US boats bent!

It would appear that the US destroyers are not strong enough to withstand the forces put on them! Whoops.

www.janes.com...

I'm worried about the service life issues this may cause, seeing as how apparently it is not an immediate operational problem.

[edit on 18-10-2007 by WestPoint23]

warping of main transverse bulkhead beams

erm wouldn`t that lead to `water tight doors` not being water tight :O

apparantly the USS Gridley (DDG 101) had `issues` after her shake down cruise (not yet in service!)


cost cutting gone wrong maybe?

Originally posted by paperplane_uk
It would appear that the US destroyers are not strong enough to withstand the forces put on them! Whoops.

The ships are plenty fine, don't you worry. If I were you I would be more worried about the type 42/45/23 problems you are having in the UK.

Seriously, the ships were designed to be primarily open ocean vessels and now they are finding themselves in the littorals where the sea state is higher.

There is nothing to worry about here, the repair is straight forward and easily accomplished.

reply to post by COOL HAND


The USS Gridley was having problems in open ocean on her shake down cruise - and the sea state can be far HIGHER in open ocean than litoral

Originally posted by Harlequin
The USS Gridley was having problems in open ocean on her shake down cruise - and the sea state can be far HIGHER in open ocean than litoral

Where are you getting that information from? The sea state increases as you come into the littorals due to the decreased depth of the water. There are the possibility of rogue waves that are larger in the open ocean, but they do not design ships to handle those since they are infrequent and impossible to predict.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
The ships are plenty fine, don't you worry. If I were you I would be more worried about the type 42/45/23 problems you are having in the UK.

Just curious, but what problems are there with the Type 42, 23 and 45?

Regards

This is not a new phenomonon. It has been going on as long as ships have put to sea. Yes it is a problem for the yards who built them but it is not new.

I recall listening to some olde timers and ham radio operators who had been in the Navy during WW2 speaking of this problem after the war with destroyers in the North Atlantic during a particularly stormy year. These ships got bent due to being tossed to and frow in the waves. It is quite impressive to see these movies of water coming over the flight deck of an aircraft carrier. Now that is some rough seas!!!

Nonetheless these olde timers spoke of the Navy having to revise thier structural designs to strengthen for this kind of difficulty.
I surmised by thier conversation that some of these ships during the conflict were rather quickly put together for the war effort. However I would think that lessons learned would still be there with new designs. Makes one wonder. I think the same thing when they had so many problems some years back getting some rockets of the ground here in the USA. Makes you think someone was not taught history or is having a brain fart.

I have been hearing these concerns too concerning submaries in that they no longer do that kind of broaching of the water you see in some videos of the submaries (688 class boats) speedily coming to the surface after driving themselves up at steep angles. Somewhere between a quarter to a third of the boat broaches the surface. This is discouraged anymore out of concerns for structural problems. It does however make for some cool photo ops.

Thanks,
Orangetom

[edit on 19-10-2007 by orangetom1999]

The battleships may be going back to San Diego for repair but it isn't because there keels are bending. Naval engineers didn't make that kind of mistake, they have too much information about ship design. Thats a fairy tale similar to the one about the Hubble design being found flawed after it was in orbit.

I would speculate that the Navy has a major new design for the battleship and that they need a cover story to bring all the battleships back in for modification or that they were being brought back in and a new ship that looked the same or close to the same was being substituted.

If I had to speculate on what that new design was I would speculate that they have computerized the battleship to the point where no human is required to be on board and that the ship is operated by computers through satellite.

I would also speculate that if any repairs are necessary to these new computerized battleships that a 9 man crew is placed aboard by helicopter to effect the repairs.

If I had to speculate what the Navy was calling this new battleship I would speculate that it is called "Fleet 21".

reply to post by johnlear

If I had to speculate on what that new design was I would speculate that they have computerized the battleship to the point where no human is required to be on board and that the ship is operated by computers through satellite.

If this were the case (and no doubt there is no ready proof) exactly what happens when the inevitable occurs and something onboard breaks? Who will be there to sort out the mess(quickly) when a 5 inch shell gets jammed or mashed by the autoloader ram? What happens when there is a sudden critical problem in the engine room that requires some traditional hands on trouble shooting?

You may or may not be on the right track with an experiment into automating a "Burke"(hell it's a logical thing to try), but I hardly see why anyone would conclude that buckling a few Arleigh Burkes is a cover story for something secret. Warship design may have come a long way but modern vessels tend to be built lighter than their WWII cousins for example. And naval architects still make mistakes regardless of how much information they have at hand. I recall seeing damage caused by heavy seas on a 60's vintage Adams class destroyer operated by the RAN years ago, and they were one tough ship. And I know it happens on a not too irregular basis even today.

I think it more likely that the USN will start with automation of small vessels and maybe in 20-30 years look at something frigate or destroyer sized. Thats not to say they might not attempt a series of secret programed experiments now, but it is highly unlikely they would start concocting stories and attempting to convert a large number of ships. Far too many people would need to be involved to not let the cat out of the bag on that one, not to mention the suddenly superfluous crews of dozens of ships. Nope I think it's a Freudian chair, it is just what it appears to be.

LEE.



