The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 2:26 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 101 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 11:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:28 pm
Posts: 2126
Location: Egg Harbor Twp, NJ
Read my June 18 posts, then go back in the thread to my May 7 post.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 12:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
Russ2146 wrote:
The Pentagon has waived the statutory requirement for full-up, system-level survivability testing of the Littoral Combat Ship because it would be "unreasonably expensive" and "impractical," a decision blessed by the Defense Department's top weapons tester, DOD officials say.

I believe that this is referring to the standard shock testing applied to all new ships. The Navy had delayed this for many, many months after it became apparent early on that the ships would not even meet the Level 1 survivability (non-combatant level) that they were designed for.

Given the extensive cracking, vibration, and other known issues, I suspect the Navy concluded the only thing shock testing would do is further damage the ship. Hey, it would be kind of embarassing for a ship to sink during the test! Seriously, though, since the Navy already acknowledged that the LCS would not meet Level 1, there's not really any point to shock testing.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:17 pm
Posts: 582
carr wrote:
Given the extensive cracking, vibration, and other known issues, I suspect the Navy concluded the only thing shock testing would do is further damage the ship. Hey, it would be kind of embarassing for a ship to sink during the test! Seriously, though, since the Navy already acknowledged that the LCS would not meet Level 1, there's not really any point to shock testing.


If the navy has admitted that the LCS-2 class will not even withstand level 1 stress, why should a ship that is (in theory) well armed be almost totally unable to take damage from weapons equal to the ones that she carries?

_________________
Current Builds:
1-350 DKM Z-39
1-350 USS Philippine Sea


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 9:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
I have no idea what the rationale behind a Level 1 survivability rating was for a littoral COMBAT ship. The Navy has repeatedly stated that the design intent was for only sufficient survivability to allow the crew enough time to safely abandon ship. In fact, the LCS is claimed to have features that support this goal though I've never heard what those features are.

To be fair, remember that the designed crew size was insufficient to conduct any effective damage control so perhaps the Navy reasoned that a higher survivability was a waste of time?

Honestly, regardless of whether one supports the LCS program or not, this is just one of many baffling decisions associated with the program.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 3125
Location: Hawaii
WHY, WHY, WHY???!!! :doh_1: :doh_1: :doh_1: Wonder if we can file theft reports for all of our tax money that has been spent on this immensely worthless program? Sending our men and women into COMBAT in a ship that isn't even designed to survive any kind of damage? Are they really serious? I can see all of the wrongful death suites that will filed the minute one of these ships actually sees combat and sinks after the first hit. It almost seems like someone needs to be brought up on charges for allowing these ships to be built.

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
One of the problems, and there are many, is that both the Navy and GAO have stated that no tactical modelling was done prior to committing to the LCS building program. In other words, the Navy didn't analyze the littoral combat needs, if indeed there were any, and the resulting tactical requirements before building the ship. Predictably, the ship turned out not to be a good fit for the stated role.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:28 pm
Posts: 2126
Location: Egg Harbor Twp, NJ
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsurf ... 10621.aspx

Corrosion Cripples The LCS

June 21, 2011: Just as the U.S. Navy decides to put its new "Littoral Combat Ship" (LCS) into mass production, serious structural flaws have been discovered in both ships. The most serious problem is in the USS Independence, a radical trimaran design. It seems that a "dissimilar metals" situation arose when salt water, the aluminum hull and some other metals got into close proximity with each other, and extensive corrosion resulted. Aluminum hulls tend to corrode more than steel, but the problem became so bad with the USS Independence that, 18 months after entering service, it is headed for dry dock, corrosion repairs and design changes to eliminate the problem. The more conventional design, the monohull USS Freedom has developed cracks, as long as 15 cm (six inches).

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/
Monday, June 20, 2011
Can this be operationalized?
I think this press release from Austal gives us some hints on what the problem is with LCS-2. Read it all - but this is the question I have for you.
An integral part of any post-delivery support program for a high-performance, high-speed vessel such as the Independence-variant LCS is to provide a cadre of qualified maintainers who can help our Navy partners to deploy temporary sacrificial anodes every time the vessel is moored, and ensure that high-voltage maintenance equipment is properly grounded before use aboard ship. These are services that Austal’s skilled aluminum specialists, operating from six maintenance hubs in the Asia-Pacific, North America, South America, Europe and the Middle East, offer Austal customers every day.
Are they thinking about having Austal contractors at every port LCS-2 Class will pull in to, or are they just going to train Sailors to do it? Hopefully it is the latter and not the former. ... and this isn't being done now why?


What a china doll. Sad; I always liked the LCS-2 design over LCS-1 like I enjoy a bee sting over a kick in the groin - but if you need to give it a deep tissue massage and olive oil enema every time it enters port - ungh.


Last edited by Russ2146 on Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:28 pm
Posts: 2126
Location: Egg Harbor Twp, NJ
http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/

Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Test your LCS concepts here ...
More LCS fun. Just that kind of week I guess.

Lee sent this video along this week for a different reason, but I made me think of the Little Crappy Ship after reading another Potemkin article about LCS's Mission Modules and unmanned-offboard systems. You know the ones I am talking about, like this. Along with even goofier friends here. Deploy and operate this for sustained operations? Really?

Notice they all seem to be tested in bathtub water? That isn't the sea we know, is it? This is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... C2XIGMI2kM

Test your little toys in those seas for 4 straight days of continual operations as a start, then we'll talk about tactical utility.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 10:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
From defenseindustrydaily.com comes this snippet concerning the corrosion problem,

“In the case of LCS-2, the problem was apparently accelerated by stray currents in the hull from the electrical distribution system problems the ship has been having since it was turned over to the Navy."

Stray currents?! Presumably, that's another way of saying that electrical circuits are shorting to the hull and electrifying the metal. I guess that's one way of keeping sailors from leaning against a bulkhead and resting!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 5:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 6:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
carr wrote:
I'm not sure why the major disparity between treating LCS-2 and future ships. It's also not clear whether the $3.2M includes repair costs in addition to protection.
Hookers, Bob. The money goes to hookers. The contractors are taking advantage of the sweet, sweet pleasure of the women of the night in Florida....


...only if LCS-2 was stationed in Panama...

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 7:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:17 pm
Posts: 582
If I were to characterize the entire LCS program in two words, they would be "Epic Fail!!!"

_________________
Current Builds:
1-350 DKM Z-39
1-350 USS Philippine Sea


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2011 10:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 24, 2011 3:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:50 pm
Posts: 267
You know , when I first saw these vessels I had my doubts .Remember the TUCUMCARI ? The ASHVILLES weren,t much good either . The NAVY seems to be trying to get stuff underway to specifically spend the taxpayers money enough so they get the same amount as the AIR FORCE and ARMY . Stupid if you ask me .We had the same corrosion problems aboard the FRAMMED- GEARING CLASS ships too .The Aluminum superstructure would start fatigue damage BEFORE the ships ever went back in service ! We had cracks around the helo hangers (for which we never got helos) and there were times the STEEL aft refueling unit took longer to deploy because it got bound up in the aluminum rack it was anchored in ,BELOW the helo deck .Or the access doors didn,t want to open because the opening was not square after a ride in a storm ! I have NEVER been a proponent of ALUMINUM ships anywhoo . The corrosion problems are way to real and can and does shorten a vessel,s life by many years . The ships I was in charge of for the oil company were built overseas and were ALL steel except maybe the mast and some other lightweight gear .The hull ,deck and deckhouse as well as ALL deck working systems were steel . NUFF SAID !!! commodore4


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 6:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 5:00 am
Posts: 411
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Sorry to interrupt gents, but I have a model related question: Between the Trumpeter and Bronco 1/350
kits, can anyone tell me which of the two is the most accurate? Each seems to somewhat different from each other......

_________________
Aaron Propper
"I don't understand any of this! But when we get in the giant robots, WE MUST FIGHT!"

"This is how Admiral Okita fights."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 12138
Location: Ottawa, Canada
I recall reading that Trumpeter messed up the angles on the mast and superstructure - it's probably somewhere in this thread.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
Otherwise, I doubt anyone other than those with shipyard plans would be able to give you a definitive answer.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:16 pm
Posts: 39
So how does one replicate the Aluminium color scheme? Or is it way too hard and just paint Haze Grey?

Cheers

Tony


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 12138
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Bill Liebold, who has built a few large-scale LCSs for LockMart, replicates it by mixing some grey and white into a bottle of silver: .
Quote:
Silver paint right out of the jar just does not look right, so I mix in a little grey and a little white. That seems to scale down the metallic look well enough. The aluminum paint is applied and all of the masking to this point is removed.


From his build article: http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... ndex_2.htm

Of course, that's for 1/96 scale - for those of us building it smaller, I would probably do the inverse: put a small amount of silver into a bottle of grey.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 2:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
There was a build that got mentioned here (went looking for the link and ran out of time) where the builder sprayed a gray and then drew panel lines over it in pencil. The then smudged the pencil marks, which toned down the affect and gave the rest of the surface a slight metallic appearance that I think was a little closer to the weathered aluminum look. Anyone remember that build? I think the WIP was off-site, but can't remember where.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 101 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group