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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Aug 21, 2003
30,359
1,545
126
#26
Should have just licenced a dutch or german frigate design and built it for a more capable ship at half the price.

But gotta keep those connected contractors fed...
 

Pulsar

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2003
5,225
0
126
#27
Obviously it's not meant to fight tug boats.
I'm curious. Do you have any concept of momentum and the amount of energy that is expended when a vessel this large and a tugboat make contact?

Look at the wash generated by this cruise ship and what it does to a marina.

http://www.foxla.com/news/national-news/204360742-story

I happen to be a boater, and I'm regularly faced with people who don't understand the forces involved in a collision. Sure, it's a slow motion collision. But you are talking about the momentum of hundreds of tons of force. If the tugboat pushes on ANY boat in the wrong place, damage will result. Your attempt to wave it off as military stupidity is stupidity.
 
May 24, 2003
51,991
597
126
www.uovalor.com
#28
I'm curious. Do you have any concept of momentum and the amount of energy that is expended when a vessel this large and a tugboat make contact?

Look at the wash generated by this cruise ship and what it does to a marina.

http://www.foxla.com/news/national-news/204360742-story

I happen to be a boater, and I'm regularly faced with people who don't understand the forces involved in a collision. Sure, it's a slow motion collision. But you are talking about the momentum of hundreds of tons of force. If the tugboat pushes on ANY boat in the wrong place, damage will result. Your attempt to wave it off as military stupidity is stupidity.
Nothing good ever came from something with the name Vista. :p I don't imagine tug boats have as much momentum as a cruise ship though, tug boats are more about pure power to move things that do have a lot of momentum.

I would expect a WAR ship to be designed to be hit, because it's involved in a WAR. lol.
 

Pulsar

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2003
5,225
0
126
#29
Except, as has already been stated, these ships are expected to be put out of action by a single hit because of the lethality of modern weaponry.
 
Jul 20, 2001
55,660
2,272
126
#30
This goes back to a question I posted a while back. If these ships are not designed to take even a single hit, instead standing off and using their +80 spells of warding to keep the the baddies away, then why don't they have windows? Why make the plebs live in a soup can if the can offers no protection?
 
Apr 19, 2001
25,302
58
126
#31
I'm curious. Do you have any concept of momentum and the amount of energy that is expended when a vessel this large and a tugboat make contact?

Look at the wash generated by this cruise ship and what it does to a marina.

http://www.foxla.com/news/national-news/204360742-story

I happen to be a boater, and I'm regularly faced with people who don't understand the forces involved in a collision. Sure, it's a slow motion collision. But you are talking about the momentum of hundreds of tons of force. If the tugboat pushes on ANY boat in the wrong place, damage will result. Your attempt to wave it off as military stupidity is stupidity.

ROFLMAO!!! The irony in that last sentence is monumental and the only person not laughing at you is you.
 
Sep 25, 2001
25,196
117
126
#32
Except, as has already been stated, these ships are expected to be put out of action by a single hit because of the lethality of modern weaponry.
are they at least bullet proof?
to at least 30cal bullets?

and I hope they can withstand a rpg strike from someone in a rowboat??!?!?!?!????!?
 
Dec 3, 2013
38,752
3
121
#34
Except, as has already been stated, these ships are expected to be put out of action by a single hit because of the lethality of modern weaponry.
Why so you think they would be expected to be put out of action in one shot ? :p

A 475 million dollar ship ?
 
Last edited:
Aug 31, 2002
14,286
4
86
#35
Is it at least filled with confetti lining the hull so that if it suffers a strike that damages the hull it will alert nearby allies with a plume of confetti?

It should automatically drop sealed candy packets as well for the sailors after it takes its one hit so they have something to eat when they jump into the water.
 

