4 ms·

> This question is what made me doubt the rest of the article, which is ostensibly written by somebody with some level of naval expertise. It's possibly a naiv

by jfoutz 9y ago

> This question is what made me doubt the rest of the article, which is ostensibly written by somebody with some level of naval expertise. It's possibly a naive statement. I think it's a trap. Fundamentally, the ship isn't designed to be hit at all. it's supposed to be fast and nimble. The walls could be paper thin (aside from getting shot at), because it's not supposed to be rammed in the first place. It creates a nifty dilemma. Either the whole class is poorly constructed, or those in command were complete failures. An expert would have a hard time saying the whole class is poorly constructed. Less important but still relevant, an inquiry maybe should explain the bow vs side issue in ship strength. It'll dissuade obvious misunderstandings from lawyers, legislators and the general public - non experts.

protomyth 9y ago
I posted part, which I guess is missing the whole context in the article. That line is attached to redundant power, communications, and other problems that happened after the collision. The author of the article is not exactly inexperienced in these matters.
- JohnBooty 9y ago
  I don't think it was an out-of-context quote. The author questioned why the (theoretically redundant) power and communications systems were knocked totally offline, which seems like a very fair question, and one of great importance. But I read it as a separate question from the issue of why the cargo ship was able to damage the Fitzgerald.
JohnBooty 9y ago
Yeah that's my understanding. Destroyers (and really, any modern naval ship) are not designed to slug it out in ship-to-ship artillery duels like WWI battleships. They are there to launch missiles at targets from a safe distance. As WWII taught us, any surface vessel is essentially a sitting duck when it comes to air power in the form of planes, missiles, or missiles launched from planes. That is even truer today, as surface-to-surface and air-to-surface munitions have become that much more powerful and accurate. Designing a ship to withstand that kind of punishment is just impractical. The Arleigh Burke class can deliver some real destructive power but as always, air superiority is a must. (This is where I reiterate that I am not particularly knowledgable on this topic; please somebody correct me if needed)

by jfoutz 9y ago

protomyth 9y ago

I posted part, which I guess is missing the whole context in the article. That line is attached to redundant power, communications, and other problems that happened after the collision. The author of the article is not exactly inexperienced in these matters.

JohnBooty 9y ago
I don't think it was an out-of-context quote. The author questioned why the (theoretically redundant) power and communications systems were knocked totally offline, which seems like a very fair question, and one of great importance. But I read it as a separate question from the issue of why the cargo ship was able to damage the Fitzgerald.

JohnBooty 9y ago

Yeah that's my understanding. Destroyers (and really, any modern naval ship) are not designed to slug it out in ship-to-ship artillery duels like WWI battleships. They are there to launch missiles at targets from a safe distance. As WWII taught us, any surface vessel is essentially a sitting duck when it comes to air power in the form of planes, missiles, or missiles launched from planes. That is even truer today, as surface-to-surface and air-to-surface munitions have become that much more powerful and accurate. Designing a ship to withstand that kind of punishment is just impractical. The Arleigh Burke class can deliver some real destructive power but as always, air superiority is a must. (This is where I reiterate that I am not particularly knowledgable on this topic; please somebody correct me if needed)