Cruiser On The Rocks

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Cruiser On The Rocks

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Cruiser On The Rocks

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Cruiser On The Rocks - 2/15/2009 9:46:05 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

From today's strategypage.net

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsurf/articles/20090215.aspx

Cruiser On The Rocks

February 15, 2009: The USS Port Royal, an American cruiser, ran aground on February 5th, as it returned to its base in Hawaii after the first day of sea trials. The ship slid into a shoal of sand and rock, which was actually construction debris from a nearby air port. The Port Royal had spent the last four months in a shipyard, getting a normal batch of upgrades and maintenance. The 9,600 ton ship has been in service for 15 years, and is the 27th, and last, Ticonderoga class cruiser to be built.

It took four days to get the cruiser off the shoal, which was done by removing about a thousand tons of weight from the ship. It's not been announced how it hit the shoal, which is marked on charts. The Port Royal draws 33 feet of water, and the shoal is 22 feet under water. The captain of the Port Royal was relieved, which is normal for a grounding such as this.

The only damage mentioned is to the propellers (the tips were torn off), and a leak in one of the sonar domes. There was no hull breach. It is also believed that propeller shaft and shaft bearings will probably have to be replaced as well. In the old days before electric drive, her engines might have been screwed as well in this kind of situation. So hooray for electric drive, it saved the navy a lot of money in this case.

So after one day of sea trials, the Port Royal is headed right back to the shipyard and dry dock. There will probably be courts martial for whoever screwed up the navigation that put the ship on a known shoal. Professional mariners don't do that sort of thing in clear weather and calm seas.

Post #: 1

RE: Cruiser On The Rocks - 2/15/2009 10:37:09 PM

khyberbill

Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline

I was on the Sturgeon, SSN 637 when she ran into the island of St. Croix at greater than 400 feet and right at 20 knots in 1973. That was not an enjoyable moment in my life. The captain was relieved within a few days and the XO was also relieved as he was the acting navigator at the time. We were given a temporary captain for the trip back to New London.

Four years later I was working for a crummy company at a job site as a rent a tech and wearing my Sturgeon ball cap and along came the temporary captain who recognized the ball cap and asked me when I served. One thing led to another and I was hired on the spot to a better job, and company.

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 2

RE: Cruiser On The Rocks - 2/15/2009 11:06:01 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

That is a cool story. Good for you.

(in reply to khyberbill)

Post #: 3

RE: Cruiser On The Rocks - 2/16/2009 12:22:46 AM

marky

Posts: 5780
Joined: 3/8/2004
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline

that IS a cool story khyber

i heard about Port Royal, she was pretty close to shore by the looks of it

the navy should however be alot more lenient, considering the Juneau and Indianapolis events(how can u possibly misplace 2 ships for that long?)

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 4

RE: Cruiser On The Rocks - 2/16/2009 1:06:41 AM

khyberbill

Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline

quote:

the navy should however be alot more lenient, considering the Juneau and Indianapolis events(how can u possibly misplace 2 ships for that long?)

Well now, first of all, there are usually more Captains waiting for a ship than there are for ships. Also, this accident was clearly avoidable and shows terrible seamanship. If one just smacked the hands of those responsible (and in the navy, that is usually clearly defined) then we would be reading about more unintentional beachings. Finally, the events you mentioned are more than 50 years old and are like comparing apples to oranges.

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to marky)

Post #: 5

RE: Cruiser On The Rocks - 2/16/2009 1:16:53 AM

wworld7

Posts: 1727
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: marky
the navy should however be alot more lenient, considering the Juneau and Indianapolis events(how can u possibly misplace 2 ships for that long?)

Advancing to become a captain of a ship carries with it something callled responsibility.

The captain is responsible for everything on the ship he was given command of. This holds true in merchant fleets also.

If your ship runs into a reef. There will be an investigation and depending upon the results a hearing or a trial of some sorts. How it effects your career is up to the presiding judges.

This is the way it has been in the US Navy since its creation.

Being "lenient" could happen, but that would take some facts being uncovered that have not been reported as of yet.

Your trying to compare this situation with that of the Indy is so far from apples-to-apples I am at a loss for words.

_____________________________

Flipper

(in reply to marky)

Post #: 6

RE: Cruiser On The Rocks - 2/16/2009 1:23:21 AM

thegreatwent

Posts: 3011
Joined: 8/24/2004
From: Denver, CO
Status: offline

I have to agree with khyberbill, todays navigation is done largely by GPS and should prevent this. I do wonder though how badly the civilian techs on board monkeyed with SOP. I think that having civilians aboard contributed to the Ehime Maru/USS Greeneville collision in 2001 and may have been an issue in this latest incident.

