Future of ships


#262

[QUOTE=ombugge;182654]I believe they are SUPPOSED to comply with the Colregs at least? Or are they exempt from those as well??[/QUOTE]

The US Navy is bound to “adhere as closely as possible to” all laws governing ships of the US. The only blanket exception is mission completion. Colregs have exceptions that Naval Officers are trained in, for example sailing darkened ship with no navigation lights displayed. A Captain’s first responsibility is to the mission, a Master’s first responsibility is to the crew.
That alone makes the admiralty laws a poor fit for both. You cannot sue a Captain in the US Navy but you can down right fillet a Master. It’s not so much that the Navy is exempt or allowed to slide on things legally, they have their own milestones of competency that more realistically reflect their own ships.

As far as might makes right, the entire reason our Armed Forces exist is to coerce our enemies to adhere to our biddings. The US Navy exists to remind our enemies that when our Army goes home and they go back to to their old ways we’re coming back.

The US Navy may not be my first choice to share an ocean with but when I see choppers from the carriers landing food and medicine hours after natural disasters occur anywhere in the world at the same time they’re conducting combat flight ops, supporting SEAL operations, monitering entire country’s communications, evacuating Americans in peril overseas plus protecting the battle group and it is literally all in a day’s work, I try to be even toned and give them a pass on things underway.

When Viktor Balinko defected with a MIG he asked to see a carrier underway. Flying back to the beach the next day he stated that a US carrier must be the most complicated integration of men and machine in the world. Be in awe of a US Carrier Battle Group. That goes for Russia too and they know it.


#263

There are no end to how many annoying Norwegians who pitch in about the future of ships: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/towards-unmanned-shipping-bjørn-kjærand-haugland


#264

[QUOTE=ombugge;193067]There are no end to how many annoying Norwegians who pitch in about the future of ships: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/towards-unmanned-shipping-bjørn-kjærand-haugland[/QUOTE]

That’s too bad, one is too many.


#265

[QUOTE=ombugge;193067]There are no end to how many annoying Norwegians who pitch in about the future of ships: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/towards-unmanned-shipping-bjørn-kjærand-haugland[/QUOTE]

Not the most impressive thing I’ve seen come out of DNV. First, the article conflates “autonomous” with “remotely piloted.” Two completely different systems concepts. “Autonomous” means independent operation without the need for continuous communication with shore. “Remotely piloted” means there’s a link. Second, the claims for safety and resistance to piracy are, to say the least, unsubstantiated. Finally, this is the quote that got me:

“The road towards autonomous shipping will probably start with small specialized cargo vessels for costal and local traffic.”

Oh, I see, you’re going to do operational evaluation of a brand new systems concept in areas that have a shoreline to run into and the highest level of military, commercial, and recreational vessels to contend with. What could possibly go wrong?

Cheers,

Earl


#266

Admitting the problem is an important first step in recovery…


#267

Google has reportedly dropped its autonomous vehicle project: https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/12/google-has-reportedly-stopped-developing-its-own-self-driving-car/

Cheers,

Earl


#268

Regardless of what is happening in the US Europe is pressing ahead with the development of autonomous ships: http://www.ship-technology.com/features/featureis-2017-the-breakthrough-year-for-unmanned-vessels-5692723/

As is China: http://worldmaritimenews.com/archives/168917/china-presses-on-with-unmanned-ship-development-project/


#269

Yes by stealing our state of the art technology to copy it!


#270

[QUOTE=Fraqrat;193446]Yes by stealing our state of the art technology to copy it![/QUOTE]

What is there to steal???


#271

[QUOTE=ombugge;193451]What is there to steal???[/QUOTE]

The LCS blueprints … hopefully.


#272

[QUOTE=Steamer;193453]The LCS blueprints … hopefully.[/QUOTE]

Which were uploaded by Princess Leya moments before she started a torrid and sweaty top secret affair with the rogue Hans Solo


#273

[QUOTE=Steamer;193453]The LCS blueprints … hopefully.[/QUOTE]

Oh I thought he may have been hinting to that drone the Chinese found drifting around in the South China Sea?

No that could not be it. It was probably made in China anyhow.


#274

A video to explain the DNV-GL concept short sea ship ReVolt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROXjY0fWKIM
I know, it could never work in USA, but this design is meant for the Norwegian coast initially.


#275

[QUOTE=ombugge;193575]A video to explain the DNV-GL concept short sea ship ReVolt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROXjY0fWKIM
I know, it could never work in USA, but this design is meant for the Norwegian coast initially.[/QUOTE]

Nice puff piece, cool CGI, love the toy boat. As always, it’s what is left out that is the most interesting:

  1. The ConOps. The control system is described as “mumble mumble autonomous mumble mumble.” The remark about shore crew and the simulated display of a passage between a ship and shore implies some kind of control link. So what is it? Full authority from shore, shore control augmented by autonomous capability, or “hands off” full autonomy? If the middle, you face all the ugly handoff issues exhibited by Tesla’s “autopilot.”

