LCS Fort Worth Suffers Gear Damage in Singapore


#21

[QUOTE=catherder;178687] I hope there’s a public hanging.[/QUOTE]

They might deserve hanging but they shouldn’t hang alone.

FWIW, the latest MARAD budget shows that the MSP is getting $211 million in 2016. That is the cost to the nation to support a US Merchant Marine presence on the high seas. KP is getting $96 million to support a ring sales program for future MARAD employees.

The DoD is paying $1.437 billion (that is BILLION) for 3 LSC ships - not counting modifications to make them work until they break down.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33741.pdf

Why McCain isn’t having a stroke about that should be surprising but it isn’t … just because the cost of 3 floating turds is enough to support a viable US Merchant Marine for nearly 7 years doesn’t seem to be a better value to the nation than welfare payments to the fine folks who brought us the TWIC and the F-35. By the way, that F-35 debacle got a $10.6 billion bailout last year

to keep that failed* campaign contribution system generating revenue for McCain and his friends. That bailout alone would have kept the USMM afloat for an additional 50 years or so … tell me again what is a better deal for the US taxpayer and the nation as a whole.

  • Failed as a fighter but it is an incredibly effective device to extract cash from the public bank account.

#22

[QUOTE=Steamer;178737]They might deserve hanging but they shouldn’t hang alone.

FWIW, the latest MARAD budget shows that the MSP is getting $211 million in 2016. That is the cost to the nation to support a US Merchant Marine presence on the high seas. KP is getting $96 million to support a ring sales program for future MARAD employees.

The DoD is paying $1.437 billion (that is BILLION) for 3 LSC ships - not counting modifications to make them work until they break down.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33741.pdf

Why McCain isn’t having a stroke about that should be surprising but it isn’t … just because the cost of 3 floating turds is enough to support a viable US Merchant Marine for nearly 7 years doesn’t seem to be a better value to the nation than welfare payments to the fine folks who brought us the TWIC and the F-35. By the way, that F-35 debacle got a $10.6 billion bailout last year

to keep that failed* campaign contribution system generating revenue for McCain and his friends. That bailout alone would have kept the USMM afloat for an additional 50 years or so … tell me again what is a better deal for the US taxpayer and the nation as a whole.

  • Failed as a fighter but it is an incredibly effective device to extract cash from the public bank account.[/QUOTE]

Add to that the cumulative costs of the LPD-17s…how much did those white elephants end up costing the public?

Plenty of room on that gallows for more.


#23

just an update which states the gearbox damage is catastrophic. No big problem according to the Navee STOOGES though…these ships can sink an entire battlefleet (of paper sampans perhaps?)

[B]Navy LCS Fort Worth crippled after botched maintenance[/B]

Tony Capaccio 4/8/2016

(Bloomberg) – The Fort Worth, the third littoral combat ship deployed by the U.S. Navy, suffered “extensive damage” during the botched maintenance procedure in January that’s left the crippled vessel sidelined in Singapore ever since, according to the service’s top weapons buyer.

A Navy team has been examining the vessel built by Lockheed Martin Corp. since the January 12 incident, when gears that propel the ship were damaged, Assistant Navy Secretary Sean Stackley said in Washington. An investigation is continuing into the failure that’s thought to have been caused by crew error rather than a design flaw.

“What they are finding is that the damage is pretty extensive,” with debris scattered through the primary propulsion system, Stackley told reporters after a congressional hearing on Wednesday, in the service’s most extensive comments on the issue. “We’re weighing the choice between repairing it in theater or repairing it at home.”

While the Navy said last week that the damage to the Fort Worth led it to relieve the vessel’s commander of his post, Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Navy leaders haven’t mentioned the setback publicly or been asked about it. Instead, they have praised the program’s importance. The Fort Worth was on a 16-month deployment to Asia as proof of the Navy’s “rebalance” to the Pacific.

‘Terrific Deployment’

The Fort Worth “has just had a terrific deployment to the Pacific,” Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said during a House Defense Appropriations subcommittee hearing on March 1, without noting that it’s been sitting immobile in port.

Critics of the littoral combat ship, made in two versions by Lockheed and Austal Ltd., have questioned whether the light vessel designed for shallow coastal waters could survive an attack. Carter and his predecessor, Chuck Hagel, have cited that concern and budget priorities in cutting back the planned fleet to 40 from an initial 52.

The Fort Worth’s damage was to combining gears that let the ship run on a mix of diesel and gas turbine engines.

