quote:

Originally posted by Tailhook 84:

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.

I bet it is by the time they put a crew aboard and send another ship along as escort in case, and less risky.

Who knows what the handling characteristics would be, radar and other systems, new service in the chief's mess, etc.

This is what they did with the Cole.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by Tailhook 84:

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.

I bet it is by the time they put a crew aboard and send another ship along as escort in case, and less risky.

Who knows what the handling characteristics would be, radar and other systems, new service in the chief's mess, etc.

This is what they did with the Cole.

I bet on the 'less risky' being weighted significantly more than cost.

Broke ass ship, with systems AFU, sinks on the way back to the USA with loss of life... yeah, why were we sailing that ship back again from halfway around the world?

This way, you strap that bitch down to a big'un, write a check, and wait until it shows up at Bath or Pascagoula. Then write another big check.

Heavy lift ship is the safest option. There is no guarantee that the Fitz could make it all the way home on her own power. This way, they are almost guaranteed she will get to the shipyard in one piece without loss of life or further structural damage. Only at the stateside shipyard will they know the full extent of the damage. . .

quote:

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

Never underestimate the ingenuity of a BM3 promised a 96-hour special lib chit.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
Heavy lift ship is the safest option. There is no guarantee that the Fitz could make it all the way home on her own power. This way, they are almost guaranteed she will get to the shipyard in one piece without loss of life or further structural damage. Only at the stateside shipyard will they know the full extent of the damage. . .

Thanks Hound Dog. You seem to know quite a bit about many different things.

I was hoping to hear back from sdy or anybody who might know specifics of the Fitz or ship repair in general. While heavy lift ship transport might be "the safest option" there were pics posted of a dry dock patch on page 35 of this thread. The full extent of the damage would have been discovered in this dry dock as opposed to having it in a stateside shipyard. If there was no guarantee that the Fitz could make it all the way home on her own power, the Navy would not have gone to all this trouble and expense to patch the hull if they initially had a question about it's seaworthiness. Now, after the hull repairs have been accomplished it appears there is a question, hence the decision to bring it back aboard a heavy lift ship.

Something made the Navy change it's mind on how to bring the ship back. I was just asking what those reasons might be after the effort and expense of patching the hull.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tailhook 84,

quote:

Originally posted by Tailhook 84:

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
Heavy lift ship is the safest option. There is no guarantee that the Fitz could make it all the way home on her own power. This way, they are almost guaranteed she will get to the shipyard in one piece without loss of life or further structural damage. Only at the stateside shipyard will they know the full extent of the damage. . .

Thanks Hound Dog. You seem to know quite a bit about many different things.

I was hoping to hear back from sdy or anybody who might know specifics of the Fitz or ship repair in general. While heavy lift ship transport might be "the safest option" there were pics posted of a dry dock patch on page 35 of this thread. The full extent of the damage would have been discovered in this dry dock as opposed to having it in a stateside shipyard. If there was no guarantee that the Fitz could make it all the home on her own power, the Navy would not have gone to all this trouble and expense to patch the hull if they initially had a question about it's seaworthiness. Now, after the hull repairs have been accomplished it appears there is a question, hence the decision to bring it back aboard a heavy lift ship.

Something made the Navy change it's mind on how to bring the ship back. I was just asking what those reasons might be after the effort and expense of patching the hull.

It may have been that the patch was more for structural reinforcement than anything else. I suspect that putting her on a heavy lift ship will impose loads on the hull (as would have putting her in dry dock). Perhaps hull reinforcement was judged necessary before taking either course...

On July 13, sdy posted:

quote:

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.

There is a photo later of the hull in a dry dock.

I imagine this decision came from that inspection.

I think that hull patch was done just so they could pump out the flooded compartments and recover the bodies. That was a huge hole and that patch may do absolutely nothing for structural integrity. . .

Heavy lift is THE safest option. I'm sure that was the number 1 consideration.

As Hound Dog said above, plus it helped to stabilize the ship in order to put it up on blocks in dry dock.

Not claiming any special expertise, but I would guess the decision for heavy lift was rather straight forward. The ship has suffered significant damage and loss of equipment.

from earlier in the thread:

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.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog: Heavy lift is THE safest option. I'm sure that was the number 1 consideration.

All of us Armchair Admirals on the good ship USS Sig Forum might be sure of that, but apparently the Navy was not so sure of that. On 31 July an article was posted in this thread which included information that the Navy was still debating how to bring the ship back to the U.S. for repairs. Then eight days later the Navy announces they will bring her back by Heavy Lift. So from 16 June until early August there were some who were involved in the decision-making chain that thought a Pacific crossing either by tow or under it's own power was a viable option.

