U.S. DESTROYER COLLIDES WITH FILIPINO CARGO SHIP

>>34278863
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH

Enjoy your muslims, Duterte.

File: 1496659440299.jpg (53KB, 455x443px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 455x443px

>>34278863
Fucking hilarious! Ameritards don't even know how to drive ships anymore.

Imagine how many ranks will be cut after this investigation. Captain might as well kill himself right away.

Who was the captain??? Someone find his name + pic. He's a candidate for JUST...

>>34279101
>He

Are we assuming here? I remember reading a story about some super incompetent cunt that made captain. Wonder if this is the work of her protege.

>>34279158

God damn it I laughed

>>34278863
Do we even bother to armor our shit anymore? How to the fuck does a CIVILIAN cargo ship do that much damage to a warship?

Heaven-fucking-forbid somebody actually shoots back at our navy. If I were Trump I would be livid over this.

>>34278863
I bet is was a useless minority captain and or pilot on the navy ship.

>>34279200
Diversity hieres, the lot of them!

File: CO_SHU.jpg (56KB, 340x438px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 340x438px

>>34279101

>Who was the captain??? Someone find his name + pic

Asians really are bad drivers.

http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/ddg62/Pages/bio1-29May2015-11march2017.aspx#.WUSgq9yQyM8

>>34278863

How does a ship with radar and sonar crash into another ship? Did they have the sensors turned off for some reason?

>>34279208
>GOODLUCK EVERYBODY ELSE

>>34278863
How many holes are in the filipino ship? It was sunk, right?

>>34279187
>Do we even bother to armor our shit anymore? How to the fuck does a CIVILIAN cargo ship do that much damage to a warship?
Here's a fun fact about merchant navy and what happens when they hit things.

If the thing is a natural feature, the boat is destroyed.
If the thing is artificial, it is destroyed.
The one that isn't destroyed is usually barely scratched.

When one of those boats hits a wharf, the wharf disintegrates. If it hits a rock, the boat disintegrates.

What you should be impressed by in that picture is that the hull is largely intact, just a structure on top of it got flattened. It's not surprising that there's some leaks but given what we can see above the waterline of the hull, it's probably patchable without assistance. The deck structure isn't as armoured as the hull and it wouldn't matter how much armour it actually had, the inertial and tonnage of a boat make armour more or less irrelevant.

File: CvZZ_U4XYAALnQw.jpg (34KB, 634x438px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 634x438px

American Navy so stupid. Russians solve problem of ship not being seen decades ago. Nobody ever hit Russian ship.

File: GMaGoodHead.jpg (35KB, 476x334px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 476x334px

>>34279224
>GOODLUCK EVERYBODY ELSE
ya brew it.
you had a gorden oppeltunity
and you brew it.

>>34279187
No, we don't armor our ships actually. Armor was really only effective against traditional projectiles, but it is useless against anti-ship missiles, so we stopped putting it on. Only the old Nimitz carriers have some armor below the waterline.

File: XO_Benson.jpg (2MB, 2150x2923px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2150x2923px

>>34279208
>>34279224

Whoops never mind.

Shu only served two years as CO. Turn over for these guys is really quick. The guy before him only served a year and a half.

http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/ddg62/Pages/USS-Fitzgerald-Holds-Change-of-Command-Ceremony.aspx#.WUSi2dyQyM8

Byrce Benson is listed as CO up until March of this year. I'm not sure if he's still CO though, it could be he's been replaced already and the new dude fucked up.

http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/ddg62/Pages/bio2-28November2015-11March2017.aspx#.WUSjS9yQyM9

>>34278863
>Seven US Navy crew missing after collision off Japan
I came here to post that there is a hell of an orgy happening in a supply closet in engineering. They'll find those seven after a week.

File: IMG_0593.jpg (24KB, 400x465px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 400x465px

>>34278863
THERES ALREADY A FUCKING THREAD ON THIS YOU DUMB SUMMER NIGGERS

File: Passenger_ship_Zaandam_in_drydock.jpg (2MB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2592x1944px

>>34279236
I'm guessing the dick on the front of the cargo ship did a ton of damage under the water line.

Seriously though, this is a warship. The cargo ship should have bounced off.

>>34279283
What do you think warships are made of that they are impervious to damage from a massive ship ramming them?

>>34279277
kill yourself, itoddler.

>>34279213
There can be a lot of extenuating circumstances, none of which justify a shitty OOD but do come into play.
A big problem is during qualifications, when a ship has to do certain maneuvers and drills, all within a designated time frame or back-to-back. These can last for days. An OOD may decide to keep going with the drill, even if it puts the ship in danger, to avoid having to restart from the very beginning and having to explain to superiors why they did not get their quals done on time.
Tl;dr Shitty officers put their own career ahead of the safety of their sailors.

>>34279262

Fuck me upon even further research Benson stepped down in march and was replaced by....drum roll please.....

FUCKING SHU AGAIN!

>>34279208

http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/ddg62/Pages/USS-Fitzgerald-Conducts-Underway-Replenishment-in-the-South-China-Sea.aspx#.WUSkGNyQyM8

So my original racist statement was correct and I learned that Navy captains get replaced even more often than the Cleveland Browns head coach. Which seems like an odd practice.

File: 1411704343695.png (12KB, 467x316px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 467x316px

>>34278863

>Shartniks

>In charge of anything

>>34279283
What? No, the warship would have gotten wrecked.

They're not armoured and the cargo ship is fucking huge.

Warship survivability is about stopping incoming attacks, and structural integrity and damage control in the event of a successful attack.

>>34278863
>fucks up and wrecks a ship
>"gets injured" and has to be life flighted off all in an attempt get out of not being dishonorably discharged

The USN makes desk jockies out of captains that hit a sandbar and get stuck with no damage. What do you think they'll do to this fuck?

>>34279290
12 inches of armor plate like the good old days.

>>34279308
Then how do you account for the total loss of power to the point that the Fitzgerald cannot return to Yokosuka on her own? Is that really making the grade for any warship?

>>34279283
>I'm guessing the dick on the front of the cargo ship did a ton of damage under the water line.

Yeah, that could well be the case.

>Seriously though, this is a warship. The cargo ship should have bounced off.
Umm, no. Do some math, check the tonnage of the cargo ship (be generous and take unladen) and then work out some average speeds. Assume that the warship is stationary and the cargoship hit it, just to make the math easier.

Calculate the newtons of force involved, then compare it to what we know about missiles.

You'll be wondering why the destroyer is even still floating but the answer is that the cargo ship was probably slowing and turning at the time and it was a slow, glancing blow.

>>34279272
>>34279282
Holy fuck, somebody please tell me they at least got a few 5" rounds into the cargo ship before that happened.

>>34279208
>>34279262
>>34279303
http://www.c7f.navy.mil/Media/News/Display/Article/1217717/uss-fitzgerald-collision-update-1012am-jst-june-17-2017/

CDR Bryce Benson's the captain. Sorry, it wasn't the AZN. I wonder if he decided to cut himself with a 9mm or something.

>>34279303
>So my original racist statement was correct
Not from that article it wasn't, that's dated March and he stepped down in May.

Do you have a different source?

>>34279283
Did you think we put rubber bumpers on our ships? Even if this were an old armored battleship, it's still two heavy chunks of hollow metal colliding at a decent speed.
Also, the dick is called a bulbous bow. It reduces drag at the ship's cruising speed to increase fuel efficiency.

>>34279341
That's the thing. They obviously did not and we ended up re-enacting the Titanic going Ice burg dead ahead with an Arleigh Burke destroyer when there's no fucking excuse whatsoever for this.

>>34279283
>The cargo ship should have bounced off.

>cargo ship traveling at 20+ knots weighing tens of thousands of pounds

do you even into physics brah?

>>34278863
>look before you turn
>turn right to avoid a collision
>tonnage has the right of way

File: Asian Driver.gif (2MB, 330x250px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 330x250px

>>34279352

This guy has it, my original racist statement was incorrect.

>>34279344

That ship plays musical chairs with COs.

>>34279352
>samefagging
>fucking dates, how do they work?
The cake cutting article is dated May 2016, so I can see how other anon actually got that confused but the dates IN the article are May 2017 so the writer just fucked up and dated the article wrong.

So Shu really was relieved in May 2017 by Benson who was still Captain/CO at time of collision, which we finally have actual confirmation of from >>34279344

Cool. Glad that's settled.

>>34279326
she's under her own steam and power now dude.

>>34279390
What's to be glad about? There's no way to pin this on woman driver now that it's this guy.

>>34279387
>that gif of that guy on a scooter
Man, I like and hate those scooters.
They make the roads really quiet because they just zip around without noise and they don't pollute the city either (of course the powerplant does but that's another story).

But then...old guys on them have so many stacks that it's crazy. They're always accelerating faster than they can control and half the time the brakes are worn out and never get replaced. I've been hit by a guy who was like 'sorry, my brakes are fucked' and then took off again.

I literally have a steel plate in my shoulder right now from a head-on with one of those that broke my collarbone. Just some old man on a big electric scooter going too fast, the wrong way up a bike lane and a driver parked in the lane that we both went around. So many things fucked up about it and the best part is that there's no third party insurance to pay for my surgery and he's just some old peasant who doesn't have any money to pay even if I could sue him. It's all fucked up.

>>34279208
He was the previous commander. White guy was the commander when the incident happened.

I bet his crew are all blacks and hispanics though.

>>34279355
Seriously this

>USN Ship
>Current year +2
>Cargo ship headed directly for you
>Assuming the cargo ship is JUST lost

Why was the command not given to fire everything? If this has been a wayward airliner near any kind of target it would have been shot down past a point of reasonable determination of intent. Ex. an airliner headed directly for lower Manhatten. Or say a cargo ship, obviously capable of causing severe damage is headed directly at one of our warships.

To be fair.

It wasn't the CO and most likely wasn't the XO. 3 commanding shifts per day, you think the CO is going to be up at 2 in the morning?

>believing this weak ass propaganda
look at the damage in the photo you fucking fools. this was a kaiju attack.

>>34279494
>Why was the command not given to fire everything?
Because it's in commercial shipping lanes, not some kind of US military restricted waters.

If it happened outside the harbour at Guam, it might be a different matter but on the open seas, they're essentially equals and in Japanese waters, they're both subject to Japanese maritime law (more or less).

File: 14162823_G.jpg (46KB, 700x400px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 700x400px

>>34279504
Nice try. Nips can't pull off CG this gud.