_____________________________

(in reply to khyberbill)

Post #: 7

RE: Cruiser On The Rocks - 2/16/2009 1:55:24 AM

TOMLABEL

Posts: 5116
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Alabama - ROLL TIDE!!!!!
Status: offline

Here is a summary of damage from credible sources. Bottom line is that running hard aground is bad on a vessel designed to float in water. Looks like every system will be inspected and alignment checks done (for the combat systems gear). The ship is not beyond economical repair, everything is repairable, but it will take money and time.

Engineering:
- All blades sheared off the propellers - no apparent CRP damage (hydraulic mechanism that rotates propeller blades)
- Both rudders suspect, the caps having been pounded repeatedly on the bottom
- Shafting and bearings damaged, maybe struts too
- Reductions gears require inspection
- Port shaft leaks
- Flooding in 3 compartments from cracks
- Fuel tanks damaged
- Sea Water systems filled with sand/debris

Combat systems
- Sonar dome ruptured and damaged
- Magazine sprinkler systems have sand and debris

Misc
- Experimental blue u/w hull paint scratched/compromised
- Half of the commodes are inop

PS - What is the significance of the name Port Royal for a cruiser name?

See stern view of grounded cruiser here:
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/090207-N-0000X-007.jpg

< Message edited by TOMLABEL -- 2/16/2009 2:01:19 AM >

_____________________________

Art by the Rogue-USMC

WITP Admiral's Edition: Ship & Sub Art/Base Unit Art/Map Icon Art

"If destruction be our lot - it will come from within"...Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to thegreatwent)

Post #: 8

RE: Cruiser On The Rocks - 2/16/2009 2:08:43 AM

marky

Posts: 5780
Joined: 3/8/2004
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

quote:

ORIGINAL: marky
the navy should however be alot more lenient, considering the Juneau and Indianapolis events(how can u possibly misplace 2 ships for that long?)

Advancing to become a captain of a ship carries with it something callled responsibility.

The captain is responsible for everything on the ship he was given command of. This holds true in merchant fleets also.

If your ship runs into a reef. There will be an investigation and depending upon the results a hearing or a trial of some sorts. How it effects your career is up to the presiding judges.

This is the way it has been in the US Navy since its creation.

Being "lenient" could happen, but that would take some facts being uncovered that have not been reported as of yet.

Your trying to compare this situation with that of the Indy is so far from apples-to-apples I am at a loss for words.

not something im not aware of

i was attempting to illustrate the nature of the Navys blame game

the navy NEVER takes responsibility when it makes a mistake

i sense hypocrisy

< Message edited by marky -- 2/16/2009 2:12:22 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to wworld7)

Post #: 9

No blame game - 2/16/2009 3:49:43 AM

wworld7

Posts: 1727
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: marky
not something im not aware of

i was attempting to illustrate the nature of the Navys blame game

the navy NEVER takes responsibility when it makes a mistake

i sense hypocrisy

Your attempt was faulty.

An investigation, followed by a trial (if warranted) is the Navy taking responsibility.

The "blame game" would be if the Navy followed your wish for leniency and did not hold the captain responsible for the accident.

Without new details of the accident emerging, the fact is millions of dollars of damage was done to a ship the captain was given command of. He was the captain and with that honor comes a heavy responsibility. All the officers who will be involved with this case (including the captain) understand the responsibility any captain has.

I am sure this investagation will be followed in the media during the coming year so let's see how it plays out.

_____________________________

Flipper

(in reply to marky)

Post #: 10

RE: Cruiser On The Rocks - 2/16/2009 3:56:38 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

Marky,

I think you are pretty much right historically about that. However, this would be a case of two wrongs making things worse. They really are separate situations and being lenient in this case would not in any way extend justice to those left swinging in the breeze in those other incidents you mentioned.

(in reply to marky)

Post #: 11

RE: Cruiser On The Rocks - 2/16/2009 4:35:48 AM

TOMLABEL

Posts: 5116
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Alabama - ROLL TIDE!!!!!
Status: offline

Here is the pic...

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Art by the Rogue-USMC

WITP Admiral's Edition: Ship & Sub Art/Base Unit Art/Map Icon Art

"If destruction be our lot - it will come from within"...Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to TOMLABEL)

Post #: 12

RE: Cruiser On The Rocks - 2/16/2009 4:53:37 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

"PS - What is the significance of the name Port Royal for a cruiser name?"

