Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

USS Fitzgerald collision.
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7743		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  BB1987 [ June 17th, 2017, 12:31 pm ]
Post subject:  USS Fitzgerald collision.
USN destroyer USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62), collided with a containership off Yokosuka at 2.30AM (local time). 7 sailors are currently missing, probably lost at sea.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ship-japan
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/16/polit ... index.html

[ img ]

:(
Author:  superboy [ June 17th, 2017, 1:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: USS Fitzgerald collision.
[ img ]

and

[ img ]
Author:  iiradned [ June 17th, 2017, 5:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: USS Fitzgerald collision.
I figure courts martial for members of the ship's company in the future, plus months in dry dock.

Depending on the damage below the waterline from the bulbous bow they have to figure whether it is worth it for a 22 year old DDG.
Author:  KHT [ June 17th, 2017, 6:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: USS Fitzgerald collision.
Ouf. Hope the poor buggers are found alive.
Author:  erik_t [ June 17th, 2017, 9:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: USS Fitzgerald collision.
The sea is a dangerous place. Best wishes to all parties, no matter who screwed up the most here.

As an aside (not that it's the most important thing right now), does anybody know the nature of the faceted objects outboard of the bridge wing? They appear to be angled at +-45deg like the SPY-1 arrays, so one presumes some electronic function. It's not clear if SLQ-32 was fitted below this, since that area is damaged beyond recognition...

EDIT: SLQ-32 is present, but these units still seem very likely ESM in nature.
iiradned wrote: *June 17th, 2017, 5:52 pm
I figure courts martial for members of the ship's company in the future, plus months in dry dock.

Depending on the damage below the waterline from the bulbous bow they have to figure whether it is worth it for a 22 year old DDG.
If there's really serious talk about recommissioning old junker Perry hulls to bring up combatant numbers, I find it impossible to imagine a Burke would be scrapped almost no matter the material condition.
Author:  BB1987 [ June 17th, 2017, 9:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: USS Fitzgerald collision.
erik_t wrote: *June 17th, 2017, 9:07 pm
If there's really serious talk about recommissioning old junker Perry hulls to bring up combatant numbers, I find it impossible to imagine a Burke would be scrapped almost no matter the material condition.
I 'm thining the same. The USS cole was repaired as well and she had some pretty serious hull damage caused by the suicide boat blast. Also, her name currently escapes me, but there was that Perry that got her keel snapped and was at risk of sinking after striking a mine during the Iran-Iraq war in the 80s, she was repaired as well.
(belknap had her superstructure gutted by fire after colliding with the Kennedy and had to be completely rebuilt, but being aluminium I suppose it was an easier and less costly task)
Author:  acelanceloet [ June 17th, 2017, 10:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: USS Fitzgerald collision.
as for the last remark: Aluminium is actually somewhat more expensive and harder to build ships in, as it is harder to weld and more costly to get.
Author:  emperor_andreas [ June 17th, 2017, 11:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: USS Fitzgerald collision.
Heard from one source that the merchant passed Fitz going on an opposite course, then did a complete turnaround and headed right for her. If so, that opens up a whole other can of worms.

Prayers to Fitz's crew, and the missing sailors and their families.
Author:  heuhen [ June 18th, 2017, 12:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: USS Fitzgerald collision.
Since we all are speculating.

It all comes down to what an extensive repair cost compared to build new.

For USS Cole, I don't know how they repaired here, but do the container repair is one way to do it, cut out the entire damaged section, and add in a new section, in the same way as we build ships nowadays... except for some internal repair/rebuild, of course.


For USS Fitzgerald, superstructure... I would just replace that part of section that is damaged and just do normal fix by: "cut and weld". Under water is a different story... without knowledge about that damage... but if the bulbous bow hit the hull straight on, you should have a nice hole. Temporary fix is to just weld a plate over, so it can go back to a US shipyard on it's own.

I'm wondering, do they have steal hull but light weight aluminium superstructure, just like most cruise ship have, to get the center of gravity as far down as possible. if so, the damage under water should be as "awesome" as on the superstructure, just some big cracks....

But then everything is just speculation.


1 ship down, should the US Navy notice to much, since they have enough ships to rotate on (ships that are in dock, homeport, "not in service", etc.) aircraft carrier how ever...
Author:  BB1987 [ June 18th, 2017, 7:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: USS Fitzgerald collision.
acelanceloet wrote: *June 17th, 2017, 10:01 pm
as for the last remark: Aluminium is actually somewhat more expensive and harder to build ships in, as it is harder to weld and more costly to get.
I stand corrected then.

heuhen wrote: *June 18th, 2017, 12:02 am
It all comes down to what an extensive repair cost compared to build new.

For USS Cole, I don't know how they repaired here, but do the container repair is one way to do it, cut out the entire damaged section, and add in a new section, in the same way as we build ships nowadays... except for some internal repair/rebuild, of course.
USS Cole got some great nasty damage, the hole and twisted hull plates went basically from just below the main deck down to the bilge keel:
https://www.fbi.gov/image-repository/co ... image/high
heuhen wrote: *June 18th, 2017, 12:02 am
For USS Fitzgerald, superstructure... I would just replace that part of section that is damaged and just do normal fix by: "cut and weld". Under water is a different story... without knowledge about that damage... but if the bulbous bow hit the hull straight on, you should have a nice hole. Temporary fix is to just weld a plate over, so it can go back to a US shipyard on it's own.

I'm wondering, do they have steal hull but light weight aluminium superstructure, just like most cruise ship have, to get the center of gravity as far down as possible. if so, the damage under water should be as "awesome" as on the superstructure, just some big cracks....
If damage is serious enough, they might probably not bring her home under her own power, but more likely carrying her on another ship, just like it was done with Cole:
[ img ]
(blue Marlin if I do not remember it wrong)

emperor_andreas wrote: *June 17th, 2017, 11:42 pm
Heard from one source that the merchant passed Fitz going on an opposite course, then did a complete turnaround and headed right for her. If so, that opens up a whole other can of worms.
I saw too a radar track sowing the containership 180° yesterday (Fitzgerald's track was not there though) but we definitely know too few to make any call.
emperor_andreas wrote: *June 17th, 2017, 11:42 pm
Prayers to Fitz's crew, and the missing sailors and their families.
Unfortunately, it appears that some (number non disclosed) of the missing saiors had been found dead inside the flooded berthing compartments :(
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/