4 ms·

> How then does half of the complex ship loose power completely? What? You don't think a massive midships collision would disrupt of power distribution? I'm am

> How then does half of the complex ship loose power completely? What? You don't think a massive midships collision would disrupt of power distribution? I'm amazed the ship had power at all. If you want an example of brittle power distribution look at the 2011 outage of all San Diego county: one maintenance worker at the Arizona border did that. Oh, by the way, during that event, it was Navy carriers in port that brought up their reactors and powered critical infrastructure in the city. > did the damage control efforts result in a reduced situational awareness after the collision? Yes. Definitely. Being that it was dark out didn't help. Fog of war. > What design and construction tradeoffs were made that resulted in a the hull of a billion dollar warship having much less intrinsic strength than a Korean built containership None. If you drive a semi into the side of an F-1 race car, that race car is going to be hella worse for the wear. Anyone who has ever played American football understands the actor with more kinetic energy is going to come out on top in a collision. Konrad's shriller lines, as above, make it difficult for me to focus on the rest of the topic. He raises some good points. Unfortunately, he also lambasts Richardson for looking into "operational tempo, trends in personnel, material, maintenance and equipment." Well, actually, those were exactly the things I would think should be looked into. Konrad has some decent points, but tread lightly while reading. Unless you know something about ships, it'll be hard to pick out what makes sense.

jessaustin 9y ago
Konrad seems more reliable when one considers he wrote this back in June: My criticism come not from a lack of respect but from the knowledge that even the best run organizations have things they need to improve… and, for the US Navy, avoiding collisions with civilian ships in congested waters certainly needs improvement. [0] He wasn't wrong! [0] http://gcaptain.com/uss-fitzgerald-fault-part-2-questions-answers/ http://gcaptain.com/uss-fitzgerald-fault-part-2-questions-an...
Johnny555 9y ago
Oh, by the way, during that event, it was Navy carriers in port that brought up their reactors and powered critical infrastructure in the city. That's not exactly what happened. I was skeptical that a Naval ship's generator could be quickly and safely connected to the power grid during a short term (~12 hour) power outage, so I looked it up: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/09/09/california.power.outages/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/09/09/california.power.outages/in... Officials also thanked the U.S. Navy for powering up generators aboard its many ships in port, freeing up the utility to restore power sooner to other customers. So it sounds like the Naval ships switched from shore power to their own onboard generators, which meant that the utility didn't need to restore power to them, and that as the restored power, the considerable electrical load from large vessels didn't need to be restored immediately. I'd be surprised if a modern carrier even had a feasible way to get the power from the main generator off-board and into a common electrical grid.
- fractallyte 9y ago
  But it does sound like an awesome feature to implement! There could be all kinds of utility in this, even in military scenarios.
  - rurounijones 9y ago
    Someone had a website (Now dead) dedicated to something like this. Basically refit the USS Enterprise as a floating, mobile, disaster relief platform. Plenty of storage for food and supplies and disaster relief workers, desalniation for water and a nuclear reactor to supply power all wrapped into one 33 knot package. http://web.archive.org/web/20170621182811/http://sendtheenterprise.org/ http://web.archive.org/web/20170621182811/http://sendtheente... Is a fascinating idea
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Wouldn't the connection to pull power from shore be most of the solution?
dingaling 9y ago
> What? You don't think a massive midships collision would disrupt of power distribution? It absolutely should not in 2017. That is a lesson that the Royal Navy learned in 1982, along with separated armoured trunks for fire-fighting water. Otherwise one bomb, or one Exocet-class weapon, is all that is required to mission-kill one ship. Wind the clock back to 1945 and there are examples of destroyers remaining semi-operational after Kamikaze strikes; that's a ton of explosives going off. The Fletcher-class USS Newcomb stayed afloat after five Kamikaze strikes and kept manouevring and firing! Unfortunately there is an increasing naval acceptance of lesser mercantile standards in shipbuilding.
- jabl 9y ago
  > separated armoured trunks for fire-fighting water. Huh? They do that? I'd always assumed that space and weight would be at such a premium that they would pump fire-fighting water from the sea instead of storing it onboard.. > Wind the clock back to 1945 and there are examples of destroyers remaining semi-operational after Kamikaze strikes; that's a ton of explosives going off. The Fletcher-class USS Newcomb stayed afloat after five Kamikaze strikes and kept manouevring and firing! Given the general level of carnage in WWII, I'd guess you'll be bound to find outliers like the USS Newcomb you mention. As well as outliers in the other direction, such as capital ships exploding after a single large caliber hit (HMS Hood).
  - chipsa 9y ago
    They do pump water from the sea for fire fighting. But you need piping to move the water from the sea into the ship. Pipes tend not to work well when they have holes in them. So you need to protect them, or have more than one, or both.

jessaustin 9y ago

Konrad seems more reliable when one considers he wrote this back in June: My criticism come not from a lack of respect but from the knowledge that even the best run organizations have things they need to improve… and, for the US Navy, avoiding collisions with civilian ships in congested waters certainly needs improvement. [0] He wasn't wrong! [0] http://gcaptain.com/uss-fitzgerald-fault-part-2-questions-answers/ http://gcaptain.com/uss-fitzgerald-fault-part-2-questions-an...

Johnny555 9y ago

Oh, by the way, during that event, it was Navy carriers in port that brought up their reactors and powered critical infrastructure in the city. That's not exactly what happened. I was skeptical that a Naval ship's generator could be quickly and safely connected to the power grid during a short term (~12 hour) power outage, so I looked it up: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/09/09/california.power.outages/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/09/09/california.power.outages/in... Officials also thanked the U.S. Navy for powering up generators aboard its many ships in port, freeing up the utility to restore power sooner to other customers. So it sounds like the Naval ships switched from shore power to their own onboard generators, which meant that the utility didn't need to restore power to them, and that as the restored power, the considerable electrical load from large vessels didn't need to be restored immediately. I'd be surprised if a modern carrier even had a feasible way to get the power from the main generator off-board and into a common electrical grid.

fractallyte 9y ago
But it does sound like an awesome feature to implement! There could be all kinds of utility in this, even in military scenarios.
- rurounijones 9y ago
  Someone had a website (Now dead) dedicated to something like this. Basically refit the USS Enterprise as a floating, mobile, disaster relief platform. Plenty of storage for food and supplies and disaster relief workers, desalniation for water and a nuclear reactor to supply power all wrapped into one 33 knot package. http://web.archive.org/web/20170621182811/http://sendtheenterprise.org/ http://web.archive.org/web/20170621182811/http://sendtheente... Is a fascinating idea
maxerickson 9y ago
Wouldn't the connection to pull power from shore be most of the solution?

dingaling 9y ago

> What? You don't think a massive midships collision would disrupt of power distribution? It absolutely should not in 2017. That is a lesson that the Royal Navy learned in 1982, along with separated armoured trunks for fire-fighting water. Otherwise one bomb, or one Exocet-class weapon, is all that is required to mission-kill one ship. Wind the clock back to 1945 and there are examples of destroyers remaining semi-operational after Kamikaze strikes; that's a ton of explosives going off. The Fletcher-class USS Newcomb stayed afloat after five Kamikaze strikes and kept manouevring and firing! Unfortunately there is an increasing naval acceptance of lesser mercantile standards in shipbuilding.

jabl 9y ago
> separated armoured trunks for fire-fighting water. Huh? They do that? I'd always assumed that space and weight would be at such a premium that they would pump fire-fighting water from the sea instead of storing it onboard.. > Wind the clock back to 1945 and there are examples of destroyers remaining semi-operational after Kamikaze strikes; that's a ton of explosives going off. The Fletcher-class USS Newcomb stayed afloat after five Kamikaze strikes and kept manouevring and firing! Given the general level of carnage in WWII, I'd guess you'll be bound to find outliers like the USS Newcomb you mention. As well as outliers in the other direction, such as capital ships exploding after a single large caliber hit (HMS Hood).
- chipsa 9y ago
  They do pump water from the sea for fire fighting. But you need piping to move the water from the sea into the ship. Pipes tend not to work well when they have holes in them. So you need to protect them, or have more than one, or both.