>>34279359
Water moves, If the ship is rigid enough it will only get pushed sideway and not sustain damage. The problem as I see it, is the outer plating and super structure wasn't strong enough to take the impact before crumping to stronger interior structures.

>>34279504
>look at the damage in the photo you fucking fools. this was a kaiju attack.
kek

>>34279498
>It wasn't the CO and most likely wasn't the XO. 3 commanding shifts per day, you think the CO is going to be up at 2 in the morning?
Maybe he likes the graveyard shift?

Of the people on a bridge, the captain would be the only one likely to be walking around when something like this happens, right? Radar office reports close contact, captain comes over to take a look, impact while he's walking or standing over the RO's shoulder.

Sort of makes sense he'd be the one to fall down and hit his head on something. If that's how he was injured.

>>34279525
>Radar office reports close contact,

Collision avoidance alarms would be going off well before that.

>>34278863
I hope all lost hands are found safe, and that appropriate safety measures are taken in the future to prevent the loss of life

>>34279283
>>34278863
Hey guy. Marine engineer here I sail on cargo ships for a living.


NO amount of armor is going to stop the force of a 50 thousand ton object moving at ~13-20 kts broadsiding you. For perspective that warship is only about 8 thousand tons.

And yes the ACX crystal like most ships of this type has a bulbous bow it improves hydrodynamics and fuel efficiency. Because of keel loads the bulbous bow is one of the strongest parts of a ship containing multiple internal bulkheads and a collision bulkhead.

That destroyer has weak armor on top of this. I can basically guarantee she's hulled below the water line big time.

In short Fitzgerald is a floating scrap mound they will be lucky if it doesn't sink before it makes a port.

File: 2gore4u.png (24KB, 684x737px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 684x737px

>>34279456
>mfw in college towns the streets are awash with students on these things every passing period
>They're all, to the man, riding around in wife beaters and shorts and sandals without even any eye protection
>At absolute best you'll see them in half or three quarters helmets
>mfw they don't even know what's waiting for them because, below 50ccs and being able to hit 30 mph on flat ground, you don't actually need a motorcycle license to ride them and as such they've never seen the pictures of what happens when you hit the pavement going that fast and then get run over
>mfw not enough of them get smeared every year for the fuckers to do awareness campaigns like they do for every little thing otherwise

>>34279274
>They'll find those seven after a week.

In one of the 2 berthing areas that got flooded. Ship gets hit at 0230, fwd crew berthing gets wiped out, those guys ain't coming home.

>>34279551
>be lucky if it doesn't sink before it makes a port.

nigga, ships have made it to port with their entire bows shorn off and larger gaping holes in the waterline

>>34279325
Yeah, I sure do miss the days of massively armored destroyers.

Have ISIL claimed responsibility yet?

>>34279577
A broadside admidships is more damaging than losing the bow in this particular design. The bow has a collision bulkhead behind it which is more or less watertight where as where she was hit admidships is probably an engine or machinery space. Very bad.

It's a floating scrap mound the keel is probably bent as well from an impact that bad. Maybe they will fix the thing but I won't hold my breath.

>>34278863
>not looking the ship.

So, Navy fag here (redundant)

The DDG was probably trying to giveway to the cargo ship and they fucked up.

You can kinda tell that they hit the DDG, not the other way around, given the bowsized mark midship...

>>34279604
>>34279551
>marine engineer
>doesn't know shit about counter flooding
>thinks that any hole regardless of size is enough ensure sinking of a vessel
>literally hundreds of instances in WWII on ships with no armor alone that prove this to be a lie

gettin real tired of summer

>>34279604
>this post

Haha, no, she'll be fine.

>>34279637
>fine
I am expecting that she'll be scrapped.

>>34279515
>Water moves

yes, and water also resists movement, more so if there is a greater surface area being pushed into it. in this case, with what is essentially a t-bone collision, it's at its most resistant.

>If the ship is rigid enough it will only get pushed sideway and not sustain damage

given the force delivered at impact, it would sustain damage no matter what. it's just to what degree you get damaged. yeah you can armor plate it and give it more structural support but for what purpose? give up speed, cost, ease of repair, and fuel efficiency for the off chance that a ship may hit another ship?

>the outer plating and super structure wasn't strong enough to take the impact before crumping to stronger interior structures.

that's because they aren't designed to do that. amour plating on a ship doesn't mean much when you can fly a missile directly down the stacks or detonate a torpedo along the keel amidships.

>>34279641
You would be wrong, I'm expecting her to return to the fleet.

>>34279619
The problem is that this should never have happened in the first place. Lack of situational awareness, communication, and I guess overestimation of their own vessel?

>>34279187
Judging by damage, the merchant rammed the ddg, the bow pierced her below waterline. Officers ward and CIC flooded

>>34279647
>given the force delivered at impact, it would sustain damage no matter what. it's just to what degree you get damaged.
Paint and nothing more is what I consider an acceptable degree of damage to suffer.

>>34279668
Wouldn't matter if the freighter didn't maneuver correctly.

If they crew thought she was going to reduce speed as the DDG moved ahead, and then didn't reduce speed, you get an incident.

Could also be on the bridge crew of the Destroyer, but I doubt it.

>>34279689
*their

>>34279551
>Fitzgerald is a floating scrap mound they will be lucky if it doesn't sink before it makes a port.

Retired DC here. She'll make port, barring heavy weather. They'll dewater and pull the bodies out of the flooded compartments, do an emergency drydock, then send her to Brownsville.

Only 3 compartments flooded, but I'll bet her keel is bent/twisted and her hull girder is fucked like hasn't been seen since WW2.

>>34279641
Did they scrap the USS Porter? nope. so they probably won't scrap the Fitzgerald.

>>34279674
>Officers ward and CIC flooded

wardroom is on the 02 level and CIC is main deck which is above the water line. Aux 1 flooded.

>>34279701
>>34279689
*her crew

Fucking, I should stopdrinking on fridays.

>>34278863
Wonder if the Philippines is going to flip their shit.

>>34279685
>Paint and nothing more is what I consider an acceptable degree of damage to suffer.

then design a slow, cost ineffective ship with 2 foot armor plating all over and absolutely no gun mounts, mast, or external sensors. that bullshit indestructible ship attitude died with the Titanic and the Bismark.

>>34279604
>probably an engine or machinery space.

So far, we're hearing that 2 berthing areas and a machinery space were flooded. Yes, that meets the criteria for very bad.

>>34279604
you do know that the Samuel B. Roberts made it back to port broken literally in half right? if there's one thing the USN is good at, it's damage control.

>>34279208
the captain dosn't generally steer the ship it was probably some shitbag E-3 at the helm

>>34279773
>E3

Lol, more like some officer fresh out of SWO school.

>>34279789
E-3's stand watch at the helm of the ship im on

>>34279629
Not that guy, but I will halfway agree on what he said.

Yes the Fitz can counter-flood and get the ship underway again, but hes right in that the kind of structural damage from another ship that bug hitting it amidships is going to warp the entire frame and keel. She wont sink, but her career is likely over.

>>34279789
>>34279803
E-3s stand helm on every ship, it's the SWO who has the conn and feeds directions to seaman fuckface.

>>34279709
Thanks for the clarification. I dont know the inside of these things, just heard on kikebook that Ward and CIC sustained some sort of damage.
>>34279706
>retired DC

Got any interesting stories, my dude?

>>34279902
>that Ward and CIC sustained some sort of damage

i doubt the wardroom took any noticeable damage other than some bent shit. it's just a dining room anyway, so it doesn't make much difference. CIC getting some sort of damage wouldn't surprise me though, it is in line with the area that got hit.

>>34279629
Different anon here, counterflooding isn't a routine practice on US ships. Carriers might consider it for reasons, but it went out of vogue for most ships during WW2. Deliberately eliminating your reserve buoyancy is just plain stupid.

Now, having the oil king move fuel around is a different story. You can go a long way toward reducing a list just by shifting your onboard bunkerage.

The anon you're responding to is a merchie, they won't know a whole lot about counterflooding because civilian vessels usually don't have the compartmentation or plumbing to make it work. For that matter, US military vessels don't have the required plumbing, either. it's just not part of our doctrine.

>>34279803
And there is always an officer on the bridge, unless the Navy just fell apart in a year since I've been gone.

>>34279187
>hit by 21,000 tons moving who knows how fast
>dented
what a piece of shit

>>34279931
seriously, the ship is so flimsy it makes us look flimsy. and what if the american flag had been painted where the damage is. THE FLAG WOULD HAVE BEEN CRUMPLED.

>>34279949
>7 people dead
>dozens wounded
>One flag toppled over
MUH FLAG!

File: 1470084203156.png (447KB, 930x718px) Image search: [Google]

447KB, 930x718px

So this is the power of the US Navy...

File: 1467483668826.gif (208KB, 323x221px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 323x221px

>>34279551

>>34279980
just to point out, the a Russian recon vessel got hit by a tanker in the Black Sea. you wanna know what happened to it? it fucking sank. as far as the record goes on bouncing back from getting t-boned by a tanker goes, we're doing okay.

>>34279325
>30cm of armour plating
>deflect a ship as big as a moving island
wew anon really found that unobtainium dincha

>>34279242
That is a volcano

Maybe they are just hiding in the engine room?

File: aircraftcarriermeme7.jpg (53KB, 960x635px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 960x635px

>>34280016
No, is superior Russian carrier. No nation would dare sink, as ship fuel would burn black vengeance for century.

>>34279726
The cargo ship was the ones who crashed into the destroyer, not the other way around. They are the ones who are at fault here.

>>34280038
Typical conservicuck, always blaming PoCs for his shortcomings.

>>34280007
It got hit by some glorified livestock barge...
But then again the Russian ship was a glorified fishing boat.

>>34279902
>Got any interesting stories, my dude?

Not really. I've seen and done some interesting things, but trying to tell about them later just falls flat. Mostly you had to have been there, or it's just not that interesting.

Although, I do have to say the anon who posted the blood mushrooms story hit it right on the head. You only have to deal with it once, though, if you toss the blood cork on the table in the female dayroom just before evening chow.

>>34279277
>autistic fuck bitching his thread aint getting enough attention.

>>34279551
>lucky if it doesn't sink before it makes a port
Not to beat a dead horse, but I'd be thoroughly surprised if it sank. It is a warship after all, so to some degree they are prepared for structural damage.
I was stationed of a DDG for a while and we had weekly GQ drills which always consisted of dewatering and flooding.

