U.S. Navy’s New Fast Transport Ships Can’t Stand Buffeting From High Seas

gCaptain ^ | January 14, 2016 | Tony Capaccio

[artichokegrower]

The U.S. Navy is spending millions of dollars to repair new high-speed transport ships built by Austal Ltd. because their weak bows can’t stand buffeting from high seas, according to the Pentagon’s chief weapons tester.

[JennysCool]

Still a heckuva listen on a hot summer day with rum at hand.

[Jeff Head]

Guys, these are not combat ships. They are not even real US Navy vessels.

They are not USS, they are USNS and that means they are not designed for combat, but to work in the areas behind the combat and bring troops and equipment forward and to do it very quickly.

The Spearhead ships are going to be very good at that.

If the US Navy accepted design changes that weakened them for heavy sea states, then there should be a shared liability and some people need to lose their jobs.

Having said that, it is important to realize what the ships were designed to do, and what they were not designed to do.

Here's a picture of one of them:

[PLMerite]

Concert scenery ain't bad, either.

[TheBattman]

So-—the shipbuilder screwed up and UNDER engineered the ships. They then decide on a redesign to fix THEIR error... Then bill taxpayers to fix THEIR screw up???

Seriously?

[doorgunner69]

If it can’t take rough seas, what happens when a shell or missile hits it?

If you read and believe some of the FReepers that seem to think the navy has all sorts of whiz-bang lasers and particle beam weapons already deployed or ready to go, no enemy weapon will ever hit.

/S

[Secret Agent Man]

Remember when men looked like men, women looked like women, and ships looked like ships?

[Bull Snipe]

The ship builder probably did not do the design work on the ship. The Navy and MSC would have either done the work in house or may have contracted the work. The builder gets the plans and specs from the Navy. Their recommendations were probably made to save money, time or material. The Navy and MSC accepted the proposal. Once the Navy accepted the proposal, it became their problem that it did not work out as planned.

[driftdiver]

Not really that simple. From what I’ve read they made the recommendation to reduce weight.

[Rockpile]

One of these vessels is cheaper than an F35 fighter? Shows how over-priced airplanes are.

[Bull Snipe]

These ships are not built to the design and construction standards employed for regular naval vessels. The standard used for this class of ship was the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). These are the standards that apply to design and construction of commercial ships. Since these are not U.S. Navy ships, equipment for it can be purchased on the open market. The Navy and MSC evidently bought off the shelf Italian manufactured Generators, which are now giving them real problems with reliability.

[Jack Deth]

Aren’t cargo ships supposed to be “Blue Water” ships, instead of Littoral ships?

[hecticskeptic]

Was it outsourced to China??

[smokingfrog]

change your attitude

[smokingfrog]

I bet they charged extra for the tinted glass too.

[apoliticalone]

Value engineering is a philosophy to cut design parameters and costs until it will almost but not quite break. Who is pushing the cuts....the company hoping to improve profits, or the USN?

[apoliticalone]

That ship looks like an inland ferry (fairy?) and it sounds like it is just about as seaworthy.

[uglybiker]

Trump wouldn't pay for the change.

He'd make the ocean pay for it.

[onedoug]

God help us.

[Dogbert41]

They’ll work fine the next time we go to war against Canada across the Great Lakes.

[BlueNgold]

sounds like a value engineering agreement the government accepted, thus modifying the contract requirements.

Sounds like...
I haven’t seen the contract, so I’m reading tea leaves.

If so, the best the government can hope to recover is the contractor’s share of the VE.