You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Economy
Guy De Boer: A general explication of the mess in the Suez Canal
2021-03-28
[Facebook] Until 2016, the Panama Canal limited ship sizes to 965' length overall and a 106' beam. (The expanded canal accommodates ships of 1200' LOA with a 168' beam.) Merchant ships, and most naval ships (an Iowa-class battleship will just fit), were designed around those parameters. That limited their tonnage as well, to around 50,000 tons displacement. Those ships were known as Panamax and for many decades those dimensions constrained the size of not just most ships, but all ships presumed never to need transit the canal. (Aircraft carriers have not been able to transit the canal since the Midway-class.)

I sailed in the US Lines Econ-class vessels, then the largest container ships in the world, on the 'round the world run (90 days) back in the eighties. Those ships were big, and carried just under 5000 TEUs (twenty-foot equivalent length) in containers. They were a pig in the wind, because of their high sail area created by their deck cargo of containers, just as aircraft carriers, car carriers, and roll-on roll-off carriers are. At sea wind can be accounted for in the course one steers and by speed of the vessel, just as sailboats do, although such ships, when the weather got really bad and they hove-to in order to ride it out, were a hot mess. Their sail area ensured they'd end up with the wind on their quarter, which isn't entirely a bad thing, though they will then roll, and roll heavily. Their sail area was of yet greater concern when tied up alongside a dock or pier, when winds got up over 30 kts. All the ships lines could not hold them alongside and anywhere from three to five tugs might be called out to hold them alongside, depending upon the size of tugs available.

A brief word about harbor tugs. Harbor tugs commonly carry around 1000hp engines, though there are many still around with far less horsepower still earning a living. The Japanese, who have some of the finest tugs in the world, ran tugs up to 3000hp, and a couple of them would push the largest ships in the world alongside with no problem. The newer tugs in Japan and Northern Europe may produce 5000hp. That's a lot considering the containerships already discussed possessed around 35,000hp.
Posted by:badanov

#5  So a fleet of Iranian fast boats, loaded to the gunnels like the USS Cole bombers, can shutdown world trade for a lifetime?
Posted by: Albert Dribble9133   2021-03-28 17:13  

#4  More from De Boar
Posted by: badanov   2021-03-28 16:15  

#3  Excellent summation of both the current Suez mess and world trade. As an aside, yet another validation of the critical importance of hemispheric supply chains not utterly vulnerable to interdiction or closure. Every basic component of the national economy needs to be on this side of our ocean borders. Preferable even is in the Northern Hemisphere. To be vulnerable to interdiction of any basic commodity needs as a nation is a complete failure of national political policy and leadership. Now look at the past 50 years and see how poorly served we have been by all of fhem.
Posted by: NoMoreBS   2021-03-28 13:36  

#2  On smaller scale when our design proposal to Exxon included a double bottom for the two ship tanker contract (Exxon Valdez and Exxon Long Beach) Exxon said the cost was to much, and went with the single bottom hull design instead.

(We had built several double bottom tanker ships called the "San Clemente Class" before double bottoms were required}.
Posted by: crazyhorse   2021-03-28 10:35  

#1  I had no idea. Thank you, badanov.
Posted by: trailing wife   2021-03-28 08:27  

00:00