Could you walk me through actually qualified OOD watch standing time? Not concerned about the training before hand with 10 JOs on the bridge, or BDOC with one week of simulator, I’m talking about ACTUAL days they have the preverbal BALL in their hand as OOD. I’m pretty familiar with first and second tour division officers and there training and know it can vary widely.
Attention all terrorists! Want to cripple a US Navy warship? Put a fanatic on a slow, lumbering, slothful commercial ship as able bodied seamen or mate. When your faithful sees a US Navy ship he should disable the other person on the bridge (if there is one) and turn his slow ship to intercept. Don’t worry, the US Navy ship won’t evade. At most it will call on VHF and tell him to give a two mile CPA (if it even notices his ship at all). Its that simple!
How to find a US Navy ship? That’s easy! Every modern ship has a US Navy detector in the form of integrated radar/AIS. He should be on the lookout for a radar contact that isn’t broadcasting an AIS position. Genius!
With enough faithful on enough commercial ships the world’s most powerful navy can be brought to its knees!
Thanks for the photo of the port side and the stern. What about the starboard side? Ripped open below waterline?
As I said in my post/link that were removed, when ships collide at sea in most cases the structural damages are only above waterline.
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.
AXC Crystal is still at a shipyard in Japan for repairs: https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:722169/mmsi:548789000/imo:9360611/vessel:ACX_CRYSTAL
Arrived from Yokohama 27. July. No ETD.
Tell that to the families of the dead sailors who drowned below the waterline.
Are you completely ignorant or just a foul troll?
I assume the dead sailors were in the damaged deck house and didn’t drown. They were crushed to death. .
I know that in the old days sailors lived/slept in a hold on top of the double bottom but I doubt it is the case today.
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…
I for one would enjoy your perspective, especially with experience on civilian as well as military vessels.
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…