Skip to comments.
Arleigh Burke-class destroyers 'buckling' under stress, admits USN
Janes.Com ^
| 11 October 2007
| Tara Copp
Posted on 10/11/2007 6:01:19 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 next last
USS Gridley
To: sukhoi-30mki
“You may fire when you are ready, Glidley”
2
posted on
10/11/2007 6:04:20 AM PDT
by
camle
(keep your mind open and somebody will fill it full of something for you)
To: sukhoi-30mki
Questions.
1. Who designed it?
2. Where was it built?
3. Why didn’t the design review process pick up the design flaws? 4. Were there any warnings of the problems as the ships were being built?
3
posted on
10/11/2007 6:11:24 AM PDT
by
Citizen Tom Paine
(Swift as the wind; Calmly majestic as a forest; Steady as the mountains.)
To: Citizen Tom Paine
Classic design issue. Let’s put a cruiser into a destroyer.
4
posted on
10/11/2007 6:13:24 AM PDT
by
AppyPappy
(If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
To: sukhoi-30mki
... Jane's can reveal. Who said they "can" reveal that info? Or should???
5
posted on
10/11/2007 6:17:36 AM PDT
by
theDentist
(Qwerty ergo typo : I type, therefore I misspelll.)
To: Citizen Tom Paine
Can you say "Aluminum"
6
posted on
10/11/2007 6:20:11 AM PDT
by
Robe
(Rome did not create a great empire by talking, they did it by killing all those who opposed them)
To: AppyPappy
So you see it as the lengthening of a destroyer design to get a cruiser class on the cheap has led to having on-going structural issues?
7
posted on
10/11/2007 6:20:20 AM PDT
by
KC Burke
(Men of intemperate minds can never be free...their passions forge their fetters.)
To: sukhoi-30mki
8
posted on
10/11/2007 6:20:42 AM PDT
by
1rudeboy
(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
To: theDentist
Jane’s is British; that’s a British idiom. I think it’s intended to imply that they sat on the story until they checked the facts. Having done so, they “can now reveal blah-de-blah”. IOW, publish the story.
9
posted on
10/11/2007 6:21:16 AM PDT
by
ArrogantBustard
(Western Civilisation is aborting, buggering, and contracepting itself out of existence.)
To: theDentist
Jane’s is an authority on such matters. It’s not difficult to imagine that it “released” this information with permission.
10
posted on
10/11/2007 6:22:54 AM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: camle
“The impact of rough-sea slamming on the bow has led to warping of main transverse bulkhead beams and some of the cribbing, a source said..”
Global warming claims yet another victim. It’s Bush’s fault.
11
posted on
10/11/2007 6:24:06 AM PDT
by
newnhdad
To: Citizen Tom Paine
3. Why didnt the design review process pick up the design flaws? They probably wouldn't: the culprit is "higher-than-anticipated loads at sea." They probably did the math right, but the loads model was wrong.
A serious, but not necessarily an obvious problem.
The question is: does the same modeling error affect other ships?
12
posted on
10/11/2007 6:25:42 AM PDT
by
r9etb
To: sukhoi-30mki
I’m having trouble envisioning warping ACROSS the keel. Are the forces coming from the sides of the bow, causing the transverse bulkheads to warp vertically? Or are they longitudinal forces that bend the bulkheads perpendicular to the keel?
13
posted on
10/11/2007 6:26:48 AM PDT
by
IronJack
(=)
To: 1rudeboy; ArrogantBustard
Yes, I’m sure that Janes did thoroughly check their facts etc. I guess it’s the age old question: when SHOULD such information be published... especially during a time of war.
14
posted on
10/11/2007 6:28:29 AM PDT
by
theDentist
(Qwerty ergo typo : I type, therefore I misspelll.)
To: theDentist
when SHOULD such information be published It's probably almost impossible to hide it ... and since we're not going up against the Barbary Pirates in a pitched naval battle it probably doesn't make much difference. The problem has been caught, and will be corrected. There are probably lots of issues that are much more sensitive, and much more in need of being kept under cover. If we were currently in a shooting match with PRC, I'd think differently.
15
posted on
10/11/2007 6:34:15 AM PDT
by
ArrogantBustard
(Western Civilisation is aborting, buggering, and contracepting itself out of existence.)
To: Citizen Tom Paine
1. Who designed it? The Coast Guard.
2. Where was it built? Moe’s Pawn and Shipbuilding. E55th and Lexington.
3. Why didnt the design review process pick up the design flaws? It was discussed over the 9th green.
4. Were there any warnings of the problems as the ships were being built? Plenty and daily, but you had to have a few after work beers with the guys, and what the heck do working class shipbuilders know anyways? The ship was overseen by Navy engineers that never made a plywood skiff in any of their lives.
16
posted on
10/11/2007 6:35:21 AM PDT
by
Leisler
(Sugar, the gateway to diabetes, misery and death. Stop Sugar Deaths NOW!)
To: theDentist
"...Specialised labour was required because the task involved strengthening beams in very tight spots above the Gridley's sonar equipment room..." I don't get it. Is "specialized labour" referring to asian tiny-framed people? That's racist. I wonder if the criteria is that you have to be to fit in a dashboard or a car's seat.
17
posted on
10/11/2007 6:36:44 AM PDT
by
-=SoylentSquirrel=-
(I'm getting ready for the Alamo II. I predict a different outcome this time around.)
To: ArrogantBustard
Agreed, but can’t it be revealed after the corrective actions have been completed? I’m just a bit irritable this morning.
18
posted on
10/11/2007 6:39:00 AM PDT
by
theDentist
(Qwerty ergo typo : I type, therefore I misspelll.)
To: KC Burke
Trying to put too much into too little.
“Let’s put some 100km AA missiles in it. And AEGIS. And Tomahawks. And VLS Harpoons. And some torpedos. And a gun. And a helicopter.”
19
posted on
10/11/2007 6:39:12 AM PDT
by
AppyPappy
(If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
To: sukhoi-30mki
The Arleigh Burke was commissioned in 1991. They’re just now finding structural flaws in the design class? Or did they redesign the newest build hulls?
20
posted on
10/11/2007 6:41:27 AM PDT
by
Yo-Yo
(USAF, TAC, 12th AF, 366 TFW, 366 MG, 366 CRS, Mtn Home AFB, 1978-81)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson