dec 2008 06:27:19 +0000 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/guardian-ethos.html#IDComment12506645 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/sar-case-waiting-to-happen-preparation.html#IDComment12506575 Ah, yes. Arguing on how to avoid saving a french woman stranded at sea. Merde! Personally, I thoroughly enjoyed saving every lady we brought aboard. My coxswain even had a regular routine he would work, that if I behaved myself on the tow back, he'd let me man the helm while he rode in with the ladies in the boat we were rescuing, getting their phone numbers and dinner plans. Those were some fun evenings. Fri, 12 Dec 2008 06:17:20 +0000 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/sar-case-waiting-to-happen-preparation.html#IDComment12506575 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/ffg-7-question.html#IDComment12242142 The Hamiltons were all designed from the outset with diesels, nice, high efficiency diesels, and the low effiency 60's era turbines are used for sprinting. There are no easy re-engining options which will retain the sprint capability of the FFG-7 hull, which is very sad, because it is such a great looking ship. Rolls attempted a WR-21 gas turbine for the Navy which uses numerous new technologies to aid fuel consumption, particularly half throttle fuel consumption, but none of the durability fixes are done yet and any WR-21 powered vessel is going to be a test ship, at the peir and in the yards, often. That's the offer, any takers? Sun, 7 Dec 2008 15:21:02 +0000 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/ffg-7-question.html#IDComment12242142 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/ffg-7-question.html#IDComment12242139 The engineering plant of the FFG-7 is fuel hungry; it's a great looking but outdated muscle car. Two LM2500's provide about 50,000 shp, with 35% efficiency at best, and this translates into about 50 to 60 gpm fuel consumption, or roughly 20,000 lbs/hr. It looks like a great hull, and I have little doubt it really is, but the LM2500 gas turbine fuel efficiency is going to fall off to less than 20% at part power operation, so going light on the throttle won't work either, (to reduce fuel consumption). A serious problem arises when considerating any flavor of higher efficiency main engines, because gas turbines are so space efficient, re-engining with, say a reciprocating diesel or diesels, will cause a serious space issue; the diesel or diesels will be too large and the engineroom will have to grow. Sun, 7 Dec 2008 15:20:47 +0000 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/ffg-7-question.html#IDComment12242139