Pulsar

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2003
5,225
0
126
#36
I know I'm just feeding the fire because so many folks haven't read up on the program, but:

Combat Survivability During the 2001-2003 timeframe, when the Navy was first deciding what it expected LCS to be, retired Vice Admiral Art Cebrowski became Director of the OSD’s new Office of Force Transformation. A naval aviator by trade, Vice Admiral 20 Cebrowski had championed small, modular Streetfighter combatants while serving as President of the Naval War College. And, as mentioned previously, he believed Streetfighters “must be designed to lose [that is, to be lost in combat]. If no risk or loss is contemplated, they are a poor design concept because they forego… economies of scale that are a prominent advantage…”115 Consistent with his experience as a combat aviator, he therefore envisioned LCS crews would simply abandon their ship after taking a serious hit. While Admiral Clark agreed with Admiral Cebrowski that the Navy needed small combatants in its future fleet design, he personally disagreed with the idea of an expendable warship and knew such a concept would never sell in the surface warfare community. The CNO therefore sought the most survivable ship possible within the program’s aggressive cost targets.116 In practical terms, this necessarily meant LCS seaframes could be built to no more than Level I survivability standards, the lowest of three levels then assigned to U.S. Navy warships.117 As explained in OPNAV (Office of the Chief of Naval Operations) instruction 9070.1, “Survivability Policy for Surface Ships of the U.S. Navy,” the governing U.S. Navy instruction on survivability in 2002-2003: Level I represents the least severe environment anticipated and excludes the need for enhanced survivability for designated ship classes to sustain operations in the immediate area of an engaged Battle Group or in the general war-at-sea region.118 In other words, LCS would not be expected to continue fighting after taking a hit. This design approach was consistent with mine warfare and PCs, which were both built to Level I standards. However, it was not as robust as the Perry-class FFG, with its Level II standards, designed to allow the ship to “conduct sustained combat operations following weapons impact,” much less the Level III standards used for large multimission ships to give them “the ability to deal with the broad degrading effects of damage from antiship cruise missiles, torpedoes, and mines.”119

http://awin.aviationweek.com/Portals/AWeek/Ares/work white paper.PDF
 
Dec 3, 2013
38,752
3
121
#37
I knew of the program long ago myself.

A disposable 475 million dollar ship recommended by a Naval Aviator makes about as much sense as a F-35 or the Osprey wastes of money these days I suppose.
 

NesuD

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,991
5
106
#38
So this is what Ford is boasting about when they say military grade aluminium. :p
Navy didn't want to admit someone dropped a tool box so they blamed the tugboat. ;)
 
Sep 25, 2001
25,196
117
126
#39
I know I'm just feeding the fire because so many folks haven't read up on the program, but:

Combat Survivability During the 2001-2003 timeframe, when the Navy was first deciding what it expected LCS to be, retired Vice Admiral Art Cebrowski became Director of the OSD’s new Office of Force Transformation. A naval aviator by trade, Vice Admiral 20 Cebrowski had championed small, modular Streetfighter combatants while serving as President of the Naval War College. And, as mentioned previously, he believed Streetfighters “must be designed to lose [that is, to be lost in combat]. If no risk or loss is contemplated, they are a poor design concept because they forego… economies of scale that are a prominent advantage…”115 Consistent with his experience as a combat aviator, he therefore envisioned LCS crews would simply abandon their ship after taking a serious hit. While Admiral Clark agreed with Admiral Cebrowski that the Navy needed small combatants in its future fleet design, he personally disagreed with the idea of an expendable warship and knew such a concept would never sell in the surface warfare community. The CNO therefore sought the most survivable ship possible within the program’s aggressive cost targets.116 In practical terms, this necessarily meant LCS seaframes could be built to no more than Level I survivability standards, the lowest of three levels then assigned to U.S. Navy warships.117 As explained in OPNAV (Office of the Chief of Naval Operations) instruction 9070.1, “Survivability Policy for Surface Ships of the U.S. Navy,” the governing U.S. Navy instruction on survivability in 2002-2003: Level I represents the least severe environment anticipated and excludes the need for enhanced survivability for designated ship classes to sustain operations in the immediate area of an engaged Battle Group or in the general war-at-sea region.118 In other words, LCS would not be expected to continue fighting after taking a hit. This design approach was consistent with mine warfare and PCs, which were both built to Level I standards. However, it was not as robust as the Perry-class FFG, with its Level II standards, designed to allow the ship to “conduct sustained combat operations following weapons impact,” much less the Level III standards used for large multimission ships to give them “the ability to deal with the broad degrading effects of damage from antiship cruise missiles, torpedoes, and mines.”119

http://awin.aviationweek.com/Portals/AWeek/Ares/work white paper.PDF
wall of txt
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS