Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures




Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence








US Navy News and updates

This is a discussion on US Navy News and updates within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Simply put, with minehunting modules for the LCS, the US Navy hopes not to have to replace in the future ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 10 votes, 4.00 average.
Old September 20th, 2008   #61
Defense Aficionado
Major General
Sea Toby's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,473
Threads:
Simply put, with minehunting modules for the LCS, the US Navy hopes not to have to replace in the future their minesweepers and minehunters. To send them to the Persian Gulf, the navy had to uplift them. These minesweepers and minehunters don't have world wide range. They're useful for the eastern Pacific and western Atlantic, they're not very useful for the Indian Ocean. But the LCS will.
Sea Toby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 20th, 2008   #62
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major General
alexsa's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,238
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty Dog View Post
Keep in mind LCS is a small fast reaction (40+ knots) warship smaller than a multipurpose frigate.
.
I don't have any comont on the majority of you post but it is not valid to call these ships small. They are quite large vessels for their armament but wiht large are helo decks. However they are very light resulting in a limited DWT but high speed. As a point:

LCS1 - LOA 115m, Beam 17.5m (depending on who you believe)
LCS2 - LOA 127.1m, Beam 31.4m (on a Trimarant hull form)

By way of comparision a MEKO200 is a 3600 tonne GP frigate (not small compared to some):

MEKO200 - LOA 118m, Beam 14.8m
alexsa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2nd, 2008   #63
New Member
Private
flanx's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Singapore
Posts: 16
Threads:
Any news update about the US warship in Black Sea? I can't find it on Google.
flanx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2008   #64
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
bd popeye's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Iowa
Posts: 688
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by flanx View Post
Any news update about the US warship in Black Sea? I can't find it on Google.
As far as I know they left the Black Sea some time ago. Check navy.mil.

Later..much later..I just ran accross this..

Quote:

http://www.daylife.com/photo/0chVgaVg3jbDF/Military

The USS Barry, a U.S. destroyer, part of the 6th fleet based in Naples, Italy, arrives in the Georgian Black Sea port city of Poti on Saturday, Oct. 18, 2008, with a Georgian motorboat at right. A spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Tbilisi said the ship was not carrying any humanitarian or military aid, a routine visit and not connected to tensions in the region after an August war between Georgia and Russia over the breakaway republic of South Ossetia.
I don't think the Barry was part of the original three ships to enter the Black Sea after the Russian action against Georgia.

Last edited by bd popeye; October 19th, 2008 at 10:06 PM.
bd popeye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2008   #65
New Member
Private
flanx's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Singapore
Posts: 16
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd popeye View Post
As far as I know they left the Black Sea some time ago. Check navy.mil.

Later..much later..I just ran accross this..



I don't think the Barry was part of the original three ships to enter the Black Sea after the Russian action against Georgia.
thanks for the infos Popeye... yes Barry is not included..

It was the Coast Guard that arrived first, then the US Missile Cruiser if im not wrong.

As far i know only the Coast Guard ship left after a visit in Crimea.
flanx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2008   #66
Super Moderator
Major General
AegisFC's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,000
Threads:
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/1...nding_102408w/

http://turkishnavy.blogspot.com/2008...in-samsun.html

The USS Barry ran aground while being maneuvered by tugs into Samsun Turkey. So far the ship appears undamaged
Normally this would be a death blow to the CO's career but the fact that she had a Turkish pilot, was being maneuvered by tugs and that it seems the entrance of the harbor was shallower than indicated in the charts might let him keep his command.
________________
"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Forum rules, read them!
AegisFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2008   #67
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
Salty Dog's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brazil
Posts: 799
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AegisFC View Post
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/1...nding_102408w/

http://turkishnavy.blogspot.com/2008...in-samsun.html

The USS Barry ran aground while being maneuvered by tugs into Samsun Turkey. So far the ship appears undamaged
Normally this would be a death blow to the CO's career but the fact that she had a Turkish pilot, was being maneuvered by tugs and that it seems the entrance of the harbor was shallower than indicated in the charts might let him keep his command.
Very interesting that the ship went aground with the after section which AFAIK has a shallower draft than the bow section due to the sonar dome. They will most likely need to run some trials to see if any of the shafts or rudder systems were dinged or jolted out of position.