[edit on 21-10-2007 by thebozeian]

More than a dozen Arleigh Burke-class destroyers have suffered “significant” structural damage in rough seas because designers didn’t account for the effect of “bow slams” on the ships’ hulls, Navy documents said — and they said fixing the problem could cost almost $63 million.

link

wouldnt be too worried at all
now back to being a lurker again

Originally posted by johnlear
The battleships may be going back to San Diego for repair but it isn't because there keels are bending. Naval engineers didn't make that kind of mistake, they have too much information about ship design. Thats a fairy tale similar to the one about the Hubble design being found flawed after it was in orbit.

I would speculate that the Navy has a major new design for the battleship and that they need a cover story to bring all the battleships back in for modification or that they were being brought back in and a new ship that looked the same or close to the same was being substituted.

If I had to speculate on what that new design was I would speculate that they have computerized the battleship to the point where no human is required to be on board and that the ship is operated by computers through satellite.

I would also speculate that if any repairs are necessary to these new computerized battleships that a 9 man crew is placed aboard by helicopter to effect the repairs.

If I had to speculate what the Navy was calling this new battleship I would speculate that it is called "Fleet 21".

oh good lord.. this guy knows NOTHING about not just the United States Navy, but naval architecture and naming terminology in the first place.. first, they are Destroyers NOT Battleships.. 2nd, the US Navy's Warships have ta da.... HOMEPORTS where it's ships spend a significant part of their time, they don't have to "bring them back in for modification"

I am a plankowner of the USS Momsen DDG 92 (means I was part of the ships company from before it was comissioned into the US Navy, for me, I was part of the ships company from before it went into the water) and the Momsen has the same problem as the Gridley, it will be fixed as part of a routine yard period. Now for the part of not having a crew onboard. Seems that the 320+ people onboard the Momsen sure made for a crew, and while it's definitely computerized, they are NO WHERE near computerized enough to go into combat without a crew. Till we get the technology of the Borg (of Star Trek) and our ships can repair themselves, in combat our major warship will continue to have a crew, even if it's just for damage control.

The UK type 42 had a similar problem. Look at the later ones, they have a great big box section added to the top of the hull to strengthen them.

according to wikki - they shortened the original design by 47 feet , which made for the problems - the last 4 ships were built to the original length (and displacement - 5200 tons vs 4800)

Originally posted by dundonrl

oh good lord.. this guy knows NOTHING about not just the United States Navy, but naval architecture and naming terminology in the first place.

Boy, you got that right. Back to the drawing boards.

first, they are Destroyers NOT Battleships.

My bad.

2nd, the US Navy's Warships have ta da.... HOMEPORTS where it's ships spend a significant part of their time, they don't have to "bring them back in for modification"

Thanks for the input, it is greatly appreciated.

Dundonr,

USS Momsen?? Momsen...after "Swede Momsen??" The guy who developed the rescue diving bell for submarines??
OOOHRAHHHHHH!!!

I have been in the yards for some time now working on different kinds of ships from commercial to Naval. Even some drycocknig equipment...drydock gates . floating drydocks etc etc.

I have had the privelege of going on board the USS Gettysburg for some overtime one weekend. What a shock!! I had until that time always assumed as a surface ship, she was more roomy than the submarines I had been working. What a shock and a education. Not so!! Other than the engine rooms the biggest or roomiest area seemed to be the galley. Everything else was crammed full of gear.
IT was the same with the berthing. Not much roomier than a submarine.
I got my education on the surface navy that weekend!!

I also noted that the hulls were not all that thick. It appeared to me as a trade off for speed. These surface ships can flat get it when they need so to do and speed can be life. One look at the wheels confirmed this quite clearly. She is a race car here.

I believe that designers have traded off some hull strength/weight for speed here.

Harsh seas are a different story ..for any ship.

This is why the submariners like it below 150 feet during harsh weather.
These boats arent worth a darn on the surface even on good seas.

Thanks,
Orangetom

[edit on 21-10-2007 by orangetom1999]

[edit on 21-10-2007 by orangetom1999]

Originally posted by johnlear
If I had to speculate on what that new design was I would speculate that they have computerized the battleship to the point where no human is required to be on board and that the ship is operated by computers through satellite.

That's a good idea - now if you were an enemy all you have to do is whack the the thing with a lovely big electro magnetic pulse, board the thing (with no HUMAN resistance) tow the tub to somewhere you could refit the electronic bits and bobs you fried and bingo - free ship.

Bending boats isnt that uncomon, I mean I've just got off a boat (FINALLY!) and the tail shaft was bent by heavy weather. Boats are invincible and nature is still a force to be recokned with...

Originally posted by devilwasp
Boats are invincible and nature is still a force to be recokned with...

I hope you missed a NOT from that sentence.

The Ticonderoga, Kidd, and Spruance classes of warships are all built on the same hull design. I am not sure if the lead ships ever had any hull problems related to the bow buckling or warping, but I would assume that a fix was found and incorperated into all future hulls.

The Burke class is a new design incorperating a shorter and wider hull, but uses the same type of engines as the ships mentioned above.

Interestingly enough, the Burke's were envisioned to be on the low end of the navy's high/low mix of warships.

With the Navy's future ship designs being radically different from any warship today, why wouldn't they stay with a proven hull like that of the Spruance class, one in which all the sea keeping qualities are known?

The Burke's are having some teething problems, and i am sure they will be worked out in due time.