Since the Ticonderoga class cruisers were named for battles in US history, I believe that this ship was named for the Battle of Port Royal Sound in the unfortunate conflict of the 1860s. What is the significance of naming a cruiser after this battle? I'm not sure. In the WW2 era it was carriers that were named for battles.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to TOMLABEL)

Post #: 13

RE: Cruiser On The Rocks - 2/16/2009 4:54:46 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TOMLABEL

Here is the pic...

Shallow water + US Navy vessel = Deep Kimchee for CO.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to TOMLABEL)

Post #: 14

RE: Cruiser On The Rocks - 2/16/2009 4:58:08 AM

marky

Posts: 5780
Joined: 3/8/2004
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Marky,

I think you are pretty much right historically about that. However, this would be a case of two wrongs making things worse. They really are separate situations and being lenient in this case would not in any way extend justice to those left swinging in the breeze in those other incidents you mentioned.

indeed

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 15

RE: Cruiser On The Rocks - 2/16/2009 5:16:29 AM

marky

Posts: 5780
Joined: 3/8/2004
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline

_____________________________

(in reply to marky)

Post #: 16

RE: Cruiser On The Rocks - 2/16/2009 5:46:01 AM

Iridium

Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline

So what makes the blue u/w coat of paint experimental? It's anti-barnacle properties?

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture

(in reply to marky)

Post #: 17

RE: Cruiser On The Rocks - 2/16/2009 9:02:19 AM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: TOMLABEL

Here is the pic...

quote:

Experimental blue u/w hull paint scratched/compromised

What's the story with this "Experimental blue u/w hull paint"?

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to TOMLABEL)

Post #: 18

RE: Cruiser On The Rocks - 2/16/2009 5:56:54 PM

TOMLABEL

Posts: 5116
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Alabama - ROLL TIDE!!!!!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

What's the story with this "Experimental blue u/w hull paint"?

Leo "Apollo11"

Measure 82 - Camo against subs!

Seriously, it's a new silicon based anti-fouling paint that is eco friendly. PORT ROYAL is the test platform for it.
Toxic hull paints have been a problem for years. They have been looking for a replacement for red lead and nothing seems to do the same job without creating the same problems. There has been a move towards two part epoxies. They dry smooth and hard, which does not give the sea critters anything to cling to and, as an added bonus, decreases drag. They are also expense, have bonding and durability issues, require precise application and did I mention, are expense. A lot of the color is just pigment, so the blue might not be the final color; it may show defects better for testing purposes, etc. The Canadian Navy has been using it for several years now, and the French Navy for their experimental landing craft - http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=108703

Another area has been with film coatings. Basically, you wrap the hull with a plastic film. It has the same limitations as the epoxies with durability being dominant. However, it does have some advantages. It can be manufactured with micro grooves that decrease drag even more and can contain encapsuled toxins, specific to clinging sea critters, so that it is not as damaging to the environment as coatings that just leach toxins into the water.

TOMLABEL

_____________________________

Art by the Rogue-USMC

WITP Admiral's Edition: Ship & Sub Art/Base Unit Art/Map Icon Art

"If destruction be our lot - it will come from within"...Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 19

RE: Cruiser On The Rocks - 2/16/2009 5:59:30 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: TOMLABEL

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

What's the story with this "Experimental blue u/w hull paint"?

Measure 82 - Camo against subs!

Seriously, it's a new silicon based anti-fouling paint that is eco friendly. PORT ROYAL is the test platform for it.
Toxic hull paints have been a problem for years. They have been looking for a replacement for red lead and nothing seems to do the same job without creating the same problems. There has been a move towards two part epoxies. They dry smooth and hard, which does not give the sea critters anything to cling to and, as an added bonus, decreases drag. They are also expense, have bonding and durability issues, require precise application and did I mention, are expense. A lot of the color is just pigment, so the blue might not be the final color; it may show defects better for testing purposes, etc. The Canadian Navy has been using it for several years now, and the French Navy for their experimental landing craft - http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=108703

Another area has been with film coatings. Basically, you wrap the hull with a plastic film. It has the same limitations as the epoxies with durability being dominant. However, it does have some advantages. It can be manufactured with micro grooves that decrease drag even more and can contain encapsuled toxins, specific to clinging sea critters, so that it is not as damaging to the environment as coatings that just leach toxins into the water.

TOMLABEL

Thanks for greta info Tom!

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to TOMLABEL)

Post #: 20

RE: Cruiser On The Rocks - 2/16/2009 6:48:56 PM

Knavey

Posts: 3052
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Valrico, Florida
Status: offline

Ummm...did anyone miss the irony "French Experimental Landing Craft"?