>>34279585
Go back to /pol/

https://twitter.com/US7thFleet/status/875944172917846016

>@US7thFleet (7th Fleet): #FITZ UPDATE: Flooding has been stabilized and Sailors from #USSDewey are assisting in damage control efforts. #USSFitzgerald

>>34279709
>so they probably won't scrap the Fitzgerald.
Expensive repairs though. That SPY array got fucked.

There's an audio recording bridge of during the USS Porter collusion. Real shit show. They were going full speed through the Straits of Hormuz.

https://pilotonline.com/news/military/audio-confusion-reigned-before-destroyer-s-collision/article_c7472be8-efcb-5763-93bb-aab66d820175.html

File: rules of the road.jpg (111KB, 660x835px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 660x835px

Who is at fault here?

>>34279571
>In one of the 2 berthing areas that got flooded. Ship gets hit at 0230, fwd crew berthing gets wiped out, those guys ain't coming home.
It was a joke about the guy who was thought overboard but found hiding in engineering after a week.

>>34280132
Let's be charitable and say it was a joke about ISIL claiming responsibility for everything that goes wrong everywhere.

>>34279515
Stop posting stupid shit.

>>34280279
>Who is at fault here?

The committee that decided that putting people on a four hour watch after a twelve hour shift was a good idea.

boating 101: it's a lot harder to avoid ships in the distance than people think

>>34279551
A man o' war is much more sink resistant than a container ship.

>>34280279
An American destroyer always has right of way.

File: IMG_0618.jpg (713KB, 2592x1936px) Image search: [Google]

713KB, 2592x1936px

>>34280303
>four hour watch after a twelve hour shift was a good idea.
That's pretty much SWO culture.

>You want to sleep? This won't look good on your next FITREP

>>34279921
USN practice for almost a century has been to build WT compartments that run all the way across, so a list from flooding is minimal.

>>34279647
Modern warships don't have steel armor. And when they did, the uptakes ("stacks") were protected with armor gratings.
Stop shitposting.

>>34280322
>A man o' war is much more sink resistant than a container ship.

considering that most man-of-wars were made of wood and tiny, I highly doubt that. the outdated terminology makes you look like a jackass, cut that wannabe master and commander shit out.

>>34279706
Shitter tech has best post.

>>34279187
>Do we even bother to armor our shit anymore?
It isn't 1860, so no.

>>34279208>>34279303

Ling Ling!!!

>>34280388
>Modern warships don't have steel armor

i literally never said they did.

>the uptakes ("stacks") were protected with armor gratings

yes and those could totally stop a ASM designed specifically to punch through a ships ships hull.

>>34279158
It's the Nutshack

>>34280323
until it doesn't and the CO loses his job.

>>34280407
They teach that sensitivity at the Maritime Academy?

>>34278863
A pathetic amount of armchair admirals on here making wild claims. Modern warships don't have armor because a hit from an ASM does much less damage when the warhead goes "clean" through the ship. Armor or not, a torp against a ship is almost a guarantee kill anyway, it just reduces speed and range.

>>34280431
ASMs only need to pierce hull steel, not armor. And NONE can be aimed down an uptake. NONE.
Do you think it's a straight pipe leading below?

>>34280455
>implying I could pull my head out of my ass long enough when I was young to get accepted into any college.

File: department-of-the-army-comics-ps-magazine-the-preventive-maintenance-monthly-issue-614.jpg (94KB, 469x700px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 469x700px

>>34279577

What are water tight doors/hatches?

nigga did you see the amount of pumps with overboard discharge they had?

THey had like 6 hoses in the video going overboard, full blast, presuming they are using standard pumps, thats either 100X6 or 250X6= 600 or 1500 gallons of water going overboard per minute nonstop, that means that unless they say fuck the space and just seal it, they are literally nonstop pumping
80-200 cubic feet of water out of the boat every minute which accounts for at least an entire berthing area or more

>>34280303
stop being a pussy

>>34280458
People also need to recognize that weapons are far different now. Thick steel armor can't do shit to stop modern explosives. 70 years ago a giant hunk of metal might be stopped by armor in the right circumstance, but today ASMs and missiles and explosives are just tailor made to defeat what they're shooting at.

Ships aren't going to go around ramming each other and gun combat isn't really a thing, so why overload yourself with armor that won't stop the thing being shot at you?

>>34280490
I believe they were dewatering the compartments that were lost to sea, but not breached. Apparently an aux machinery room and 2 messes were lost.

>>34280478
>ASMs only need to pierce hull steel, not armor

yes and no. most only need to pierce steel. doesn't mean they can't pierce armor. the SS-N-22s certainly can.

>And NONE can be aimed down an uptake. NONE.

there are literally dozens which can high dive down onto a ship. TLAM and Kalibur "T"s are both capable of doing it.

>Do you think it's a straight pipe leading below?

do you think that its interior is armored? and what do you think is gonna happen to the engines, be they boilers or turbines, when the their exhaust path is blocked by debris?

>>34280523
You clearly don't navy. Trying to land an ASM down an uptake would be the biggest waste of time and much less effective than hitting the side with a surface skimming zippo. Also what is ESSM

>>34280323
>inb4 "This is a lighthouse mate, your move"

>>34280578
>You clearly don't navy.

you clearly don't reading comprehension. the point i was trying to make wasn't about the fucking feasibility of jamming an ASM down an exhaust stack, it was about not wasting your fucking time armor plating a ship when modern missiles have significantly finer control and can aim for weak points on a ship.

File: 1491961001235.jpg (74KB, 500x334px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 500x334px

>>34280436

>>34280674
Hitting a ship with an ASM is a lot more difficult than you think, especially since most ships have Elisra or equivalent jammers. Let alone "hitting a weak point" on a moving, rolling, and pitching target. Warships don't have armor because if you do get hit by an ASM, you want that fucker to explode on the other side of your ship, that way the only damage you have is a pierced hull, some power loss, and small fires.

>>34280775
>especially since most ships have Elisra or equivalent jammers

A. no they don't.
B. Jammers are only effective against Missiles which use active homing, that doesn't really eliminate all that many ASMs.

>Let alone "hitting a weak point" on a moving, rolling, and pitching target.

so what you're saying is you know literally nothing about the top ASM threats right now. got it.

>Warships don't have armor because if you do get hit by an ASM, you want that fucker to explode on the other side of your ship, that way the only damage you have is a pierced hull, some power loss, and small fires.

except that several types of missiles are equipped with directional charges programmed to blow over the keel of a ship. either way, the point still stands, there are reasons modern warships aren't equipped with armor.

>>34279494
see
>>34279385

File: detained.jpg (71KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1024x576px

>American navy
Just a meme desu

File: uss fit.png (3MB, 1392x1000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1392x1000px

>>34280577
It looks to be holed below the waterline.

Collision at night - well that figures. Only about the thousandth time that's happened.

Strange this stuff only hits the headlines when a warships involved.

Could have been ten times worse though. Check out the HMAS Melbourne-Voyager collision for a real horror story.

>>34280874
Jammers that can sever the connection between the missile and the launch platforms are pretty common place. The system sniffs out the signals being sent to the missile, alters them, and then returns them at a much higher amplitude. When the passive and active guidance systems are both being blocked, good luck with your warhead timing, or even hitting your target.

>>34280279
Fitzgerald has its damage on its starboard side, Crystal on its portside. So Fitzgerald is at fault.

>>34280961
If it was a crossing situation Fitzgerald should have turned right to pass behind the container ship way in advanced

>>34280973
Assuming the Fitzgerald was moving. I'd expect a much longer damage zone if the Fitzgerald was moving, making me think it was stationary or very slow.

>>34280361
>USN practice for almost a century has been to build WT compartments that run all the way across

Right and wrong. The practice has been to have the hull space divided up by transverse bulkheads, with WT compartmentation also within the subdivided areas. The major transverse bulkheads have minimal penetrations, so you have to climb up to the main deck (assuming that's the DC deck) to transit from one subdivision to another. Generally speaking, any size US ship can lose 2 subdivisions to flooding and still retain positive buoyancy. It's for this reason that you'll find emergency power, propulsion, and firefighting systems at least one major subdivision away from the regular systems. There's also a lot of port/starboard system redundancy within and between subdivisions.

It's very rare for a complete subdivision to flood, though. That kind of hull damage almost never happens in neat and tidy units. What typically occurs is that you get off-center damage to one or more subdivisions, causing localized flooding within the affected compartments. Undamaged compartments within the same subdivision still retain their buoyancy, though. This complicates the stability of the ship, and can lead to a capsizing loss if the center of gravity rises too far above the center of buoyancy. This is the part where the oil king starts moving fuel around like a madman. He's trying to achieve 2 objectives- lower the center of gravity as much as possible, and offset any list that may have been incurred. In most cases, there will be a list.

>>34280288
>a joke about the guy who was thought overboard but found hiding in engineering after a week.

He probably gets to spend the next month under psych evaluation at Balboa, then they hand him a one-time med discharge payment of $12K and send him on his way. If he refuses the lump sum payout, he gets like $130/month for 5 years and all of the VA care he can stomach.

The numbers have probably been adjusted for inflation since the last time I saw it happen, though.

>>34279456
>Scooters
>Quiet
On what planet?

Does anyone have a cross-section with damaged areas at all? Not a boat guy so curious to what areas have been destroyed.

>>34281340
New electric motors are typically brushless and very quiet. I'm pretty sure that's what he's talking about.

File: slavcano.jpg (63KB, 1200x848px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1200x848px

>>34280016
Yeah sure.

>>34279629
>gettin real tired of summer
ewwww

>muh summer
thats how you spot people who have only been on /k/ for less than a year

>>34280903
I don't know anything about boats but I assume when you see water streams being expelled from the hull, it means that there is water inside...

>>34281340
>>Scooters
>>Quiet
>On what planet?
They're electric and basically silent.

>>34281406
>New electric motors are typically brushless and very quiet. I'm pretty sure that's what he's talking about.
I guess so, I don't know their internals, just that they're all electric and you don't even hear a hum.

how do boats crash lmao

>>34278863
>missing

Maybe they are hiding in engineering.

>>34278863
So what was happening here really?
Were the two captains having a dick waving contest and now someones losing their comfy position?

One Burgership less to Dongfeng.

>>34279570
What I've always wondered is: How come to ride a Scooter safely, you've got to dress like a proper motorbiker but guys on bikes always wear lycra?

I mean I can see the temperature/sweat advantage when riding a bike, but then surely you'll still get splattered if you dismount at high speeds?

>>34280132
>having a stick this far up your ass
you're better suited for redd.it

>>34280323
Thinking like this is probably why that egotistical faggot is going to lose the job he "worked" so long for

>>34281923
>all electric and you don't even hear a hum.

2nd'd. In Japan for the last month and nearly been run flat by Prius' (in battery mode), and iMIEVs multiple times.

They seriously need some artificial engine noise as a design rule.

File: 1699478.jpg (25KB, 334x188px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 334x188px

>>34280903

I was wondering about that, it looks like you are right.

>>34281907

some of the holes are for coolant water for systems like auxilairy generators and A/C pumps that use seawater to cool, others are for things like grey water overboard discharge, but with the number of holes making wate rgo out, likely that they are using installed emergency pumps for bilges and spaces

>>34281979

hard to say, but on the mid watch, could be people were just bullshitting and not paying attention to radar/lookout inattentive. I don't now what the watch rotation on a boat like this is , but there probably weren't more than 8 people on the bridge with 2-3 paying attention to boats, and probably some 22y/o ensign was in charge of the boat with orders to notify the captain if any boats were approaching (likely did not happen). poor judgement could be at fault
>"nah captain hes far enough away, we will pass right by each other, no need to worry"
>crunch.mp3

or it could have been the same asinine behavior as the Iran detainment incident (tl:dr rivereine boats had no clear chain of command, janky repairs done several hours prior to departing, literally used a power point presentation as a map, did not know there was an island in the middle of the gulf, did not enter any navigation instructions to GPS or even look at a paper map) that kinda stupid

>>34279545
W H O L E S O M E

File: EDIT.png (3MB, 1392x1000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1392x1000px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHkVpXIVxyc

>DAT ANCHOR HOLE

The lookout and entire bridge team is probably FUUUUUCKED

>>34279242
kek

>>34279395
She was towed-in.

>>34279236
Speed
Firepower
Armor

Pick two

>>34279494
The better question is how the fuck was the warship so blind to the commercial ship?

File: assessment.png (1MB, 1392x1000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1392x1000px

can someone corroborate this based on the freeboards of the ships? I don't know how tall each of this is, this could be important.

File: Summer Glau Shooting With Gun In Black Dress N Grey Background.jpg (116KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1920x1080px

>>34279629
>gettin real tired of summer
That could never happen.

>>34279283
When a 29,060 ton object going 20 knots hits anything that thing is going to be fucked up.

>>34282034
>I mean I can see the temperature/sweat advantage when riding a bike, but then surely you'll still get splattered if you dismount at high speeds?

You generally get a bit of road rash and not much more, it has to be a pretty bad fall to cause much more. As a cyclist with a broken collarbone, it was a scooter that put me over that way, I had a fall a week or two earlier that was actually my own fault and just lost a little skin. Nothing that dettol and time didn't fix.

The really gruesome injuries in cycling races are because at that level, you're care about winning a lot more than you care about a few broken bones and consequently, you don't slow down for dangerous curves, you just try and go through them perfectly at high speed. Which is why the Barcelona Olympic cycling track put several people in hospital with super bad injuries on its off camber turn (same way I fell above, more or less).

>>34282189
>>34282291
Seems pretty reasonable to me.

>>34280038
Doesn't matter.
Warship should have never been that close to that container ship.

>>34280952
>Jammers that can sever the connection between the missile and the launch platforms are pretty common place

again, no, they aren't, because semi-active homing isn't that common place.

>The system sniffs out the signals being sent to the missile, alters them, and then returns them at a much higher amplitude.

you're describing barrage jamming and it's insanely easy to overcome. more or less an inconvenience, it's not gonna stop anything.

>When the passive and active guidance systems are both being blocked, good luck with your warhead timing, or even hitting your target.

that doesn't block passive or active you mouth breather, passive homing uses radar from it's target, active uses a radar built into the missile. what you're thinking of covers very few missiles overall. I'm getting the idea that you don't know a fucking thing about surface warfare.

>>34281907
They are just pumping overboard excess drinking water, now that there a seven fewer seamen on board. No need to worry ...

>>34282314
Not if these ships were armored instead of being a billion dollar boondoggle
Theres zero excuse that a hit like this should almost sink a military vessel

Even the fucking merchant vessel is better armored & in better shape after this collision

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXHQ2aD929g

>>34282378
Yes. We should totally spend millions of dollars along with several hundred tons of displacement to armor a warship on the off chance that it might collide with another ship. Why no, it's not actually going to affect anything in actual combat. And no, it wouldn't have actually changed anything in this case either. But we should totally do it because my fee fees!

>>34282440
Uh collisions happen in combat all the time

It's called MISSILES or TORPEDOS or ANTI-SHIP MINES
kk

But I guess this is where we pretend that armor does nothing, because you could build ships out of paper mache and it'll be the same as steel.

>>34282453
A torpedo under the keel is going to fuck your ship up no matter how much armor it has. And any missile designed to fuck up a hundred thousand ton carrier is going to royally fuck up a ten thousand ton destroyer. Plus, it's far easier and faster to design and mass produce a cruise missile capable of penetrating fuckloads of armor than it is to build a ship with fuckloads of armor.

The best armor in the missile age is A) seeing(and shooting) your enemy before they see you or B) defeating the missile before it hits.

>>34282453
Research the armor layout of any destroyer ever.

You stupid fuck.

>>34282479
>A torpedo under the keel is going to fuck your ship up no matter how much armor it has.
Wrong
Carriers have no more armor than a Burke
Anything that can penetrate armor will have vastly reduced payload compared to the big chunk of HE that modern AShM's are

Easy to say, but armor doesn't prevent either of those things.

>>34282500
>Anything that can penetrate armor will have vastly reduced payload compared to the big chunk of HE that modern AShM's are

he's talking about torpedoes, not AShMs brah

>>34282510
Underkeel detonations work against weakly built ships like Burkes or other commercial hulls.

They don't work against properly armored ships

Also this isn't the 20's/30's anymore, we are no longer limited on tonnage

File: 800px-USS_Washington_damage_after_collision_NARA_BS_109965[1].jpg (68KB, 800x657px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 800x657px

>>34282378
Tell that to USS Washington or USS Wisconsin

>>34282550
No, but the bigger and heavier the ship is, the fewer places there are that can work on it, be it for actual construction or repair/maintenance. Plus, it gets more and more expensive so you have fewer and fewer to go around

>>34282524
>They don't work against properly armored ships

got any evidence for that? or is that just summerfag conjecture?

File: 1490936391675.jpg (11KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 225x225px

>>34278863
CLEARLY, this is the work of RUSSIAN HACKERS! No way American crew could do this on their own. FUCKING RUSSIAN HACKERS hacked the ship and collidewiht !

>>34282556
That is the unique danger of building armored ships
They might collide with the one thing that can defeat them, another armored ship

>>34282576
see: the fact that "anti-tank" munitions exist, or "bunker busting" munitions exist

>>34279262
>http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/ddg62/Pages/bio1-29May2015-11march2017.aspx#.WUSgq9yQyM8
http://archive.is/d96xW

File: Wilkes-Barre.jpg (21KB, 800x177px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 800x177px

>>34282524
You're a fucking retard.
Freidman (1979) "Modern Warship Design and Development" page 174 has three photos of USS Wilkes-Barre being expended in a test of an under keel explosion. He states "on its first explosion, the bubble lifts the ship out of the water, straining its hull girder. Generally, the second expansion suffices to produce the result shown: the hull simply breaks. Conventional hull armour merely makes matters worse, since it makes the hull girder more rigid. This type of attack also causes severe shock damage internally even if the bubble does not hit squarely enough to destroy the ship" A modern torpedo or mine will certainly cause an old Battleship severe problems, indeed it appears that the very armour that should protect it increases the vulnerability of the hull. A battleship would at the least be neutralised by this type of impact through destruction/severe degradation of its power plant, weapons and sensors.

Wilkes-Barre had a 5" primary armor belt and the ship snapped in half after being hit by a Mk48 torpedo, the modern design of torpedos was tested against the armored ships you beat off to so furiously and could do a damn fine job of sinking them.

>>34282589
Anti ship munitions also exist
Checkmate armored ships, GG no re

File: carscooter.gif (952KB, 348x343px) Image search: [Google]

952KB, 348x343px

>>34279456

>>34282611
So a ship that was never designed to resist a type of attack is sunk by that attack, what a surprise.
Sat in mothball for 30 years too

>To meet treaty limitations and still provide much needed ships for scouting and fleet screening, an 8000 ton 6 inch gun cruiser was designed and given the name Cleveland and designation CL-55. This ship had a main battery of five twin 6-in/47 dual purpose gun (surface and anti-aircraft) turrets and an anti-aircraft battery of five quad 1.1 inch machine guns. However, the dual purpose 6-in/47 gun was far behind schedule and would not be ready for service for several years. The 1.1 inch machine gun also was behind schedule and proving very unsatisfactory. To keep under the 8000 ton limit it had been necessary to reduce the side armor belt, leaving the ship under protected. Even with these weight limitations there was no room for expected modifications if war broke out. The compromise design was disliked by all members of the design group. Nevertheless, something was needed to fill the light cruiser role, and in March 1939 authorization was given to build two ships in 1940.

>>34282660
Short of making it out of jello, there IS no way to design a ship to not be vulnerable to a torpedo under the keel.

File: 1322422428682.jpg (2MB, 3000x1998px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x1998px

Why aren't we talking about the new cruise missel destroyer launched today? We all know the Navy is full of fags and redgaurds

Did anyone hear Clinton's speech at the release. LOL too bad she not the pres. All she can do is talk about american power which she would just use to posture against "evil" Russia.

Thank god she is just a speech bitch not the Comand and Conquer in Chief. haha I hope trump goes back to Iraq and afgan and TAKES THE OIL

>>34282611
To add to this bit of evidence that underkeel detonations work on armored vessels we just have to look at the Alexandria Raid of 1941.
The HMS Queen Elizabeth, a Super-Dreadnought that had been refitted in the interwar period with torpedo bulges and boasted a 13" primary armor belt was fully disabled by a 600lb charge set several feet below the keel by Italian divers using manned submersible vehicles. The Queen Elizabeth had to be lightened by removing all unnecessary fuel, ammunition, crewmembers, and supplies. She was out of service for more than a year and it was initially suggested by the engineers who surveyed the damage in Alexandria that she be converted into a depot ship due to severe damage.
The Mark 48 Torpedo has a roughly 650lb warhead and is designed to detonate under the keel of a warship.