Appreciate all the answers to my original question. But now I have to ask why anything but the Heavy Lift option was still being considered six weeks after the collision. That must have been one hell of a cost/benefit analysis being run by the bean counters.

quote:

Originally posted by Tailhook 84:

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog: Heavy lift is THE safest option. I'm sure that was the number 1 consideration.

All of us Armchair Admirals on the good ship USS Sig Forum might be sure of that, but apparently the Navy was not so sure of that. On 31 July an article was posted in this thread which included information that the Navy was still debating how to bring the ship back to the U.S. for repairs. Then eight days later the Navy announces they will bring her back by Heavy Lift. So from 16 June until early August there were some who were involved in the decision-making chain that thought a Pacific crossing either by tow or under it's own power was a viable option.

Appreciate all the answers to my original question. But now I have to ask why anything but the Heavy Lift option was still being considered six weeks after the collision. That must have been one hell of a cost/benefit analysis being run by the bean counters.

Without the costs of the various choices, who can say?

I imagine the cheapest ordinarily is so sail under your own power to an appropriate port, if you are confident the ship is seaworthy to do that. I imagine that after they drained the dock and saw the damage, the engineers did whatever engineers do with those fancy calculators, and the bean counters started planning various alternatives, with the information gleaned from a close inspection, the choices were presented to the Admiral who said, "take no chances!"

This may be a silly question, but will the Navy send escort ships with the heavy lift ship for protection?

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
This may be a silly question, but will the Navy send escort ships with the heavy lift ship for protection?

Protection from whom? Oceania is not currently at war with Eastasia...

Can you imagine the time and effort is took/is taking to unload everything from that ship? Secret stuff, ammo, personal gear, equipment, chief's mess service, coffee, movies, computers?

quote:

Originally posted by feersum dreadnaught:

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
This may be a silly question, but will the Navy send escort ships with the heavy lift ship for protection?

Protection from whom? Oceania is not currently at war with Eastasia...

I understood that reference. . .

only saw this reported at one place: Trade Winds News

http://www.tradewindsnews.com/...fitzgerald-collision

Questions mount over the US Navy’s reluctance to share vital evidence with Japanese investigators, despite seemingly admitting liability

Japan has suspended its safety investigation into the collision between the Aegis-built destroyer USS Fitzgerald and the 2,858-teu containership ACX Crystal (built 2008) after the US Navy and Coastguard declined to pass on critical evidence.

Immediately after the tragedy, which claimed seven US seafarers lives, both sides promised to share information in a joint safety probe.

But Japan has now suspended the investigation after the US failed to pass on crew testimony and evidence about the course the USS ...

**************

assuming of course they are talking about the course of the USS Fitzgerald

Navy doesn't want the testimony to become public until they have any disciplinary actions planned out.

Honestly, I think there is no way some people aren't getting a court martial out of this. OOD, STBD Lookout, CIC watchstanders, etc.

For what it's worth:
https://www.newscientist.com/a...link_time=1502401036

WASHINGTON — The Navy plans to relieve the two top officers and the senior enlisted sailor of a destroyer that collided with a freighter off the coast of Japan in June, killing seven sailors in one of the sea service’s deadliest accidents in years.

The Navy on Tuesday released a partially redacted report on the investigation of the collision in June between the American destroyer Fitzgerald and the ACX Crystal that resulted in the death of seven sailors.

The head of the Navy’s Seventh Fleet, Vice Adm. Joseph P. Aucoin, was expected to take the action on Friday in Japan, the vice chief of naval operations, Adm. Bill Moran, told reporters on Thursday.

Images in the report compare what the berthing, or sleeping, racks usually look like and the damaged racks on the Fitzgerald. Credit U.S. Navy
About a dozen sailors over all face career-killing administrative actions as a result of the accident, Admiral Moran said at a briefing at the Pentagon.

A preliminary report into the accident released by the Navy on Thursday describes in harrowing detail the immediate aftermath of the collision and the rescue efforts aboard the Fitzgerald. The ship’s routine cruise through familiar, if crowded seas, ended in the most deadly Navy accident in years.


Dozens of sailors rocked from their slumber raced against time to escape up a ladder from their flooding quarters. The rushing water was at first waist high, then neck high as sailors pushed aside mattresses, wall lockers other floating debris to clamber up a ladder to safety. The last sailor pulled from the chaos was underwater when his shipmates yanked him up.

The freighter crashed directly into the stateroom of the ship’s captain, Cmdr. Bryce Benson, ripping open a huge hole and trapping him inside. Five sailors with a sledgehammer and kettlebell broke down the door to his cabin to rescue Commander Benson, who was hanging from the side of the ship.

Link

quote:

About a dozen sailors over all face career-killing administrative actions as a result of the accident, Admiral Moran said at a briefing at the Pentagon.

Although everyone knew something like this had to be on the way, I'm surprised they can adequately assign blame and punishment with just an even dozen. This whole mess was a Charlie Foxtrot from the get-go.