Cruiser On The Rocks (Full Version)

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



Message

witpqs -> Cruiser On The Rocks (2/15/2009 9:46:05 PM)

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.



khyberbill -> RE: Cruiser On The Rocks (2/15/2009 10:37:09 PM)

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.



witpqs -> RE: Cruiser On The Rocks (2/15/2009 11:06:01 PM)

That is a cool story. Good for you.



marky -> RE: Cruiser On The Rocks (2/16/2009 12:22:46 AM)

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?)



khyberbill -> RE: Cruiser On The Rocks (2/16/2009 1:06:41 AM)

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.



wworld7 -> RE: Cruiser On The Rocks (2/16/2009 1:16:53 AM)


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.




thegreatwent -> RE: Cruiser On The Rocks (2/16/2009 1:23:21 AM)

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.



TOMLABEL -> RE: Cruiser On The Rocks (2/16/2009 1:55:24 AM)

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





marky -> RE: Cruiser On The Rocks (2/16/2009 2:08:43 AM)

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



wworld7 -> No blame game (2/16/2009 3:49:43 AM)

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.







witpqs -> RE: Cruiser On The Rocks (2/16/2009 3:56:38 AM)

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.



TOMLABEL -> RE: Cruiser On The Rocks (2/16/2009 4:35:48 AM)

Here is the pic...




[image]local://upfiles/19527/1977389B57A24491B0E1696E2626C1A6.jpg[/image]



bradfordkay -> RE: Cruiser On The Rocks (2/16/2009 4:53:37 AM)

"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.



bradfordkay -> RE: Cruiser On The Rocks (2/16/2009 4:54:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TOMLABEL

Here is the pic...




[image]local://upfiles/19527/1977389B57A24491B0E1696E2626C1A6.jpg[/image]



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



marky -> RE: Cruiser On The Rocks (2/16/2009 4:58:08 AM)


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



marky -> RE: Cruiser On The Rocks (2/16/2009 5:16:29 AM)


[image]http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d85/mrky84/truth.jpg[/image]

[:D]



Iridium -> RE: Cruiser On The Rocks (2/16/2009 5:46:01 AM)

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



Apollo11 -> RE: Cruiser On The Rocks (2/16/2009 9:02:19 AM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: TOMLABEL

Here is the pic...




[image]local://upfiles/19527/1977389B57A24491B0E1696E2626C1A6.jpg[/image]

quote:

Experimental blue u/w hull paint scratched/compromised


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


Leo "Apollo11"



TOMLABEL -> RE: Cruiser On The Rocks (2/16/2009 5:56:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

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


Leo "Apollo11"


Measure 82 - Camo against subs! [:D]

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



Apollo11 -> RE: Cruiser On The Rocks (2/16/2009 5:59:30 PM)

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! [:D]

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"



Knavey -> RE: Cruiser On The Rocks (2/16/2009 6:48:56 PM)

Ummm...did anyone miss the irony "French Experimental Landing Craft"?  [&:]

What is that going to be used for?



crsutton -> RE: Cruiser On The Rocks (2/16/2009 7:07:37 PM)


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! [:D]

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....



witpqs -> RE: Cruiser On The Rocks (2/16/2009 7:08:29 PM)

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! [:D]



khyberbill -> RE: Cruiser On The Rocks (2/16/2009 9:03:56 PM)

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.



Apollo11 -> RE: Cruiser On The Rocks (2/16/2009 9:24:20 PM)

Hi all,

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


Leo "Apollo11"



Pistachio -> RE: Cruiser On The Rocks (2/16/2009 11:22:23 PM)

I hope Mr. Hornblower made it back to his quarterdeck unscathed![;)]



John 3rd -> RE: Cruiser On The Rocks (2/17/2009 1:58:31 AM)

Have the French declared war on Great Britain again?



Mynok -> RE: Cruiser On The Rocks (2/17/2009 2:00:29 AM)


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




khyberbill -> RE: Cruiser On The Rocks (2/17/2009 2:31:51 AM)

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.



marky -> RE: Cruiser On The Rocks (2/17/2009 3:30:15 AM)

ahh the french would just surrender [:D]



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2