LCS Montgomery Sustains Second Hull Crack in a Month

GOD DAMNIT NAVY

USE FUCKING STEEL


If we are gonna use aluminium why the fuck aren't we just casting entire ships with molds, anyways?

>HEY GUYS LETS BUILD THIS SPEEDBOAT FRIGATE
>THIN ALLUMINIUM HULL WILL BE GRATE

>>31893045
>USS Hotwheels

>>31893012
>cracked hull after colliding with a tugboat

cmon gais, clearly the tugboat couldn't see it because it's a stealth ship :^)

File: swift move.jpg (93KB, 840x600px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 840x600px

Aluminum hulls for a warship is such a spectacularly bad idea.
Pic related, the UAE Swift after getting hit by a missile.
Check out that warping.

PS The UAE claimed no lives were lost in this attack.
Apparently their bridge crew was fireproof.

>>31893681

>Gets hit by a missile and doesn't sink
>Somehow this means aluminum is bad

File: this boat melts.jpg (63KB, 695x485px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 695x485px

>>31893686
>gets hit high above the waterline
>aluminum warps and melts all the way down to the waterline

yeah, that's bad.

>>31893720
Point being steel ships that have been hit hard and can be repaired and sail again.
Compare that to the Swift. There's explosive damage but the ship started melting too. It's a write-off.

>>31893045
Didn't the Britbongs rethink their aluminum ships after the Falklands?

>>31893757
aren't those things meant to be stealth thingy whatever ?

i'm pretty sure it's dumb to make a stealth boat that don't go fast

>>31893012
>tfw you realise that the tug following the Russian carrier is the LCS's worst fear

>>31893793

No. That is a myth. Sheffield was made entirely on steel. Antelope and Ardent which had aluminium superstructures did not contribute to their sinking.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.694.7036&rep=rep1&type=pdf

http://www.austal.com/sites/default/files/00-images-philippines/Innovation/AUS%20Aluminium%20Brochure.pdf

>>31893012
littorally who?

File: troudeau.jpg (573KB, 1200x820px) Image search: [Google]

573KB, 1200x820px

>>31893793
Suddenly, the idea of concrete ships doesn't seem so terrible anymore.

>>31893681
>be civilian ferry
>get hit by AShM
>left to burn for hours
>don't sink

GUISE ALUMINUM ARE BAD!

>steel ships are never damaged in collisions

>>31895184
>be purpose-built for the US military
>be a proof-of-concept vessel for military use
>melt when hit
>don't sink only because the hit was high above the water-line and right at the bow

GUISE THIS SHIP WAS COMPLETELY WRECKED BECAUSE ITS HULL IS A WEAK SOFT MATERIAL

BUT GUISE THERE'S NO PROBLEM HERE

GUISE LET'S BUY LOTS MORE MELTY BOATS

>>31895498

The boat didn't sink.

>>31895498
It's the ship equivalent of a deuce and a half. Exactly zero resources are expended on countermeasures and defensive systems.

>>31895525
>The boat didn't sink.
A steel ship hit in that spot wouldn't have sunk either.
And it would be able to be repaired.
Unlike that tinfoil hull.

>>31895560
>Exactly zero resources are expended on countermeasures and defensive systems.
Neither of which are relevant to the hull melting.

>>31895545
dem genetics tho

>>31895816
You know, historically, when a steel hulled ship burns out (as has happened many times in history, including ships' hulls glowing red hot); it's written off just as much as an aluminum ship. It general is far more expensive to refill a ship with boat bits and re-certify a likely heat damaged hull than it is to just build a whole new boat.

Why can't we build a more durable ship god dammit
WE NEED STRONG HULLS

>>31893681
Or they left the bridge when they saw the fire that clearly burned for quite a while

>>31896591

The Freedom-class is more durable because it has steel reinforcement inside the aluminum hull. That's the version they should pick when it comes time to down-select.

>INB4 just cancel the program

It's way too late for that.

>>31893637
You mean USS Greg Abbott

>>31893012

>The ship that bears my name is a floating pile of shit

I wish I were surprised.

>>31896632

Or they could just use STEEL.

Seriously, a propane torch can sink an aluminium ship.

>>31893012
JUST

>>31896666
So sorry anon
Accept quads as consolation

>>31896666
Hi Monty.

>>31896669
>laughing magnetic sea mines.jpg

>>31896669
And the mines an LCS needs to hunt for can sink a steel one. Would you rather it be made out of wood?

>>31893012
I'm confused...when did the U.S. Navy adopt 1945 Japanese construction standards?

>>31896977

Building a 2000+ ton vessel as a minesweeper was always a dumb idea.

>>31893012
>aluminum
Seriously, why?

>>31897297

You need a lightweight hull if you want to get 45 knots.

>>31895498
>be purpose-built for the US military

logistics vessel

>be a proof-of-concept vessel for military use

logistics vessel

>melt when hit

it burned intensely for hours, a steel vessel would have been ruined as well

>don't sink only because the hit was high above the water-line and right at the bow

a ~1000 ton vessel eating a AShM and not sinking is breddy gud no matter where it was hit

>>31897107
Good thing LCS are not just minesweepers.

>>31897309
We have made 45 knot destroyers out of steel and rivets.

>>31896144
Shh, you are using logic and facts.

>>31897374

My point, which apparently flew over your head, is that it would have made more sense to buy a dedicated vehicle for each LCS function rather than try to cram it all into 1 type of ship.

>>31897404
Except it wouldn't, and more likely than not you have had that fact beaten over your head in past threads.

>>31897413

The cost of making new minesweepers approximately the same size as the Avenger would not have been anywhere near the cost of producing an LCS to do that same job. This new class of minesweeper would also have 25/30 mm guns to allow it to carry out patrol duties.

Then you'd have another class of ship designed explicitly for ASW, which would look pretty similar to the current LCS, but it would be unburdened by the other functions and it would have more room for weapons. And you wouldn't need as many because the minesweeper duties would be handled by a separate class of ship.

>>31897490
Cool, so then you have two seperate programs to produce ships that likely cost 3/4 as much, and more of them because you have to cover all the oceans, and so you end up with 1.5-2X the cost.

Seriously, there's a reason cramming as much as you can into each ship/plane/truck is done. Sure, the LCS has its problems, but it's also fixing those problems and turning out to be pretty good at what it's supposed to do.

>>31897761

Nope. Stop right there. A minesweeper the approximate size of the Avenger is not going to cost 3/4 as much as an LCS. It would cost far less than that.