Whoa.

I'm curious, was the hull patch prior to dry dock required because the structural integrity of the ship was compromised? I noticed that the article stated that the ship was twisted.

a few pages back:

The emphasis in the early stages will be to stabilize the ship enough to get it out of the water, which the Navy says will likely be somewhere between July 6 and 8. Once its out of the water, the Navy will conduct a full survey of the ship.

One potential concern, according to Navy officials, is that the force of the collision may have warped the superstructure and created an alignment issue for the ship’s SPY-1 radar. Fixing that could add an enormous sum to the repair bill and could even be cost-prohibitive, but those assessments haven’t been completed yet.

Doss declined to comment on the alignment concerns, citing ongoing damage assessments and repair planning.

Just getting the ship out the water is a task in and of itself, said retired Capt. Gordan Van Hook, who was the chief engineer on the frigate Samuel B. Roberts when it struck a mine in 1988.

“Every ship has a docking plan for when you go into dry dock,” Van Hook said in a telephone interview. “It involves putting blocks underneath the keel to support the ship. But if large parts of the hull compromised or penetrated it can create a lot of loads and stresses that the ship wasn’t meant to withstand and if you don’t do it correctly you can bend the keel or damage the strakes.”

That means the ship’s docking plan needs to be redone to account for the damaged hull. Officials believe based on preliminary assessments that the keel of the Fitz made it through the collision ok. Fixing a broken keel would be another enormous cost driver, though the Navy managed to fix the Sammy B, which had a completely fractured keel.

at the top, labeled point A, is the bridge wing where the starboard watch stander would be positioned. This view gives a better look at the bridge wing.

Point B is a rough estimate of the vertical center line of the patch along the hull length. (based on the dry dock pics)

The two red vertical lines are very rough estimates of the fore/aft extent of the patch.

Just a WAG, but I am still thinking the angle between the ships at impact was 20 to 30 deg (that could be way off)

2017 has been a big year for the yard at Yoko. Earlier this year, USS Antietam CG-54 ran aground in Tokyo Bay, while anchored she drifted and her props scraped the bottom resulting in needing to be replaced. Now with Fitz in the yard, there's two ships are not available to the ballestic missile defense shield.

And with all the reports of firings, relievings, maybe somebody ought to suggest promotions based on leadership and fighting a ship at sea instead of PC, transgender, touchy feely foolishness.

That's not buffing out.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
And with all the reports of firings, relievings, maybe somebody ought to suggest promotions based on leadership and fighting a ship at sea instead of PC, transgender, touchy feely foolishness.

Indeed! I pray that Navy is not forever gone.

CNN reporting input from "two defense officials". Nothing we didn't expect

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/21/...ames-navy/index.html

Preliminary findings in the investigation into the collision between the USS Fitzgerald and a Philippine cargo ship off the coast of Japan in June suggest the accident was caused by multiple errors by the Fitzgerald's crew and a failure to take action in the minutes leading to the collision, according to two defense officials.

"They did nothing until the last second,"
"A slew of things went wrong."

the crash "will wind up being our (the US Navy's) fault."

The initial findings are just the first stage in what is expected to be a lengthy inquiry. Both officials said the initial investigation found that the Fitzgerald crew failed to understand and acknowledge the cargo ship was approaching and failed to take any action necessary to avoid the collision. It's also not clear if the crew ever called the commanding officer to come to the bridge.



above pic shows a good side view of the relation of the above water line / below water line damage

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sdy,

This may be a situation where it is time to invoke Holmesian wisdom.

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
That's not buffing out.

Nope

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
That's not buffing out.

Nope

It's nothing that you can't fix with a good sledge hammer and some duct tape!

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
That's not buffing out.

Nope

It's nothing that you can't fix with a good sledge hammer and some duct tape!

Don't forget the Red Hand.

do we know anything about damage to the other ship?

quote:

Originally posted by signewt:
do we know anything about damage to the other ship?

Most likely only what is visible on the bow in the pictures that are shown. I don't feel the damage to the Crystals bow effects it's seaworthiness.

http://abcnews.go.com/Internat...ision-input-48811225

Japanese authorities said Monday that they were almost finished with their investigation into last month's collision between a Philippine freighter and a U.S. naval destroyer that left seven Navy sailors dead, but still haven't been given access to data from the U.S. side.

The container ship, the ACX Crystal, and most of its crew were allowed to leave Japan for Thailand on Sunday after repairs were finished. Coast guard officials declined to give details.

A spokesman for the company that owns the freighter, Yoshinori Fukushima, said Monday that the captain and some crew members had stayed behind voluntarily for additional questioning.

The crash occurred on June 17 south of Tokyo off the Izu peninsula in an accident-prone area known for congestion with ships trying to reach Tokyo by daybreak. That is within Japanese territorial waters, but the U.S. military holds the right to investigate its naval vessel and has not cooperated with Japan's investigation, which is allowed under the bilateral status of forces agreement, officials said.

Japanese coast guard officials said that they were still discussing possible cooperation with the U.S. side, but that nothing concrete has been decided and they could not say when a conclusion was expected.

A team of experts at the Japan Transport Safety Board is also investigating the cause of the accident. Katsunori Takahashi, a spokesman for the safety board, has said officials may have to compile a report of what caused the accident only with what information they have. There have been past cases in which the U.S. never cooperated, he said.

**************
ACX Crystal has been repaired and was released for service. The ship left the repair dock on 22 July

https://news.usni.org/2017/07/...s-cole-terror-attack

Navy still working up repair estimates to DDG 62.

some are estimating costs of 250 to 500 million

The service is also debating on how to get the DDG back to the U.S. for repairs, though a heavy-lift ship transporting Fitzgerald to the West Coast is the current favorite option in Navy leadership circles.

Fitzgerald, commissioned in 1995, is one of the earliest Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and was due for a $170-million basic hull, mechanical and engineering upgrade in Fiscal Year 2019, according to modernization information obtained by USNI News. The upgrade is meant to get an additional 10 to 15 years of life out of the hull.

However, the Navy will probably elect to upgrade the damaged electronics to the new Baseline 9 standard that allows warships to both target ballistic missiles and fight traditional air warfare threats. That overhaul costs about $270 million.

Any news on the ship captain? Thanks

http://www.maritime-executive....d-by-heavy-lift-ship

On Tuesday, the U.S. Navy said that it has decided to transport the damaged destroyer USS Fitzgerald back to the United States aboard a heavy lift ship.

A spokesman for Seventh Fleet told Reuters that the move could happen as soon as September; the shipyard for the repairs has not yet been named publicly.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
On Tuesday, the U.S. Navy said that it has decided to transport the damaged destroyer USS Fitzgerald back to the United States aboard a heavy lift ship.

Dumb question from an aviator: Is this an economic decision? In other words, is this the le$$ expensive option? Or is the structure so damaged that they don't think the ship can make an open-ocean transit via tug? Just curious.