>>34282725
Why do we need to take the oil now? We're well on our way to be completely independent from oil imports.

>>34282717
Thats nonsense, you can structurally design the ship to handle the weight loads that are placed on it
To not crumple/break in the center
Then armor the keel against the shockwave

>>34282732
There was no armor against under-keel detonations at the time
So it causes major internal damage, which is what they are talking about.

It would never actually sink these battleships though

>>34279208
>left command only a month ago

wew that guy dodged a fucking bullet

>>34282660
So in your ideal world the ships would be super heavily armored yet still vulnerable to losing sensor systems from direct attack and still just as susceptible to having their underside blown out by a subsurface detonation because the destructive nature of said attack was known in the late 1930's and was shown to great effect against HMS Queen Elizabeth.
If a Super-Dreadnought is effectively rendered useless by a single 600lb charge detonating roughly five feet below it's keel I really doubt modern designs would fare much better.
Hell my previous quote from a book written by a man who actually made a career out of documenting naval design pointed out the underkeel detonation fucks over armored vessels just as badly as normal ones.

File: PolyphemusRam.jpg (63KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 500x500px

>>34279551
>>34279283
So bulbous bow are actually modern naval rams?

>mfw everyone has been arming their merchant navies with deadly weapons without even knowing about it

File: 1497712280326.jpg (32KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 600x450px

I bet it felt good when she got penitrated by his Big Red Bulbous Bow

>>34282751
The Queen Elizabeth had a damaged keel and was forever left with permanent damage after the attack. The only reason it didn't sink is because it settled on the damn harbor bottom, it took six months of repairs to get the ship ready to move enough to affect temporary repairs.

And guess what you fucking mong? The Queen Elizabeth class had a a triple keel with roughly four inches of KCA armor materials spaced between the plates of it's heavily subdivided and braced inner bottom as protection against naval mines. If that doesn't count as an armored keel then I suppose not much does, and despite all that Queen Elizabeth suffered damage to 1000sq/ft of it's underbelly in the Alexandria attack.

>>34278863
>>34278863
FACT: FILIPINOS MAKE THE MOST POWERFUL SHIPS IN THE WORLD.

File: 1436193 - Ratbat boat inanimate ship.jpg (389KB, 1400x992px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 1400x992px

>>34282843

>>34282777
These old ships are only heavily armored against specific threats of their day
They had zero armor on the bottom of the ship to protect against detonations there.

Still, battleships would never be cracked in half by underkeel detonations, the HMS Queen Elizabeth was not sunk.

>>34282741
have you ever played C&C you always take the resources if you capture an area

russia does it, china does it, why not 美国吗?

>>34282875
I'm pretty certain you don't need to sink a vessel to make it completely fucking useless and Queen Elizabeth was only saved by the fact it grounded at it's mooring. If the ship was underway the damage reports from the Royal Navy themselves state it would have been uncertain if the vessel would been able to stay afloat but it would have been operationally ineffective and out of control due to severe failures in propulsion and electrical systems. Mind you HMS Valiant suffered a similar attack and was taken out of service for nearly a year, and these were both ships with armored underbellies due to the threat of naval mines.

>>34282854
Don't bother, this guy is now in full cognitive dissonance mode, no fact will ever change his delusions, he's finished.

>>34282875
Yes, you total conservative, it sunk in harbour, still moored.
And yes, the tests done on Wilkes Burr have shown that heavily armoured ships actually are more easily damaged by underwater detonations because they are more rigid so they crack far easier.
For fuck's sake, can't you even read?

>>34282875
>these old ships were armored and way better at surviving damage!
>These old ships are only heavily armored against specific threats of their day
>Italians use a weapon from that timeframe against 2 ships that were fully armored, manage to cripple 3 ships and sink another.

>>34279283
>The cargo ship should have bounced off
"I don't understand physics!"

What do you think happens when a 30000 ton cargo ship does when it hits a 8000 ton unarmored Destroyer?

>>34282957
The Wilkes Burr was a light cruiser that was underarmored by the standards of its time
Making a specific comment on its armor design after its been sitting in mothball for 30 years does not apply to any conceivable armor scheme.

>>34282919
If the ship had been underway, they wouldn't have been hit by divers lugging a bomb under them.

>>34283024
The old ships are armored, which is superior to having no armor at all and using soft steel as a cost saving effort

Retarded thought process: WW1/2 era armor patterns don't function well against modern weapon design, therefore no armor(or any passive protection) will

Proper thought design: We need a modern armor pattern to counter modern weaponry

>>34283076
Are you that completely conservative? The fact that it was underarmoured made it more resistand to underkeel detonations, not weaker. How cretin can you be to not get that simple idea thru your thick skull?
And you actually believe that steel armour degrades if a ship is kept unused? Wow, you really are braindead.

>>34283097
Maybe we should build ships out of wood, they would be invincible according to your logic huh?

>>34283095
Well, the Nimitz's have kevlar armor, if that's anything to go by. Dunno about the the Fords though.

It's amazing watching this thread, ostensibly, filled with people who are *into* warships, and military history, and in general respect engineering and the tradeoffs made therein, so *gloatingly* miss-understand ship design.

I'm not a natuical engineer, I'm a Chemical Engineer, but I work for a design firm making LNG carriers (I work on Containment and propulsion and am shifting to hull form) and I can tell you point blank, in regard to armor; *no* amount of armor, would protect an impact over this.

Energy transfer, in simplest form, is a function of time, where the greater the amount of time the collision takes place over, the more energy transferred from the object moving to the (from a relative point of view) object at rest (remember, everything is moving, but one object is 'at rest' relative to the other (faster) object). If the collision takes more time, more energy is transferred. A 16" shell hitting an armored belt only 'hits' for a few tenths of a second. So that mass, Kinetic, and potential energy only has a brief window to do *work* on the armor. Hardness, which in metallurgy is what we're talking about in regard to 'bouncing' a projectile, relies on *brief* windows of work. And by brief, 0.1, 0.2 seconds of impact. Any collision longer than that and the hardness becomes *less* of an issue and now ductility (flexibility, sorta) becomes a better factor. Face Hardened, Cemented Armor, Krupp Armor, all warship armor have *VERY* high hardness, and baring STS plate, VERY low ductility. Meaning, if the impact is perfectly elastic, and brief, it will bounce the opposing force. If it's inelastic, and/or takes place over a *long* time, it will shatter and break.

Now lets talk momentum. Momentum is mass * velocity. Very fast, very heavy objects have high momentum (and thus able to transfer momentum, better). A 16" shell while moving very fast, does *not* have that much mass compared to the striking surface

cont'

>>34279359
>pounds
*tonnes

>>34283116

(read: not the ship, but the plate itself, as the Cemented Armor was universally more dense). As a result, baring a HUGE difference in mass (why a 16" is better than a 14" for example) or a *massive* difference in velocity (much harder to achieve due to a barrel blowing up or the breach blowing up), an 'equal amount' of armor to shell will result in the armor willing (i.e., a 16" shell can penetrate a 14" belt, but not 16" belt, this isn't exactly true and is WAY more complex but for these purposes, works fine).

Now lets look at *this* situation.

1) This is *not* a perfectly elastic collision. Both objects deformed as they impacted.

2) This impact took a long time. And yes, 2, 3, 15 seconds is an ETERNITY when looking at an impact.

3) Both objects had relatively high mass (8000 tons vs. ~35k tons) but vastly favored the 'projectile' not the target.

4) Even armored warships, not restricted by treaties, rarely went over ~50,000 tons (and we'll come back to why in a moment).

This impact resulted in *giga*joules of energy transfer, not because of velocity, at the end of the day both ships were likely moving SLOW and due to it being a glancing hit the *impact* velocity was even lower than the real velocity of the projectile, but it took a *LONG* fucking time. LOTS of time to transfer energy from projectile to target. Hence, damage. If you had this same scinerio, with a 50,000 Iowa Class, or the Yamato itself, or the H44, you would expect *SIMILAR* if not WORSE damage.

'cont

>>34283126

Why? Because the armor would actually work *against* the structural integrity of the warship. Again, baring STS plate, Armor is hard, not ductile. So when the impact, which was LONG, hit the armored belts, it would have resulted in far greater CRACKING of the plates. With the plates falling off, you get a bigger hole. Bigger hole, more flood ect, ect. It's worth mentioning that other than STS plate, Armor provides *0* structural integrity to a warship. It is in fact, dead weight. This is true of *EVERY* warship put to sea, including the Iowas, Cruisers, Yamato, any ship you can think of. The Armored belt was *always* dead weight. STS plate was only ever used sparingly or as a backer to standard Cemented Armor, and not in a high enough amount to prevent damage like you would see here. In fact, it would likely be worse for the aforementioned reasons.

Now some people are inevitably bring politics into this as, "Why don't we armor our ships now?" Even setting aside the reasons above *why* armor wouldn't help in *this* situation, there is few reasons why, even without 'tonnage limits' we still don't build 60, 70, 100k ton behemoths.

This is a ship design thing but again, simple version, weight has nothing to do with speed. This is a myth and I won't go into it more deftly than a flow equation does not factor in *mass* it's purely hull form, specifically length to beam ratio. These are all displacement hulls (as opposed to semi- and full planning hulls) and operate with mass being a 0 factor in any speed calculation. But what mass *does* effect is drought, or how deep a ship sits in the water. Now that *can* effect speed if the increased draft has a higher number, and larger, stagnation points (which reduces laminar flow), but more importantly, it makes it *nearly IMPOSSIBLE* to port your ship.

'cont

>>34283076
>The old ships are armored, which is superior to having no armor at all and using soft steel as a cost saving effort
>superior

you misspelled pointless. stop jerking it to battleships summerfag.

>Maybe we should build ships out of wood, they would be invincible according to your logic huh?

really? a strawman? that's the best you can come up with?

>>34283131


Most warships had about a 30-40 foot draft (10-13 meters), including the big Battleships. Why? Because most ports can't safety be navigated by a ship with a draft over about 45-50 meters. This is *still* mostly true. Only a few ports in the world can take a draft over 60 feet. And to the best of my knowledge almost no shipyards can launcher a ship with a draft in the 60 foot range, requiring separate facilities for final fitting out (which would be more intensive (and thus difficult) for that much heavier ship).

So yes, I could make a Burke that displaced 100,000 tons, with 16" inches of STS backed KCA, but it would have a draft of 70 feet, and not be portable (as in, I can't DOCK the fucking thing) anywhere. Additionally, I start to reduce where it can safety operate (can't bombard with a ship that's keel risks touching bottom 10 miles away from a continent).

'cont

>>34283142

AND this ignores how *fucking* expensive this would be. And for no real game. Armor, ain't what it used to be, to put it mildly. A torpedo can't be armored against anymore. That's why bulges have gone completely out of style and use. For one, if it's nuclear tipped, your fucked no matter what, and the main potential NAVIES all possess them (China, the US, UK, Russia ect). And two, most torpedoes work by detonating under the keel of a warship, creating a void (flash boiling the water). Imagine, if you will, a 10km tall Giant picked up an aircraft carrier, but he picked it up by holding with his fingers just the very bow and the very stern. As soon as it came out of the water, it would crack in half in the middle. All ships rely on being in the water, and using the static presure of the water, to keep the structural integrity. Without it, it cracks. Torps work by forcing an 'air' pocket underneath that allows this to take place. That's why when you look at most *not all* but most ships sunk by torps, they break in half and sink in two separate sections. This is also why, when torps just strike the side of a ship, it typically takes a LARGE number of torpedoes to sink a ship, because you are effectively trying to flood a ship to death and depending on reserve buoyancy, that can take A LOT of excess water. Modern torpedoes don't rely on that and would break a ship in half in almost all circumstances.

cont'

>>34283076
Hey, moron, the effect of an explosion is the same no matter if it's a bomb or a torpedo, no matter if the ship is underway or moored - the only thing that matters are the amount of the explosives used and the detonation location.
>>34283107
Are you fucking cretin? How many times and by how many people do you need to hear that if a large explosion occurs under a ship's keel that ship is fucked? That heavily armouring it will only make the effects of that explosion worse?
Do you even understand the concept of shock? It's something you should have learned in physics class in 9th ot 10th grade.

>>34279515
>what is friction
>what is density
>what is inertia
>what is mass
>what is velocity
Stop posting.

>>34283152

As such, armoring is a waste of time from torps. And AShMs, Well, frankly, 16" of armor won't stop an AShM. For one, it's important to remember it was called a 'belt' for a reason. It only is a thin (relative to the entire freeboard) strip along the side of a ship. Above and below that belt, the armor was SIGNIFICANTLY lower. Why? Well because it was okay. The armor was designed to do two main things: Stop holes (and thus flooding) and stop damage to critical systems (propulsion, magazines ect). A shell hitting the top portion of a the side of a ships hull would be coming in at too acute of a an angle to further penetrate an armored deck and thus glance off with no damage. And likewise a pinging shell (or dropped bomb) may not have the momentum necessary to defeat a deck armor.

But a missile doesn't operate that way. For one, you can aim a missile better than a shell. It's important to remember, naval gunnery couldn't aim at a *part* of a ship, just the ship in general. As a result, trying to aim at a weaker armored part of a ship was impossible (And still largely would be today). But a missile exercises greater control. It can adapt to changing circumstances *in flight* (something a shell can't) and as a result can target *specific* locations on a ship, including and especially, thinner armor above the belt. So why does it do damage there when a normal shell doesn't? Because a shell has to compromise between explosive filler and dense mass. Too much filler, and it lacks to power to punch through armor, too much dense mass, and it doesn't very little when it gets in there. As a result to guarantee a punch through thick KCA, not much Filler is present, so even if it penetrates the thin armor above the belt, it lacks the payload to blast through it. But a missile has no such restriction.

As a result, armor, today, is largely worthless. As the weapons being used don't DEFEAT armor, but rather make it irrelevant.

cont'

>>34283158

So working back to the premise of *this* incident. Not only could no amount of armor protect that ship from the impact it received, it wouldn't be useful given the realities of warfare. There hasn't been a battleship launched since 46' for a reason, they don't work anymore. Too many weapons make their primary features worthless. Additionally, the strategic value of a battleship was largely made worthless, as the necessity of a drawn out surface action became less and less important.

I recommend screen capping this stuff since all too often we see arguments over ship design and there really needs to be a copypasta on how the realities of this stuff works.

>>34283166
thanks clever anon

How 7 sailors is missing?

They are crushed into impact? Or send to the sea? There's something wrong in this history guys.

>>34283111
That's splinter protection, not armour - it's there to prevent the crew and equipment being shredded by shrapnel when the hull gets penetrated.

>>34283126
>1) This is *not* a perfectly elastic collision. Both objects deformed as they impacted.
And if the Burke happened to be a 30k ton armored ship, the merchant vessel would have deformed far more, spreading the impact out, minimizing any damage done

>>34283174
They escaped onto the pinoy ship
They are free now.

File: IMG_0870.png (109KB, 270x270px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 270x270px

>>34282259

>>34283174
pushed over the side, swept out to sea, or trapped in the flooded compartments.

>>34283174

Trapped below decks after impact, thrown from the ship or crushed in the wreckage.

No anon, there is no cover up. The jews had nothing to do with this.

>>34279093
Being this assblasted. Amerikeks can't handle the bants

>>34283191
>And if the Burke happened to be a 30k ton armored shipthe merchant vessel would have deformed far more, spreading the impact out, minimizing any damage done

yes and it also would be significantly slower, cost significantly more to operate, and would tack millions onto the cost of repairs because of the damaged armor. all to help a ship in the off chance that it gets run into by a freighter/tanker

>>34279980
Only a few people are (likely) dead, and the majority of the ship will probably be salvaged, the Navy has had significantly worse damage fixed before.

>>34283220
>and it also would be significantly slower
not true
>cost significantly more to operate
Steel plate does not have an operating cost
>all to help a ship in the off chance that it gets run into by a freighter/tanker
Or if its hit by an enemy weapon, something that WILL happen in wartime

>>34283191
By Cthulhu's tentacles, you really are a complete cretin, or a snot-nosed gamer that takes his console games for real - if the Burke would have been heavily armored then her entire bow would have most likely sheered off because armor plates crack and shatter when hit, they don't deform. So yea, the merchant ship might have been more damaged, but the Burke would have been destroyed.

>>34283191
>And if the Burke happened to be a 30k ton armored ship, the merchant vessel would have deformed far more, spreading the impact out, minimizing any damage done

Yes *but* on the flip side it would take *that* much more momentum transfer to get it to move in the water, requiring THAT much more energy to move from the pojectile into the target. It would increase the damage, Not reduce it.

I want you to imagine a hypothetical:

I have a toy boat in the water. An aircraft carrier drives into it. How much damage is the toy boat going to receive? Almost none right? Why? Because it lacks the mass. The toy boat can be more readily MOVED in the water ahead of the carrier, and thus the impact force is dispersed to the water.

No imagine the same situation where on carrier hits another. Even with a mathematics background you could imagine the sheer damage inflicted. The target carrier takes THAT much more force to move and thus absorbs that much more momentum damage.

There is *no* such thing as a safe impact at sea. I work in LNG carriers where we take Impacts *DEADLY serious because we have a spotless safety record as far as containment is concerned. We *assume* impacts when we design these things and work accordingly. But there is NO safe impact.

And armor, which is what you mean when you say weight, won't help.

File: 1496819804352.gif (2MB, 300x350px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x350px

>>34280095
>You only have to deal with it once, though, if you toss the blood cork on the table in the female dayroom just before evening chow.

>>34283076
I know you're mentally retarded but you do realize the Royal Navy report described what would have happened while the vessel was underway due to the fact there were torpedoes and mines at that time with magnetic influence detonators that could have done identical damage.

The US Navy themselves had the Mark 6 Mod 5 Magnetic Influence Exploder which was originally developed in the early 1920's, it was based on design ideas gleaned from German magnetic influence mines used in World War I, it had development issues due to the Bureau of Ordnance being chodes but the concept was already well rooted nearly two decades before World War II. So apparently the naval architects from 1910-1950 were completely aware of the damage that could be caused by an underkeel explosion yet they never armored their vessels with a foot of armor on the bottom like you so wisely suggest. Prehaps these legions of naval designers realized it was a problem you can't effectively counter so they tried to mitigate it in other ways like degaussing and having effective submarine screens in the form of ASW equipment.

>>34283235
>not true

the maximum speed of a ship is determined by its hydrodynamics, weight, and power output. if you increase the displacement of an AB by 22,000 tons then it's gonna move significantly slower.

>Steel plate does not have an operating cost

no, but fuel does. and again, increase weight, increase fuel consumption.

>Or if its hit by an enemy weapon, something that WILL happen in wartime

armor is ineffective against modern naval weapons, that's why pretty much everyone is moving away from armored ships you mong.

>>34283235

Not him but. Heavier ships cost a lot more to operate for a specific reason: portage fees. A heavier ship does not effect speed, good that you know that, but it DOES effect where and how I can port it. Deeper water ports cost more to operate. And those ports PASS that cost to the shipper. And it's a closed market. You can't just GO somewhere else. If you have a 60 foot draft because you weight 150k tons. You HAVE to port there. Which means whatever fee they set, you HAVE to pay. And it can be highway robbery.

This is true of warships, where, naval ports, are actually pretty shallow. So if I made a warship with a 45-50 foot draft, I might not actually be able to port it *in* my own ports. Now I have to use a civilian port. And that's a FUCKING nightmare.

This is all part of OPERATION costs, not *onboard* but the ship doesn't exist in a vacuum.

>>34283279
Armor is relatively ineffective to nuclear tipped anti-ship weapons
Thats why there was no point in armor during the cold war

The fact noone has made an armored ship since is that it doesn't fit into budgets, and unionized ship builders cost too much.

fuck you american peice of shit you come fight with germanic and our european brothers u die

>>34283279
>the maximum speed of a ship is determined by its hydrodynamics, weight, and power output. if you increase the displacement of an AB by 22,000 tons then it's gonna move significantly slower.

Wrong. I build these thins for a living.

These ships are all displacment hulls. Their hull speed is determined by ONE thing, and that's beam to length ratio. It is further reduced (or enhanced) by proper control of stagnation points (where the flow velocity = 0), cohesive forces with the water (becoming a thing we care about), engine power, and stern design (oft overlooked by novices but a cruiser stern will always cost you 2-3 knots whereas a transom will gain you a knot or 2).

Mass has 0 to do with speed of a ship. Show me in the equation for calculating ship speed where a "m" term exists.

>>34283191
>And if the Burke happened to be a 30k ton armored ship, the merchant vessel would have deformed far more, spreading the impact out, minimizing any damage done

Depends on how much damage was avoided by the Fitzgerald being pushed along. A heavier ship with more inertia would have been more prone to staying in place.

Also keep in mind that armour will be designed to stop very rapid and energetic things of very limited mass. There's not a lot of momentum going around there. Nothing involving a 29000 ton ship loaded down with a thousand cargo containers will be rapid, but due to its mass the momentum it carries is Cyclopean.

Level IV body armour might allow you to laugh off a 5.56 bullet that hits you at nearly mach 3, yet fail to save your life when you're hit by a Ford Focus doing 30km/h.

Collisions are complex things.

Funny, my ship ran into a MSC ship 2 days ago. I was at the stern station faking out the lines when we collided, the main point of contact was feet away from me. Scariest moment of my life, I thought I was a gonner for sure

>>34282378
Stop posting.

>>34279338
>Calculate the newtons of force involved

How exactly would you do that?

>>34283302
>The fact noone has made an armored ship since is that it doesn't fit into budgets, and unionized ship builders cost too much.

actually it probably has something to do with the wildly increased cost of armoring a ship combined with the fact that the cheapest AShM available on the market today has a Semi-armor piercing warhead attached to it, the cheapest supersonic missile on the market today has been shown to punch through armor like it's regular steel.

>>34283314
Cool it Mohammed

>>34283361
you think everyone in germany and europe is an immigrant? look at your own 56% white country and get fucked by black nigger dick

>>34283330
>Level IV body armour might allow you to laugh off a 5.56 bullet that hits you at nearly mach 3, yet fail to save your life when you're hit by a Ford Focus doing 30km/h.

Exactly this. This is what I was trying to say over 9000 (heh) characters. Time (t) is a huge part to how energy (force applied/momentum) transfers, and the longer the impact, the more transfer of energy. Heavier mass things *typically* allow a larger 't' and thus, more transfer (which will translate, in an inelastic collision, to more damage).

A hypothetical:

An Iowa hitting an Iowa would result in more STRUCTURAL damage than the same Iowa hitting a Cruiser, because the other Iowa will resist the damage force, allowing it to take more time, and thus causing more damage. Whereas the cruiser would likely just be quickly pierced.

Think of it as Overpenetation vs. a tumbling terminal ballistic.

>>34283356

divide by zero, duh.

>>34282453
Modern missiles go through armor like paper, it's wasted weight and speed.

What really stops a modern missile is something like a CIWS, a large automated Gatling cannon that blasts that missile out of the air before it gets close.

gps hack.

>>34283366
No it was just your animalistic, ferral sputtering that seemed to resemble a splurge of language that made me think you were a mongrel.

>>34283386
>Modern missiles go through armor like paper, it's wasted weight and speed.

It's not even that, it's that missiles can actually be aimed where the armor is thickest. Even looking at the thickest belt armor on a US or German or UK, or IJN battleship, it was always a THIS strip (belt) along the side, above or below that, was very thin. It was totally impossible to have a ship with a 'full' belt (reaching the top-most deck down to the keel). As a result, a missile hitting thinner upper belt, or unarmored structural steel at the top deck is like punching through any other metal structure. Easy.

AShM don't work by piercing armor like a shell, they work by making armor irrelevant by being able to target unarmored sections of the ship and delivering a HUGE payload where it ceases to matter WHERE that hit is.

>>34283317
>Their hull speed is determined by ONE thing, and that's beam to length ratio.

two things:
First, hull speed is one thing, but you still need fucking engines to get the ship to that speed.

Second, weight affects displacement, which in turn affects hull speed.

File: larry-blackmon.jpg (19KB, 233x300px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 233x300px

>>34282843

>>34282372
I'm speaking from a standpoint of an entire missile defense suite. Including jammers, decoys, chaff, and active defense. If everything is flashed up and working, it's not that hard to evade ASMs.

>>34283111
That seems more like it's there to protect the crew against spalling in the case of impact.

Like if you hit it with some shell head on, all the metal shattering would be caught by the kevlar instead of skewering the people inside.
I doubt a liner of kevlar would do much to defend the structure of the ship itself.

>>34283451
No modern warship has armor, dumbass. They just have a normal hull like any civilian ship.

>>34283516
Wrap your car in blankets, ram it into a wall, and see how it goes.

[spoiler]It doesn't do didley[/spoiler]

>>34283460
>Second, weight affects displacement, which in turn affects hull speed.

Only because of stagnation points. Weight is not a factor in speed. Period. Again, show me a speed equation for a ship where there's an 'm' term. Go ahead, I'll wait. I get paid a lot of money to do this stuff every day. Mass of a ship is an afterthought in regard to speed. It comes up in one and only one place: cost. Costs related to building the thing, and costs of porting it. But that's why I can have an Essex class go 32 knots at 50k tons and a Cleveland class go 32 knots at 16k tons. Mass is *not* a factor in speed, hull form is.

>>34283531

I know that. Read it again. I said AShM make armor irrelevant. That's why they don't use armor anymore. You could make a 21 inch thick belt and an AShM will still sink the ship because it will be aimed above the belt and blow the whole works.

You won't want to waste valuable draft on Armor, you'd be better suited adding bigger propulsion, more weapon/communication/sensor systems, or even more utility like FlightOps.

File: 1494357239124.png (64KB, 241x235px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 241x235px

>>34283191
>Destroyers should be the size/weight of large cargo ships

>>34283580
We are no longer limited by treaty or by scarcity of steel during wartime

So whats the issue?

>>34283111
>Well, the Nimitz's have kevlar armor

Splinter protection, that's about it. Maybe even spalling if such a thing still happened. But Armoring an aircraft carrier would only result in losing hanger space, or speed, both bad (increase draft due to weight, means you can't port the thing, and now have to reduce weight SOMEHOW).

>>34283534
That's not the same thing though, we were talking about what ships are still being armored, and a Nimitz has kevlar lining, probably to protect the crew from spalling by weapon impacts, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't protect against collisions with cliffs or giant cargo ships, because that's not the idea.

Also cars aren't boats, specifically military boats, the average car isn't expected to receive incoming fire, and isn't built even close to the same way.

You're comparing an apple to a banana here.

>>34283583
>We are no longer limited by treaty or by scarcity of steel during wartime

Okay....

Lets go with your bullshit. We build a Destroyer to 75k tons. Bigger than any battleship ever made. We magically have the money, and materials, and need for such a thing.

Where.
Do.
You.
Port.
It.

Seriously. Where does this thing go to dock? You're gona be talking 60-65 foot draft? Maybe more? So every single US Naval base is out of the question.

Civilian? There's 2. In the entire US. That can support that draft (and even then the Harbormaster's gona eat his beard).

So what do you do when you wana, I don't know, REARM the thing? Also, god forbid, you need to dry dock it, where you gona do that? Dockships can't handle that kind of mass so they're out. And no, not a single one, of the Drydocks in existence can handle a 60-65 foot draft (cause you can't sail *into* it).

So you've built a giant floating target that can't be used anywhere.

Also, an AShM will just penetrate the upper, unarmored structural sections of this monster ship and sink it in 1 hit (or at the very least render it completely combat ineffective).

Notice none of this has to do with money or politics. Geography limits everyone, as does this niggling little thing called physics.

>>34283583
Destroyers should have some speed, and it doesn't need to move giant loads of cargo across the oceans.

What would you do with a 30000t Destroyer? You're asking why a fighter jet isn't a passenger plane.

>>34283612
It's an illustration of how much kevlar will do to defend the structure of something. The apple and the banana will both be crushed.

>>34283612
>the average car isn't expected to receive incoming fire,

And neither are modern Naval Vessels. Pretty much everyone in ship design has long come to accept that *if* a ship gets hit, it's going to sink. That's why CWIS, AEGIES, and other *counter*measures form the main backbone of ship design. There is no where on a ship, armored or not, safe to take a missile, but if you can stop the missile from hitting, now you've gotten somewhere.

The larger the ship, the more damage it will take from impacting another large ship. These are not perfectly elastic collisions. Lots of energy is being 'lost' to heat, deformation, and other places. All of which translate into damage.

>>34283646
>All of which translate into damage.

Nah, there will be plenty of friction heat that does nothing.

But yeah, big boats slamming into each other ain't gonna be a pretty sight.

>>34283619
Why does it need to go to port? Just anchor it somewhere, and send a ferry out for the crew.
Build a crane into the ship to handle reloading VLS's.

Still, the Ford carrier only has a 40 foot draft. Thats 100,000 tons.

>>34282618
I'm >>34279456 and I could fap to this.

Thanks anon.

>>34283558
>>34283570
>Weight is not a factor in speed.

yes, it fucking is, because and engine with a set amount of horsepower and torque can only push a x amount of weight so fucking fast.

File: 1487694435677.png (441KB, 873x720px) Image search: [Google]

441KB, 873x720px

>>34283668
>Why does it need to go to port?

>>34283668
>Just anchor it somewhere, and send a ferry out for the crew.

the crew would literally hate their lives nonstop because the ferry would tack an extra 1-2 hours onto their work day. additionally the ship would have to sortie during every storm due to threat of running aground.

>Build a crane into the ship to handle reloading VLS's.

and how's about resupplying food? parts? what about doing maintenance on the which requires contractors to come aboard? any rework that needs to be done to the engines? work on the mast which requires scaffolding?

>>34283558
>But that's why I can have an Essex class go 32 knots at 50k tons and a Cleveland class go 32 knots at 16k tons. Mass is *not* a factor in speed, hull form is.

it could also have something to do with the 200,000 horsepower and god knows how much torque difference between those two classes of ship.

>>34283668

The Ford is ALSO about 3 times as long as Destroyer. Think about it like this: I have a Steel Beam. I drop it STRAIGHT in (thinnest horizontal cross section), obviously it will sink.

If I drop it in SIDEWISE (longest horizontal cross section) it may 'float.' That's what buoyancy. By putting 75k tons on a DESTROYER size, buoyancy decreases, which means draft increases.

Unless you're talking about building an ARMORED ship (battleship, at this point) the size of an aircraft carrier. Which, because you're now making it bigger....

You know what easier way to describe this: I take a Ford, and try to armor it to say, defeat 16" gunfire, it's mass would increase, with even a MODERATELY sized belt (just at the Waterline and enough to cover engineering spaces)... probably jump that displacement into the 170, 180k tons. It's draft would start reaching 70-80 feet. So now it actually can't be brought in much closer than a mile or so off the cost of the US safely.