Initial indications were that the damage “appears to be caused by a failure to follow established procedures during maintenance,” according to a Jan. 21 Navy memo. “During startup of the main propulsion diesel engines, lube oil was not supplied to the ship’s combining gears.”

Now, Navy personnel must open up the damaged section and flush out its lubrication system “over a long period of time,” Stackley said. “It’s not going to be a quick flush.”

After that, the service must determine “how extensive is the damage — therefore how extensive is the repair?” Stackley, said.

The Navy also needs to determine whether to repair the vessel in Singapore or in a U.S. port after coming home on its two undamaged gas turbine engines, Stackley said.

“If the decision is to repair it back home, then we’ve got to get the ship in the condition to drive it back,” Stackley said. A heavy-lift vessel could transport it, he said, “but you always want to come home on your own power.”

Simply TERRIFIC!


#24

[QUOTE=c.captain;183114]just an update which states the gearbox damage is catastrophic. No big problem according to the Navee STOOGES though…these ships can sink an entire battlefleet (of paper sampans perhaps?)Simply TERRIFIC![/QUOTE]

Maybe we should all donate our TWIC cards to Lockheed, sort of like an old time “paper drive” or “junk drive” so they can sell them for scrap and pay for the repairs.

I guess we are as stupid as Congress and the military think we are because we should be marching on DC with pitchforks after they foist this kind of shit on us. They say we deserve the leadership we elect but this is so far beyond just incompetence, greed, and stupidity it begs the question of who the DoD and their contractor handlers are working for.


#25

so the Navee is being cheap and going to try to limp the vessel back to the US with its gas turbines. That is a long trip without a whole lot of ports to call in if there are problems. Wonder if they are going to have a tug escort them?

[B]Damaged LCS to return home under own power[/B]

APRIL 14, 2016 – The U.S.Pacific Fleet said yesterday that the Freedom Class littoral combat ship USS Fort Worth (LCS 3) will make preparations to get underway from Singapore on its own power and transit to San Diego this summer.

Fort Worth experienced an engineering casualty to the ship’s combining gears January in Singapore that will require an extensive repair period.

At the time of the casualty U.S. Pacific Fleet said that, "based on initial indications, the casualty occurred due to an apparent failure to follow procedures during an operational test of the port and starboard main propulsion diesel engines.

The Fort Worth’s commanding officer, Cmdr. Michael L. Atwell was subsequently relieved due to loss of confidence in his ability to command."

The loss of confidence followed an investigation into the facts and circumstances surrounding the engineering casualty. U.S. Pacific Fleet said that,although the investigation was still under review “sufficient findings of facts emerged during the investigation to warrant the relief of the commanding officer.”

Fort Worth’s propulsion machinery consists of two Rolls-Royce MT30 36 MW gas turbines, two Colt-Pielstick diesel engines and four Rolls-Royce waterjets. The combining gears allow Fort Worth to configure different types and combinations of engines for propulsion at sea.

The ship will use its gas turbine engines to transit to San Diego from its current location. The transit is expected to take about six weeks with several underway replenishments and planned fueling stops along the way.

Preparations are expected to take several months to complete necessary inspections, conduct lube oil system flushes and configure the engineering plant for safe operations.The decision to complete full repair of Fort Worth’s combining gears in San Diego was based on several factors, including maintenance timelines, efficiency of repairs, and shipyard capabilities.

Repairs will be conducted during Fort Worth’s previously scheduled selected restricted availability with docking (SRA(d)) maintenance period, reducing the overall cost to the Navy. It has yet to be determined whether the SRA(d) duration will be extended due to the combining gear repair work.

As Fort Worth demonstrated through continuous operations in 2015, littoral combat ships provide an important capability in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region and planning continues for future LCS deployments, says the Navy.

I wonder if they are not using a submersible ship to carry it because of the embarrassment factor?


#26

Heavy lift transport seems to make more economic sense if the voyage on its own power will take 6 weeks with numerous underway replenishment evolutions.


#27

[QUOTE=salt’n steel;183237]Heavy lift transport seems to make more economic sense if the voyage on its own power will take 6 weeks with numerous underway replenishment evolutions.[/QUOTE]

with the slowdown in oil these days you’d think the owners of submersible ships would be very competitive to get the work but the Navee knows better. I for one will not be surprised one bit if the Navee is taking this step to prevent them from getting even more egg on their faces but I will also not be surprised one bit if the ship doesn’t make it all the way back and needs to be lifted in the end.

besides, running on turbines with all those upreps required? How much is it gonna cost us taxpayers to keep that piece of shit refuelled along the way? FUCK THE NAVY!


