More problems w/new Navy ships: Springs leak after hit by tug boat

Sep 25, 2001
25,097
88
126
#1

Matthiasa

Diamond Member
May 4, 2009
5,757
0
81
#2
The ship is designed to never be targeted, it is not designed to take any serious impact and certainly not designed to take sustained enemy fire.
 

Pulsar

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2003
5,225
0
126
#3
The ship is designed to never be targeted, it is not designed to take any serious impact and certainly not designed to take sustained enemy fire.
That is correct. The current generation of surface to ship and air to ship weapons can take out even the most heavily armed ship with a single hit. As a result, the newest ships in our Arsenal are designed to not be hit. Read up on them. Operationally, it is expected that a single hit will render them useless.
 
Dec 3, 2013
38,755
3
121
#4
Is about like the F-35.

Looks good on paper, performs poorly.
 
May 7, 2002
10,378
1
126
#5
While they are designed not to be hit (in theory), it still is ridiculous that it can't survive a minor impact with a tug boat.
More wasted $$$.
 
Mar 9, 2005
14,027
26
136
#6
I never served in the Navy but question some of the philosophies I've seen in modern fighting ships. Nine years ago I did get a chance to see the layout during a refit which made me ask a lot of questions. Like with the Arleigh Burke's placing crew quarters against the outer hull, very thin hull, with no protective barrier inside to mitigate shrapnel. Male and female quarters are stacked on each other in this way insuring that your enlisted crew can be taken out quickly with starboard strike.

Being an Army veteran I know that you don't fight exposed yet sailors are expected to man deck guns fully exposed without any kind of protection while they fight off close range targets. When I walked around on that destroyer I couldn't believe the lack of CQB defenses, especially in a world where pirates are increasingly attacking shipping. One of the things they were being fitted with, it was in for its post commissioning refit about 12 months after construction, was .50 cal deck gun mounts because they didn't install any during construction. Modern fighting ships should have chobham armor like the Abrams for protection.
 
Feb 8, 2000
18,835
0
106
#7
Ships of yore were designed to take direct hits from large caliber guns on destroyers and battleships. Even then, I think they never stood a chance against torpedoes that were designed to explode underneath and cause damage from the water bubble thing.

New ships may have gone the "fuck it, we're dead if anything modern hits us anyway" route. But it probably has a bunch of Phalanxes and anti-missile batteries.
 
Apr 19, 2001
25,303
56
126
#8
these are multi-million $$$ combat ships.
wtf springs leak after hit by tug boat?!

what is it meant to fight?
Obviously it's not meant to fight tug boats.
 
Dec 3, 2013
38,755
3
121
#9
Ships of yore were designed to take direct hits from large caliber guns on destroyers and battleships. Even then, I think they never stood a chance against torpedoes that were designed to explode underneath and cause damage from the water bubble thing.

New ships may have gone the "fuck it, we're dead if anything modern hits us anyway" route. But it probably has a bunch of Phalanxes and anti-missile batteries.
They are designed to be fast and weapons/electronic warfare platforms these days of course, but a tug pushing one cracking the hull is ridiculous.
 

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
5,671
100
126
#10
Ahead of the storm, conditions were already choppy: Naval Station Mayport recorded maximum wind speeds of 28 miles per hour and maximum gusts of 38 miles per hour on Oct. 4.

The crack resulted in a minor leak, but the crew of the LCS contained the seawater intrusion, Haggard said. The damage did not necessitate an immediate return to port.
...
Montgomery took a hard knock from a tug as it sortied from Mayport, Florida ahead of the Hurricane Matthew.

The Tuesday collision opened up a foot-long crack amidships along a weld seam, about three feet above the waterline, according to a report obtained by Navy Times. The crack was letting in about a gallon of water every three minutes until sailors plugged the quarter-inch crack with wedges, the report said.
...
The accident happened in choppy waters with winds gusting up to 30 nautical miles-per-hour in Mayport harbor.

"As the ship was departing the [Mayport] basin, pilot requested tugs come along the starboard side to push Montgomery further from the quay wall and the aft landed hard on the starboard side" the report reads.
This was a collision with another boat in rough waters and it sprang a small leak that did not require a return to port.
Aluminum hulls aren't exactly the sturdiest things when other boats collide with you.
These things aren't meant to be used in "big boy" wars.
 
Feb 8, 2000
18,835
0
106
#11
This was a collision with another boat in rough waters and it sprang a small leak that did not require a return to port.
Aluminum hulls aren't exactly the sturdiest things when other boats collide with you.
These things aren't meant to be used in "big boy" wars.
Seriously? They used aluminum?

