The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - December 1, 2008

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest
Advertisement
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Surface Forces Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Fleet wide problems with AB Structual Integrity.
John G    10/11/2007 8:30:53 AM
I've read on Janes that "Rear Admiral Kevin McCoy, the chief engineer at Naval Sea Systems Command's Naval Systems Engineering Directorate, the navy approved a USD62 million "bow-strengthening backfit" to address "local buckling of deck transverse beams" and other structural damage in a number of destroyers."

Ive read that the USN is addressing the issue but I'm wondering is this something that would be possibly underlying for the rest of the AB's service life? Would it affect combat performance ie increase the likelyhood of a missile/torpedo breaking the ships back with one hit?

Any responses from people in the know greatly appreciated!
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
John G    .............................................   10/16/2007 8:41:38 AM
Wow this is a popular thread...
 
Quote    Reply

kevintk    Good questions   10/16/2007 1:16:32 PM
I don't know the answer but would also be interested in hearing some knowledgeable commentary or speculation. The lack of response is curious.

Is this a design problem, faulty materials, assembly/manufacturing? Does show a degradation in American ship-building skills (note probs with new coast guard ships)?
 
Quote    Reply

xylene       10/16/2007 3:11:35 PM
That type of buckling sounds more like a seamanship issue where officers are allowing their ships to pound through waves instead of slowing down.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Normal wear amd tear. Non-issue as it is NORMAL to everybody.   10/16/2007 3:15:30 PM
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

John G    Xylene and Herald.   10/17/2007 10:34:27 AM
I would tend to agree with you both normally, however that it is affecting so many ships and that many of the newest batch of ships are undergoing strengthening already this makes me think that it is not normal at all. As in the article the USS Gridley only commisioned in Feb this year is already with BAe in San Diego for repairs for this problem in fact the problem was that bad that beams were cut out and had to be replaced.
 
This is by no stretch of the imagination normal wear and tear or NORMAL to everybody.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Don't confuse necessary operational backfit with sloppy workmanship.   10/17/2007 12:41:20 PM
As I said, this is NORMAL. Example: some RN ships [type 22s] were bow strengthened when their scantling during normal operations gave way. This is not uncommon when you introduce or modify a class. In fact it is something that most shipbuilders PLAN to do over the life of a ship. You never know exactly what the sea is going to do to your hull; until you slide it in and bob it around for a while.

I would be worried, if we started to amputate ARLEIGH bows and do entire foredeck rebuilds as the USCG might have to do. [DEEPWATER].

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan       10/17/2007 1:19:43 PM
If this is a way to strengthen bows against torpedo hits or our wonderful military contractors are short changing the US military and US people AGAIN on behalf of their traitorous executives and shareholders, we'll never know.  Hopefully this problem gets fixed before we face a navy with torpedoes.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    NAN   10/17/2007 1:26:27 PM
This isn't the LPD-17, DDX, DEEPWATER or the LCS fiasco . Its NORMAL. You are right to be paranoid, but this time the contractor is really not guilty.

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       10/17/2007 2:00:48 PM
Here is a slightly more informative article about the problem.  The bottom line is that, while the ships were correctly built according to specifications, the Navy's own specifications apparently weren't quite adequate for some conditions.  The Navy says that the damage is not severe, but will have to be compensated for to maintain the ships' full service life.  This pretty much makes sense in light of the relatively low cost of the repairs ($63 million for the fleet).
 
Quote    Reply

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy