While this may be true for “fender-benders”, when a vessel with a protruding bulbous bow (such as a relatively high speed container ship) hits something like the USS Fitzgerald, the bulbous bow is going to leave a mark (photo below courtesy of TradeWinds).
In particular, ice-strengthened “goose-neck” bulbous bows are exceptionally good battering rams. There has been some research on “crash-safe” designs such as “collapsible” bulbous bows, but I don’t think anything will be adopted unless the shipowners can see some benefit in using them. The same applies to impact-resistant side structures.
When I’m designing ships that operate in close proximity to other vessels (which have a tendency to blow up when touched inappropriately), I try to favor “soft-nose” design with heavy fendering so that if the two ships come together accidentally, the contact area absorbing the energy will be a as large as possible.
LOL! Where is the photo of the structural hull damages?
The temporary repairs - a patch with external (?) stiffeners - are plain stupid. You do not repair underwater hull damages like that.
Note that the Fitz has a superstructure (above the main deck) that extends >80% LPP. On top of that superstructure is a deck house, which is damaged (buckled and ripped apart).
When the Crystal’s port foc’sle flare/bulwark damages the Fitz deck house, the Crystal’s bulbous bow cannot damage the Fitz hull below waterline.
So it would be nice to see a photo of any underwater hull damages before a stupid ‘patch’ is fitted.
This guy pulls the same stunt every time he shows up here. Makes a ludicrous, unbelievable statement in the face of evidence showing otherwise, then makes even more ludicrous statements to attempt to defend his position. I think he just likes arguing with people on the internet.
Inevitably, his Coloumbi egg tanker design comes up, as well. Looks it got deleted already today.
Why do you get so upset? So far we haven’t seen any evidence of underwater contact damages … except a square hole in a hull with some external (?) beams fitted … and later some plates covering the hole. Temporary repairs? Pls, give me a break!
I am going with the pictures. There was underwater hull damage as supported by the photographs. The usni.org website link and professional journalist Sam Lagrone does not need to and would not lie about this.
As a retired naval officer, Surface Warfare Officer, and licensed MM, I participate in this forum. I read and understand the vast number of comments that are - deservedly - very unfavorable to the USN. There is no way that the Fitz should have been hit.
But you, sir, are beyond the pale. That protruding bulbous bow of Crystal made a 12ft x 17ft hole in the FItz, flooding three compartments almost immediately. One was a berthing compartment with over 100 sailors sleeping. The fact that only seven died - yes, all seven deaths were below decks - with no warning of the collision, is a testament to their prior egress training and the bravery of some who rescued so many others.
Last year I spent some time on your website. Sorry that I bothered.
I am only a greenhorn here and rightfully have no say, but if I did it would be to make you go away.
Must have lost a lot of frames/longitudinals of primary hull structure in the u/w impact area. Wouldn’t want to move much or take a chance setting down on the blocks - risk of twisting/sagging very high. Those external longitudinals will seriously restore “hull girder” strength through the process.
Regardless of what you call the part of the ship above the main deck, there’s a clear contact point at the main deck edge, indicated in the sketch below (photographs from various sources). The photograph of USS Fitzgerald’s damage posted by Steamer clearly shows that the collision was not perfectly perpendicular as the damage under the waterline is forward of the deck edge contact point: it is apparent that ACX Crystal hit the destroyer at “about” 45-degree angle, consistent with the sketch I posted some days ago, cthink’s pictures and pretty much every news report out there. The second photograph of the container ship shows that the bulbous bow is easily long enough to reach the skin of the destroyer which, USS Fitzgerald being a modern open water naval ship, is not very thick and resistant to intrusion.
As a conclusion, I don’t find anything suspicious in actual collision event or how it was reported in the media. As for the temporary fix, I’d say the external girders are required to support the temporary shell because there simply are no load-bearing structures (girders, decks) behind that hole. However, I don’t think they’ll contribute much to longitudinal strength. I’d be surprised if they towed the ship home afloat…
So would I. There are any number of HLV able to load her on their deck and take her to a shipyard in the States, No major repairs or strengthening need to be done, other than as already performed.
But all such vessels are Non-US flagged, or owned. At least two of the companies with suitable HLVs belong in NATO countries and have already carried USN vessels in the passed.
It should be noted that all the crews on such vessels are Russians, although with Estonian, Lithuanian or Ukrainian passports. In today’s political situation that may be an issue??
(The alternative is COSCO HLVs, with all Chinese crews)
The Cole hitched a ride on a Dockwise heavy lift after its attack in Yemen. If you’re referring to the Russia tensions currently engulfing the globe I’d imagine the U.S. Government could find a work around for that. Say a few squads of Marines camped out on the decks while in transit…
Are you sure? Maybe, as @cthink posted, they first collided at closer to a 90° angle and the speed of the Fitz pulled the angle more acute crushing more as the angle closed.
Somehow I doubt this. Regardless of the loading condition, the container ship had several times the displacement of the destroyer. The global moment required to turn the 700 ft hull about a vertical axis would have been of such magnitude that either the bulbous bow lodged inside the destroyer’s hull would have been ripped off or at least bent (as happened when Corvus J hit the Baltic Ace), or it would have dragged along the shell like a knife. However, judging from the photographs of both ACX Crystal and USS Fitzgerald, neither of this happened: the bulbous bow appears nearly intact and the hole on the side looks a “stab wound”. Thus, to me it appears that both vessels were traveling roughly to the same direction with relatively small speed difference. There’s also the damage that appears to having been caused by the anchor digging deeper and deeper into the deckhouse/superstructure.
Also, considering the size difference between the two vessels, I believe it would have been USS Fitzgerald that would have rolled against the container ship’s starboard bow (which is undamaged as far as I can tell).
However, I promise to stand corrected if I’m wrong.
Sorry, I didn’t mean roll in the typical context of a ship rolling but simply the angle between the two decreasing after impact. (I just edited out the poor word choice.)
No problem - I think I caught your meaning right. However, this is what I was thinking. However, considering that the impact point was well ahead of the COG/COF of the destroyer, I think it would have “rolled” on the port bow instead if the container ship had continued moving forward.