I thought "crack" and the idea of fiberglass crossed my mind, but not on a warship, right?
 
Mar 9, 2005
14,027
26
136
#12
Construction materials aren't easily come by on the Independence-class littoral combat ship but the Navy was moving back towards a steel upper structure for durability. Aluminum cracks too easily and it will burn if exposed to enough heat.
 

lxskllr

No Lifer
Nov 30, 2004
51,860
478
126
#14
So this is what Ford is boasting about when they say military grade aluminium. :p
I challenge you to find any case of a Ford truck that was damaged by a tugboat. Ford Tough™; it's not just a slogan.
 
Mar 9, 2005
14,027
26
136
#16
What's happening with that class is what happens with nearly every new design once it get fielded and the design flaws rear their ugly heads. Initial sea trials will never expose enough issues as they carefully control the circumstances to meet their objectives.
 
Apr 19, 2001
25,303
56
126
#17
I challenge you to find any case of a Ford truck that was damaged by a tugboat. Ford Tough™; it's not just a slogan.
Who needs a freaking tugboat? Ford vehicles sink on their own. Gotta be an acronym for that.

Frequently Only River Debris?
Found Opposite Rescue Divers?
 
May 7, 2002
10,378
1
126
#18
The Lockheed Martin LCS engineering team designed the hull concept called "Sea Blade" based on the long fast-hull form of the motor yacht "Destriero". The hull features a semi-planing steel mono-hull and the superstructure was made with aluminum.
...
The removal of equipment under the hull further allows the Freedom to operate even closer to shoreline and in rivers. She can also "beach" herself for deployment or retrieval of awaiting troops with full mission gear.
...
The mono-hull design can run up and over submerged logs or sandbars without damaging the flush waterjet propulsion system.
These ships were designed to be close to shore as well, to defeat asymmetric “anti-access” threats such as mines, quiet diesel submarines and fast surface craft.

What a load of BS, if the ship did try to beach herself, then the hull would suffer damage, and it is supposed to handle mines and subs and surface craft? Please. The sub can poke holes in it from below, a 50 cal mounted on surface craft would also poke holes in the hull.

So, as long as the enemy don't have a fleet of tugboats, all is fine...if you buy the BS they are peddling.
 
Feb 8, 2000
18,835
0
106
#19
So, as long as the enemy don't have a fleet of tugboats, all is fine...if you buy the BS they are peddling.
Iran appears to have a navy consisting of fishing boats. I hope they don't ever send these ships to the Gulf.
 

bradly1101

Diamond Member
May 5, 2013
4,684
2
126
#20
The military economy is so huge that it is rife with bad ideas. The overarching goal is to keep the money flowing.
 
Apr 8, 2001
32,488
29
106
#21
While they are designed not to be hit (in theory), it still is ridiculous that it can't survive a minor impact with a tug boat.
More wasted $$$.
Have not looked into these in awhile, but believe these have designed thinner/lighter hulls along with the resuced/automated crews in a trial for cheaper cost to produce and maintain.
 
Jul 12, 2006
94,738
2,655
136
#22
I just realized something....is this why Texashiker is no longer tugging on his tugboat?
 

Bacstar

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2006
1,260
0
81
#23
I remember an incident back in the Persian Gulf days, early 90's, a submarine tender I was on (AS-73 or 74) had to pull into port in UAE. Didn't have a tugboat available, so captain decided to pull up to a concrete dock without one. Good size ship too. End up hitting pretty hard up starboard side male berthing, put a nice crease in the hull but didn't leak or crack...good old fashion American steel.
 
Mar 9, 2005
14,027
26
136
#24
I had a work crew while an Arleigh Burke was being refit here after its post commissioning shakedown cruise and I spoke with several crew members who were telling me about how each time a wave impacted the starboard bow they'd hear it slap with a sharp metallic clang. At least that ship was constructed out of steel but I did notices lots of surface imperfections on the superstructure such as warped panels.
 

z1ggy

Diamond Member
May 17, 2008
9,795
6
91
#25
While they are designed not to be hit (in theory), it still is ridiculous that it can't survive a minor impact with a tug boat.
More wasted $$$.
What do you mean "survive"? It didn't sink did it?

LCS's are meant to be small, fast and stealthy. The article doesn't describe how fast each boat was moving, nor how large/small this "crack" was.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS