Cruiser On The Rocks

[witpqs]

From today's strategypage.net


http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsurf/articles/20090215.aspx

Cruiser On The Rocks

February 15, 2009: The USS Port Royal, an American cruiser, ran aground on February 5th, as it returned to its base in Hawaii after the first day of sea trials. The ship slid into a shoal of sand and rock, which was actually construction debris from a nearby air port. The Port Royal had spent the last four months in a shipyard, getting a normal batch of upgrades and maintenance. The 9,600 ton ship has been in service for 15 years, and is the 27th, and last, Ticonderoga class cruiser to be built.

It took four days to get the cruiser off the shoal, which was done by removing about a thousand tons of weight from the ship. It's not been announced how it hit the shoal, which is marked on charts. The Port Royal draws 33 feet of water, and the shoal is 22 feet under water. The captain of the Port Royal was relieved, which is normal for a grounding such as this.

The only damage mentioned is to the propellers (the tips were torn off), and a leak in one of the sonar domes. There was no hull breach. It is also believed that propeller shaft and shaft bearings will probably have to be replaced as well. In the old days before electric drive, her engines might have been screwed as well in this kind of situation. So hooray for electric drive, it saved the navy a lot of money in this case.

So after one day of sea trials, the Port Royal is headed right back to the shipyard and dry dock. There will probably be courts martial for whoever screwed up the navigation that put the ship on a known shoal. Professional mariners don't do that sort of thing in clear weather and calm seas.

[khyberbill]

I was on the Sturgeon, SSN 637 when she ran into the island of St. Croix at greater than 400 feet and right at 20 knots in 1973. That was not an enjoyable moment in my life. The captain was relieved within a few days and the XO was also relieved as he was the acting navigator at the time. We were given a temporary captain for the trip back to New London.

Four years later I was working for a crummy company at a job site as a rent a tech and wearing my Sturgeon ball cap and along came the temporary captain who recognized the ball cap and asked me when I served. One thing led to another and I was hired on the spot to a better job, and company.

[witpqs]

That is a cool story. Good for you.

[marky]

that IS a cool story khyber

i heard about Port Royal, she was pretty close to shore by the looks of it

the navy should however be alot more lenient, considering the Juneau and Indianapolis events(how can u possibly misplace 2 ships for that long?)

[khyberbill]

the navy should however be alot more lenient, considering the Juneau and Indianapolis events(how can u possibly misplace 2 ships for that long?)

Well now, first of all, there are usually more Captains waiting for a ship than there are for ships. Also, this accident was clearly avoidable and shows terrible seamanship. If one just smacked the hands of those responsible (and in the navy, that is usually clearly defined) then we would be reading about more unintentional beachings. Finally, the events you mentioned are more than 50 years old and are like comparing apples to oranges.

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: marky
the navy should however be alot more lenient, considering the Juneau and Indianapolis events(how can u possibly misplace 2 ships for that long?)

Advancing to become a captain of a ship carries with it something callled responsibility.

The captain is responsible for everything on the ship he was given command of. This holds true in merchant fleets also.

If your ship runs into a reef. There will be an investigation and depending upon the results a hearing or a trial of some sorts. How it effects your career is up to the presiding judges.

This is the way it has been in the US Navy since its creation.

Being "lenient" could happen, but that would take some facts being uncovered that have not been reported as of yet.

Your trying to compare this situation with that of the Indy is so far from apples-to-apples I am at a loss for words.

[thegreatwent]

I have to agree with khyberbill, todays navigation is done largely by GPS and should prevent this. I do wonder though how badly the civilian techs on board monkeyed with SOP. I think that having civilians aboard contributed to the Ehime Maru/USS Greeneville collision in 2001 and may have been an issue in this latest incident.

[TOMLABEL]

Here is a summary of damage from credible sources. Bottom line is that running hard aground is bad on a vessel designed to float in water. Looks like every system will be inspected and alignment checks done (for the combat systems gear). The ship is not beyond economical repair, everything is repairable, but it will take money and time.

Engineering:
- All blades sheared off the propellers - no apparent CRP damage (hydraulic mechanism that rotates propeller blades)
- Both rudders suspect, the caps having been pounded repeatedly on the bottom
- Shafting and bearings damaged, maybe struts too
- Reductions gears require inspection
- Port shaft leaks
- Flooding in 3 compartments from cracks
- Fuel tanks damaged
- Sea Water systems filled with sand/debris

Combat systems
- Sonar dome ruptured and damaged
- Magazine sprinkler systems have sand and debris

Misc
- Experimental blue u/w hull paint scratched/compromised
- Half of the commodes are inop

PS - What is the significance of the name Port Royal for a cruiser name?

See stern view of grounded cruiser here:
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/ ... 0X-007.jpg

[marky]

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

ORIGINAL: marky
the navy should however be alot more lenient, considering the Juneau and Indianapolis events(how can u possibly misplace 2 ships for that long?)

Advancing to become a captain of a ship carries with it something callled responsibility.

The captain is responsible for everything on the ship he was given command of. This holds true in merchant fleets also.

If your ship runs into a reef. There will be an investigation and depending upon the results a hearing or a trial of some sorts. How it effects your career is up to the presiding judges.

This is the way it has been in the US Navy since its creation.

Being "lenient" could happen, but that would take some facts being uncovered that have not been reported as of yet.

Your trying to compare this situation with that of the Indy is so far from apples-to-apples I am at a loss for words.

not something im not aware of

i was attempting to illustrate the nature of the Navys blame game

the navy NEVER takes responsibility when it makes a mistake

i sense hypocrisy

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: marky
not something im not aware of

i was attempting to illustrate the nature of the Navys blame game

the navy NEVER takes responsibility when it makes a mistake

i sense hypocrisy

Your attempt was faulty.

An investigation, followed by a trial (if warranted) is the Navy taking responsibility.

The "blame game" would be if the Navy followed your wish for leniency and did not hold the captain responsible for the accident.

Without new details of the accident emerging, the fact is millions of dollars of damage was done to a ship the captain was given command of. He was the captain and with that honor comes a heavy responsibility. All the officers who will be involved with this case (including the captain) understand the responsibility any captain has.

I am sure this investagation will be followed in the media during the coming year so let's see how it plays out.

[witpqs]

Marky,

I think you are pretty much right historically about that. However, this would be a case of two wrongs making things worse. They really are separate situations and being lenient in this case would not in any way extend justice to those left swinging in the breeze in those other incidents you mentioned.

[TOMLABEL]

Here is the pic...

[bradfordkay]

"PS - What is the significance of the name Port Royal for a cruiser name?"

Since the Ticonderoga class cruisers were named for battles in US history, I believe that this ship was named for the Battle of Port Royal Sound in the unfortunate conflict of the 1860s. What is the significance of naming a cruiser after this battle? I'm not sure. In the WW2 era it was carriers that were named for battles.

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: TOMLABEL

Here is the pic...

Shallow water + US Navy vessel = Deep Kimchee for CO.

[marky]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Marky,

I think you are pretty much right historically about that. However, this would be a case of two wrongs making things worse. They really are separate situations and being lenient in this case would not in any way extend justice to those left swinging in the breeze in those other incidents you mentioned.

indeed

[marky]

[:D]

[Iridium]

So what makes the blue u/w coat of paint experimental? It's anti-barnacle properties?

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: TOMLABEL

Here is the pic...

Experimental blue u/w hull paint scratched/compromised

What's the story with this "Experimental blue u/w hull paint"?


Leo "Apollo11"

[TOMLABEL]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

What's the story with this "Experimental blue u/w hull paint"?


Leo "Apollo11"

Measure 82 - Camo against subs! [:D]

Seriously, it's a new silicon based anti-fouling paint that is eco friendly. PORT ROYAL is the test platform for it.
Toxic hull paints have been a problem for years. They have been looking for a replacement for red lead and nothing seems to do the same job without creating the same problems. There has been a move towards two part epoxies. They dry smooth and hard, which does not give the sea critters anything to cling to and, as an added bonus, decreases drag. They are also expense, have bonding and durability issues, require precise application and did I mention, are expense. A lot of the color is just pigment, so the blue might not be the final color; it may show defects better for testing purposes, etc. The Canadian Navy has been using it for several years now, and the French Navy for their experimental landing craft - http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=108703

Another area has been with film coatings. Basically, you wrap the hull with a plastic film. It has the same limitations as the epoxies with durability being dominant. However, it does have some advantages. It can be manufactured with micro grooves that decrease drag even more and can contain encapsuled toxins, specific to clinging sea critters, so that it is not as damaging to the environment as coatings that just leach toxins into the water.

TOMLABEL

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: TOMLABEL

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

What's the story with this "Experimental blue u/w hull paint"?

Measure 82 - Camo against subs! [:D]

Seriously, it's a new silicon based anti-fouling paint that is eco friendly. PORT ROYAL is the test platform for it.
Toxic hull paints have been a problem for years. They have been looking for a replacement for red lead and nothing seems to do the same job without creating the same problems. There has been a move towards two part epoxies. They dry smooth and hard, which does not give the sea critters anything to cling to and, as an added bonus, decreases drag. They are also expense, have bonding and durability issues, require precise application and did I mention, are expense. A lot of the color is just pigment, so the blue might not be the final color; it may show defects better for testing purposes, etc. The Canadian Navy has been using it for several years now, and the French Navy for their experimental landing craft - http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=108703

Another area has been with film coatings. Basically, you wrap the hull with a plastic film. It has the same limitations as the epoxies with durability being dominant. However, it does have some advantages. It can be manufactured with micro grooves that decrease drag even more and can contain encapsuled toxins, specific to clinging sea critters, so that it is not as damaging to the environment as coatings that just leach toxins into the water.

TOMLABEL

Thanks for greta info Tom! [:)]


Leo "Apollo11"