  2. Windage. Looks like there’s a lot of it. I wonder how much reserve power there is to claw off a lee shore.

  3. Battery. She’s got a big 'un. Lot of lithium there in today’s technology. Lithium and seawater don’t mix. Pardon me, they mix very enthusiastically. If one of those things got t-boned it might remind old timers of the bombing of the Tirpitz. A container fire could get interesting very quickly as well.

I loved the bit about automation eliminating human error. Automation doesn’t eliminate human error, it just concentrates it in the process whereby the automated system is designed and built. All the mistakes are made in advance.

I’ve mentioned the security issues before. It also seems that with the advent of crewless ships the old maritime tradition of coming to the aid of sailors in distress will die out. Even if a roboship shows up, what’s it going to do? I wonder how many of the people on the Deepwater Horizon would have been lost if the Damon Bankston had been operated without a crew.

Earl


#276

automated osv for automated rig, nobody anywhere…
wireless remote on osv so they can operate the cranes for the fuel hose


#277

[QUOTE=Earl Boebert;193588]Nice puff piece, cool CGI, love the toy boat. As always, it’s what is left out that is the most interesting:

  1. The ConOps. The control system is described as “mumble mumble autonomous mumble mumble.” The remark about shore crew and the simulated display of a passage between a ship and shore implies some kind of control link. So what is it? Full authority from shore, shore control augmented by autonomous capability, or “hands off” full autonomy? If the middle, you face all the ugly handoff issues exhibited by Tesla’s “autopilot.”

  2. Windage. Looks like there’s a lot of it. I wonder how much reserve power there is to claw off a lee shore.

  3. Battery. She’s got a big 'un. Lot of lithium there in today’s technology. Lithium and seawater don’t mix. Pardon me, they mix very enthusiastically. If one of those things got t-boned it might remind old timers of the bombing of the Tirpitz. A container fire could get interesting very quickly as well.

I loved the bit about automation eliminating human error. Automation doesn’t eliminate human error, it just concentrates it in the process whereby the automated system is designed and built. All the mistakes are made in advance.

I’ve mentioned the security issues before. It also seems that with the advent of crewless ships the old maritime tradition of coming to the aid of sailors in distress will die out. Even if a roboship shows up, what’s it going to do? I wonder how many of the people on the Deepwater Horizon would have been lost if the Damon Bankston had been operated without a crew.

Earl[/QUOTE]

I should have linked to the entire article, not just the video: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/towards-unmanned-shipping-bjørn-kjærand-haugland

Some of the comments below is very similar to what has come out here on this forum; Autonomous ships will look like today’s ships, with the same machinery and equipment, making week long passages between ports.

The fact is that this article deals with an idea for seaborne transport along the Norwegian coast, with small battery powered ships of 100 TEU capacity, not cross ocean trade with VLCCs of 20,000 TEU capacity.
This scenario may develop into short sea trade in the North Sea, or be transfered to other coastal transport system over time. It is not likely to affect large vessels on long trips for quite some time yet.

Don’t worry, you will still have jobs on old ships (and ATBs pretending not to be ships) in US coastal trade for MANY years to come.


#278

UM, A VLCC would have 0 TEU capacity, as a VLCC is a tanker not a box boat also the largest box boat built to date is just over 15,000 TEU’s

Odd mistakes for a guy who claims so much knowledge of maritime matters


#279

[QUOTE=DavidMT;193666]UM, A VLCC would have 0 TEU capacity, as a VLCC is a tanker not a box boat also the largest box boat built to date is just over 15,000 TEU’s

Odd mistakes for a guy who claims so much knowledge of maritime matters[/QUOTE]

VLCC can also stand for “Very Large Container Carrier”.

You are a bit behind in your knowledge. The largest container ship to date has a capacity of over 19,000 TEUs: http://gcaptain.com/cscl-globe-introducing-the-new-worlds-largest-containership/

While up to 22,000 TEUs are planned.


#280

The common term for these new Very Large Container Vessels the VLCC for tankers. You can make up any term if you want is a large car carrier longer than 200 meters a VLCC ? I think not.


#281

[QUOTE=Pilot;193676]The common term for these new Very Large Container Vessels the VLCC for tankers. You can make up any term if you want is a large car carrier longer than 200 meters a VLCC ? I think not.[/QUOTE]

No. Large car carriers are usually called PCTC. (Pure Car & Truck Carriers)