#28

[QUOTE=salt’n steel;183237]Heavy lift transport seems to make more economic sense if the voyage on its own power will take 6 weeks with numerous underway replenishment evolutions.[/QUOTE]

I believe the US Navy now have access to US Flag HLVs with enough deck length to carry an LCS??: http://worldmaritimenews.com/archives/106465/us-navys-2nd-mobile-landing-platform-enters-service/

If not there are MANY civilian vessels that can.

I’m sure COSCO HT would be pleased to give a competitive quote: http://www.coscoht.com/semi-submersible.php


#29

I would think that the US navy are regretting building the Freedom class and the Independence class instead of the Skjold class. To big for littoral waters and to small for everything else.

No wonder the US defence budget is as gigantic as it is.


#30

I’m sure it won’t be cheap. Your probably right C. Captain- the decision is more likely a feel good move to give the ship and crew a chance to save face in a overwhelming negative public perspective of the LCS program. Once the ship returns to San Diego it will be medals all around and salivating government contractors on the repair team. The only loser is the former commanding officer who took the fall (comes with the job) for someone else’s mistake.


#31

[QUOTE=Kraken;183246]I would think that the US navy are regretting building the Freedom class and the Independence class …[/QUOTE]

I doubt anyone in the Navy regrets squat about those programs. The contractor lapdogs are well fed no matter what happens.

I think the piece of crap should be scuttled in deep water and save us taxpayers a pile of cash. Then fire everyone who signed a single piece of paper with that program name on it.


#32

Not only the US Navy has a Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)program. The second of 8 Littoral Mission Vessels (LMV) for the Singapore Navy has been launched: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/navy-s-strength-key-to/2701270.html

Coincidentally this is known as the Independence class, just like one of the classes of LCS built for the US Navy. They are not the same design, however. The RSN vessels are of an entirely home grown design, although some of the weaponry and equipment are imported: http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/resourcelibrary/cyberpioneer/topics/articles/news/2015/jul/03jul15_news.html

None of the LMVs launched so far has been commissioned yet, but are undergoing sea trials.
Let’s hope they prove more successful than their US counterparts, otherwise head will roll at ST Marine and RSN. Singapore Government does NOT tolerate mistakes or incompetence easily.


#33

[QUOTE=ombugge;183277]Singapore Government does NOT tolerate mistakes or incompetence easily.[/QUOTE]

Our government and Navy not only tolerate it, they thrive on it and the campaign contributions and retirement jobs it creates.


#34

[QUOTE=Steamer;183282]Our government and Navy not only tolerate it, they thrive on it and the campaign contributions and retirement jobs it creates.[/QUOTE]

Could we paraphrase Winston Churchill and say; “You can always thrust the US Navy to get it right in the end, after they have exhausted all other options”?

PS> No, I’m not anti-US Navy. It’s called sarcasm.


#35

[QUOTE=ombugge;183314]…after they have exhausted all other options"? [/QUOTE]

I’m trying to think of an example of them “getting it right” since Churchill was PM.


#36

[QUOTE=Steamer;183316]I’m trying to think of an example of them “getting it right” since Churchill was PM.[/QUOTE]

I am trying to figure out the moment that new vessels built for the Navee became overpriced worthless shitpiles? Was it with the PERRY Class FFG’s? Compared to an LCS they are battlewagons! They are single screw though and there was the talk that their aluminum superstructures made them very vulnerable to both small calibre weapons fire and to fire itself.


#37

[QUOTE=c.captain;183319]I am trying to figure out the moment that new vessels built for the Navee became overpriced worthless shitpiles? Was it with the PERRY Class FFG’s? Compared to an LCS they are battlewagons! They are single screw though and there was the talk that their aluminum superstructures made them very vulnerable to both small calibre weapons fire and to fire itself.[/QUOTE]

They are also very vulnerable to stress corrosion cracking.


#38

I believe the last of the Perry FFG-7 class has been retired or transferred to foreign navies. They were not formidable looking warships but I think the US Navy got what they paid for and most saw at least 20 years of service. USS Stark took a hit from a Exocet missile during the Iran-Iraq war and Samuel B Roberts hit a mine. Both were returned to service.


#39

Surprise surprise surprise … not.


#40

$350m for an aluminum “warship”? They could buy 6-7 slightly used OSV’s and mount rockets and guns on them for that much money. They have about the same hull strength.