What is that going to be used for?

_____________________________

x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 21

RE: Cruiser On The Rocks - 2/16/2009 7:07:37 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TOMLABEL

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

What's the story with this "Experimental blue u/w hull paint"?

Leo "Apollo11"

Measure 82 - Camo against subs!

Seriously, it's a new silicon based anti-fouling paint that is eco friendly. PORT ROYAL is the test platform for it.
Toxic hull paints have been a problem for years. They have been looking for a replacement for red lead and nothing seems to do the same job without creating the same problems. There has been a move towards two part epoxies. They dry smooth and hard, which does not give the sea critters anything to cling to and, as an added bonus, decreases drag. They are also expense, have bonding and durability issues, require precise application and did I mention, are expense. A lot of the color is just pigment, so the blue might not be the final color; it may show defects better for testing purposes, etc. The Canadian Navy has been using it for several years now, and the French Navy for their experimental landing craft - http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=108703

Another area has been with film coatings. Basically, you wrap the hull with a plastic film. It has the same limitations as the epoxies with durability being dominant. However, it does have some advantages. It can be manufactured with micro grooves that decrease drag even more and can contain encapsuled toxins, specific to clinging sea critters, so that it is not as damaging to the environment as coatings that just leach toxins into the water.

TOMLABEL

Don't know how many times I've had "red lead" on my body. Seriously 30 years ago in the merchant marine very little attention was paid to the dangers of lead based paint and asbestos. Probably why I can't seem to remember to return my turns on a regular basis.

Anyone ever try to carry a five gallon bucket filled with red lead? Man, is that stuff heavy....

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to TOMLABEL)

Post #: 22

RE: Cruiser On The Rocks - 2/16/2009 7:08:29 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Knavey

Ummm...did anyone miss the irony "French Experimental Landing Craft"?�

What is that going to be used for?

Have you seen this today?

quote:

BRITISH and French nuclear submarines which collided deep under the Atlantic could have sunk or released deadly radioactivity, it emerged last night.

quote:

Vanguard is one of Britain�s four V-Class subs forming our Trident nuclear deterrent. Each is armed with 16 ballistic missiles.

She was last night towed into Faslane in Scotland, with dents and scrapes visible on her hull. Triomphant limped to Brest with extensive damage to her sonar dome.

The French sub had damage to it's bow, which indicates that she hit the British sub. "French Experimental Landing Craft"? - you ask. I think the French are getting ready to storm the Chunnel!

(in reply to Knavey)

Post #: 23

RE: Cruiser On The Rocks - 2/16/2009 9:03:56 PM

khyberbill

Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline

quote:

The French sub had damage to it's bow, which indicates that she hit the British sub. "French Experimental Landing Craft"? - you ask. I think the French are getting ready to storm the Chunnel!

I was just getting ready to post that article. What hasn't been said is that there is a probability that an American sub was monitoring the other two. Or at least the French one because we would have known the general patrolling area of the British sub. Boomers tend to travel very slow thus the likelihood of serious damage is remote. Heck, we hit St. Croix at 20 knots and I suspect each of these two subs was moving at less than 5 knots.

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 24

RE: Cruiser On The Rocks - 2/16/2009 9:24:20 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

We had discussion about this in "THE THREAD" earlier today as well...

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to khyberbill)

Post #: 25

RE: Cruiser On The Rocks - 2/16/2009 11:22:23 PM

Pistachio

Posts: 203
Joined: 12/15/2008
Status: offline

I hope Mr. Hornblower made it back to his quarterdeck unscathed!

(in reply to khyberbill)

Post #: 26

RE: Cruiser On The Rocks - 2/17/2009 1:58:31 AM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Have the French declared war on Great Britain again?

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Pistachio)

Post #: 27

RE: Cruiser On The Rocks - 2/17/2009 2:00:29 AM

Mynok

Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

Again? When was the last time the French declared war on Britain? I'm guessing the American revolution.

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 28

RE: Cruiser On The Rocks - 2/17/2009 2:31:51 AM

khyberbill

Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline

quote:

Again? When was the last time the French declared war on Britain? I'm guessing the American revolution.

Well, there was that little dust up at Waterloo in 1815. Prior to that there was a rather famous battle at Trafalgar. I dont think there has been any conflict since then except on the soccer and rugby fields.

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to Mynok)

Post #: 29

RE: Cruiser On The Rocks - 2/17/2009 3:30:15 AM

marky

Posts: 5780
Joined: 3/8/2004
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline

ahh the french would just surrender

_____________________________

(in reply to khyberbill)

Post #: 30