I recall on a southbound transit of the Suez Canal, one of the Port Suez tugs got a bit too close on a quarter of our DDG and managed to ding one of our props. It was a slight ding and we carried on for the remainder of our deployment, but that shaft had a nasty vibration at a certain rpm range. We eventually had it fixed during a drydocking availablity.

Unfortunately, I don't think the CO will get off that easy.
Salty Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2008   #68
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
t68's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 2,598
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty Dog View Post
Very interesting that the ship went aground with the after section which AFAIK has a shallower draft than the bow section due to the sonar dome. They will most likely need to run some trials to see if any of the shafts or rudder systems were dinged or jolted out of position.

I recall on a southbound transit of the Suez Canal, one of the Port Suez tugs got a bit too close on a quarter of our DDG and managed to ding one of our props. It was a slight ding and we carried on for the remainder of our deployment, but that shaft had a nasty vibration at a certain rpm range. We eventually had it fixed during a drydocking availablity.

Unfortunately, I don't think the CO will get off that easy.

Why? i don't see it as his fault as he was under a pilot instruction, if the charts are not accurate he's not a magician to know how deep the the water is
t68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2008   #69
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
Salty Dog's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brazil
Posts: 799
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
Why? i don't see it as his fault as he was under a pilot instruction, if the charts are not accurate he's not a magician to know how deep the the water is
There are only two instances AFAIK that a US Navy commanding officer is absolved of the responsibility of the safe navigation of his ship when a pilot is present; 1) When entering or leaving drydock or 2) transit in the Panama Canal.
Salty Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2008   #70
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
t68's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 2,598
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty Dog View Post
There are only two instances AFAIK that a US Navy commanding officer is absolved of the responsibility of the safe navigation of his ship when a pilot is present; 1) When entering or leaving drydock or 2) transit in the Panama Canal.


But is that not the same thing?
I was under the impression that the pilot has command of the vessel for navigation purposes because he/she knows the area.
t68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2008   #71
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
Salty Dog's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brazil
Posts: 799
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
But is that not the same thing?
I was under the impression that the pilot has command of the vessel for navigation purposes because he/she knows the area.
For safe navigation of US Navy ships, no. The CO retains full responsibility.
Salty Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2008   #72
Super Moderator
Major General
AegisFC's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,000
Threads:
The CO may be screwed no matter what the investigation finds. The Barry was the former command of both Admiral Rougheah (current CNO) and Admiral Stavrdis, both highly influential individuals.
________________
"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Forum rules, read them!
AegisFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2008   #73
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
Salty Dog's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brazil
Posts: 799
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AegisFC View Post
The CO may be screwed no matter what the investigation finds. The Barry was the former command of both Admiral Rougheah (current CNO) and Admiral Stavrdis, both highly influential individuals.
Unfortunately, you may be correct mate. I'm sure the Admirals had their own private comments (yes, best kept in private) when they read the OPREP.
Salty Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2008   #74
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major General
alexsa's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,238
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty Dog View Post
For safe navigation of US Navy ships, no. The CO retains full responsibility.
In fact this true for all commercial vessels as well. Excepte where doemstic legisltaion indicates the pilot has control (Panama Canal and Houson Ship Canal) the pilot 'advises' and the master retains ultimate control.

While the reality may seem different when the ship ends up aground the master can expect to share the blame.
alexsa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2008   #75
Super Moderator
Major General
AegisFC's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,000
Threads:
The problem plagued San Antonio is in Bahrain for a couple weeks due unacceptable problems with the lube oil system.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/1...ntonio_110608/

Quote:
NORFOLK, Va. The troubled amphibious transport dock San Antonio in the middle of its first deployment has been forced to undergo two weeks of maintenance in Bahrain due to leaks in its lube oil piping system, Navy officials said.
Pictures of the faulty welds can be found here.

http://www.coltoncompany.com/newsand...%20Defects.pdf

First of class ships have problems but this ship was just poorly built and the USN never should of accepted it from Northrop-Grumman.
________________
"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Forum rules, read them!
AegisFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:31 PM.