And you need to go into port, dumbass, for a lot of reasons. For one, cranes don't work at sea for heavy objects. Look at how Oil Rigs are designed and you'll get a feel for why. Two, it's WOEFULLY dangerous and impractical to refit at sea, to say nothing of tactically dangerous easy to secure a port, hard to secure a section of ocean). Three, what if what you need to fix is below the water line? What if it's just you know, normal maintenance on the hull? We've just designed a ship a with an 80 ft draft. Where you gona dry dock this sucker? I'll give you a hint: no where.

So now the service life of this ship, from the day it's launched (which likely would be nearly impossible as well but heh, that's just a detail right?) is what? 4 years. Maybe less, Naval hulls see much heavier use under worse conditions so it'll wear much faster than a cargo hull (higher speeds thus coating comes off that much faster). All aside that armor doesn't stop AShM's anyway, making all your efforts moot

Hi guise, I just saw this thread. Do you think the damage to the Fitzgerald could have been prevented if it had had armour?

So... all the chinks need to do to sink US ships is to disguise themselves as large tankers/cargo ships and just ram US vessels?? kek

>>34283735

That's exactly it, but how would I FIT 200,000 HP on a ship the size of a Cleveland? I can't. Why? Because it's HULL form makes it impossible. It's not it's weight. To fit that propulsion system I have to make the HULL bigger, wider, and thus reduce it's efficiency in the water, (or, in specifics) now have to make it LONGER to achieve the same speed. Which, btw, if we're adding armor to this ship, now it gets HEAVIER (because it takes that much more to armor that side), and thus draft increases and then you get the situation that dumbass over there is arguing about where you get an 80 foot draft and can't port the damn thing anywhere.

BTW, not for nothing, but is why the Iowa Class is largely considered a Naval Engineering FAILURE, because in so gaining ~2-3 knots of speed over the proceeding SD class, it gained like 15k tons of mass (due to being that much longer, meaning MORE armor (not thickness but just MORE plates)) and was largely considered a failed design/dead end as a result. If BB design had continued into the next generation, the Iowas would have been thought of as a Half Assed compromise in quality in order to shit out BB's for the war.

Again. SHOW ME THE EQUATION where *m* (mass) is a factor.

>>34283744
>Where you gona dry dock this sucker?

Wherever you built it.

Which is another problem with it all.

File: 1496779061828.jpg (43KB, 409x360px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 409x360px

>>34283764

>>34282189
the captain, COB, and who ever was on duty in the bridge, who ever was on duty in the radar room, and who ever was doing physical lookout, is going to get their asshole expanded for this. the officers will all probably be relieved and put in shore duty. it not outright tossed out. the senior NCOs will all be forced to retire or tossed out. the lower enlisted will be probably survive this.

>>34283744
http://vigor.net/vigorous

Could this thing not handle a 60 foot draft?

>>34283785

I said that in the next sentence.

We had enough trouble building the Ford and that wasn't way outside what the Nimitz had been. A 180k warship? With an 80 foot draft. Yeah speaking *as* a Ship Designer, no you can't built it anywhere. And the answer isn't "Well we'll build a new slip/dock/yard."

GEOGRAPHY won't let you build a ship that big. Because that close to the water is shallow and thus, you cant launch an 80 foot draft, And you can't build at sea because you CAN'T fucking build a ship at sea. It would take you 20 fucking years and so right when it's done, you can't use it anymore because it's woefully antiquated.

>Wherever you built it.

Also, no. Because there's this thing called "fitting out." Ships are *never* launched 'done.' They always have stuff added after launching because it's impractical to do so. So for example with warships, they never have their turrets in place. They are dropped into the barrettes AFTER launching. So the ship's draft increases post launch. And thus, can never go back into it's original slipway.

File: LNG_carrier_chemengi_drops_wmks.png (267KB, 1840x2139px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 1840x2139px

>>34283166
>screen capping
Done.

>>34283825

Nope. Here's why. An 80 foot draft means the dock has to submerge at least 90-100 feet (it is unsafe to have sail-in clearance less than that, if it 'brushes' while moving the sheering stress will literally tear the dock in half).

IDK if you appreciate how deep a 100 foot is but it's fucking deep. That's a floating dock that's 150-200 feet tall. Yeah now you can't do that.

And length is an issue too as is displacement. That ship only takes 80k Displacement. For comparison a Nimitz is ~110-120k displacement with only a 40 foot draft (no armor). You add armor you're going up to ~140-~170k with an 80 ft draft. If it would even fit, you drive onto that thing and it tries to lift, you'll crack it in half at worst, or ore likely it'll just get stuck underweight and have to submerge and drive away.

No the 'armor in the 21st century' stuff is borderline retarded. Look, I love the magestry of a battleship way more than any of you. It's why I do what I do. It's why I got into this shit. But I also know, from both education and experience, it doesn't work anymore.

And also worth noting, I've been omitting hydrodynamic issues with a ship the size of an armored Aircraft carrier: heavy seas + super heavy (180k) ship + insane deep draft (60-70 feet) = a cracked in half ship (structural steel can't support it's own weight like this). God help you in the trow of a rouge wave.

>>34280279
Fitzgerald is at fault she was the give way vessel be it international or inland rules doesn't matter she broke the rules.

Probably the ood thought he could cut across right quick and tried to hot dog it.

Crystal was going almost 19 knots at the time of impact

>>34279709
The porter was not bent in the keel admidships and damage was almost on the bow easier to cut the damaged piece out. Not saying it can't be fixed but it will be Alot more expensive and time consuming.
>>34279706
This probably the structural damage is going to be massive

>>34283912
>Crystal was going almost 19 knots at the time of impact

Jesus she was cruising...

Um, depends on a lot of things. I don't know *much* about maritime law, and what I do mostly has to do with the design (duh), but my gut says this will be nuanced. It will depend on WHERE this happened (in a shipping lane for example), speed of the DDG at the ToI, any communications in either direction. Was the DDG running dark or not.

See my analysis, limited at this stage, it looks to me that both ships were moving, but the Heavier one was moving faster, and tried to evade at the last few seconds. No damage astern on either means it didn't 'see-saw' sideways it just got pushed out of the way and the other drove off. The limited damage (and it is limited) to both ships suggests this evasion was late stage. That's bad for both.

My gut says that the DDG will be at fault. At sea, generally, yielding goes up in size. It's a practicality thing. It's much easier for 8000 tons to yield to 80,000 tons. Now if it was stopped, or almost sopped, then I gotta ask why did the Heavier faster ship not evade further away? And most importantly, both ships should have a CAS, which should have, MILES away, alerted their crews.

DESU I would not be shocked to find out the Cargo Crew had half watch or a drunk watch. Systems exist to stop JUST this sort of thing and it's really inexcusable.

>>34282291

I would estimate a slightly more parallel angle on the collision.

I base this on the sheer mass of both these vessels.

>>34283835
>GEOGRAPHY won't let you build a ship that big. Because that close to the water is shallow and thus, you cant launch an 80 foot draft, And you can't build at sea because you CAN'T fucking build a ship at sea. It would take you 20 fucking years and so right when it's done, you can't use it anymore because it's woefully antiquated.

There is no problem that can't be solved with the application of a sufficient amount of explosives.

>>34282292

the modest muffin top can ruin even the best picture.

>>34282314

There is no way that was a 20 knot collision, even relative. I would guess at most 6

.>>34283057

This. This is why I think the collision was very low speed.

>>34283975
>There is no problem that can't be solved with the application of a sufficient amount of explosives.

There is. You're not talking about blowing a hole deep enough, nor a channel, but a VERY wide canal, AT sea. And explosives don't work underwater against the ground as well as they do on land. The water cushions the blast. I know you're being blase but morons will read what you wrote and think it's possible.

BTW made worse because oceans and sea ways like to stay in their natural state. So this 'solution' (which wouldn't work) would need to be repeated OFTEN as the currents would close it up/displace silt and fill in the hole.

You can't build a ship that big. It's why no one does. It's not the money. That's a bullshit politicians excuse. There is a practical and physical limit to what you can build: ~250k tons is about as heavy as you could get without risking structural damage, ~1.5 km long without making it woefully unstable at sea, ~65-70 foot draft as coastlines start to become an issue deeper, and free boards over about.... 50 meters and the metacentric height gets all fucked up.

Holy fucking shit it's totally fucked look at this list
https://youtu.be/HXHQ2aD929g


Made it back to port though

>>34284006
AIS data from g captain says crystal was doing 18.5 knots at time of impact

Look at the fucking list you tell me how bad it is below the water https://youtu.be/HXHQ2aD929g

File: images (5).jpg (14KB, 482x305px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 482x305px

>>34279385
Oh god i got that reference

File: Fitzgerald cargo ship collision comparison (18-06-2017).jpg (169KB, 758x876px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 758x876px

Take a look at the freighter's navigation data...

File: RuN Liman collision.jpg (49KB, 826x322px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 826x322px

>>34279242
>Russian
That's the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, brah.
>>34280007
>>34280056
Tonnage comparison image. The two were actually quite close in overall dimensions.

>US navy btfo'd by a container ship
This was merely a test, the Russians are coming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnTn1LSG9Zo

>>34284050

I know Crystal was doing near 20 but the Fitzgerald was not stationary. The relative collision speed had to have been much slower. She got fucked to be sure, but it wasn't a straight on T-bone. More like a heavy(crippling) side-swipe of the bow.

Of coarse<sp> I could be wrong though.

>>34283818
>the lower enlisted will be probably survive this.

Unless one of the lookouts or other watchstanders pops on a piss test.

>>34284108

The joke.
You.

>>34283782
okay, I'm gonna break this down kindergarten style for you;

you have a hull, designed for a specific hull speed. that's the hydrodynamics in this.

if you make this hull out of fiberglass when it was designed to be made out of steel (ignoring the obvious structural issues, etc.) it's draft is going to change, and therefore its hull speed will change. that's the weight consideration.

if you design this ship to have a 10,000 HP engine and only hook up a 1,000 HP it will never be able to reach its max speed. that's the power issue.

these three factors (well, hydrodynamics would be area of friction in the broader sense) are what goes into designing ANY self propelled vehicle.

aside from that the point I was trying to make on the post that started all this was about slapping armor onto an AB that already existed, not designing a new ship from the ground up.

>>34283166
Thanks for typing that all out anon, that was really interesting

>>34280901

Only took minutes for those faggots to convert and start praying towards Mecca.

>>34279515
This is seriously dumb. If this collision happened in zero gravity and a vacuum there would be similar damage. Learn what inertia is, as other have pointed out.