Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise

[Wrangler]

That's wicked expensive write off.

[DoctorMonkey]

That's wicked expensive write off.

I suspect it will still be cheaper to salvage what you can and stick it on a new build ship


The hulk may well be of use for damage control testing etc

[Kidd]

What they can salvage anyway. With all the electronics and stuff exposed to seawater...

[Nightlord01]

I assume she is a write-off.

Might not be as safe an assumption as you think.

Warships are hundreds of millions to billions of dollars, and they are built in limited numbers unless you happen to be one of just three nations currently active. Replacing her would be uber expensive with new build because it would require change of an existing contract, or drafting of a new one. The drafting of the contract can frequently cost more than any individual platform, and drag out for years.

Never discount the national pride factor either, she will never be what she was, but they can make her a solid combat platform again, just takes time and money. The RAN effectively rebuilt HMAS Westralia after her fire, this was an old platform due to decommission within the next decade, but she was still repaired. The USN effectively rebuilt both USS Stark and USS Cole, and they were both badly damaged. The RN repaired HMS Nottingham after she grounded, albeit she didn't sink though.

Nations frequently repair apparent write-offs, so don't call her gone just yet.

Considering she took flooding all the way into the engine room because of defective shaft seals, and that she's spent how long effectively completely submerged?  The corrosion visible on the outside of the hull is going to be endemic to everything inside.  If they don't send her to the breakers I'll be shocked.

Rust isn't that big an issue, trust me. Warships are in a constant losing battle with corrosion, and while her's looks bad, it's actually not. Most of that is rust run, where the colour of the rust has run down or along the side of the ship. Noting the amount that is still protected by paint, which is obviously holding quite well, I'd say rust is the least of their concerns.

[ANS Kamas P81]

I'm thinking more of what the corrosion over those months would have done to the interior things; she's been entirely submerged for almost four months.  All the electronics, wiring, non-hull stuff is what I was thinking is a write-off.  The hull damage probably isn't all that bad considering the impact wasn't that severe visually (compared to, say, the Fitzgerald) so that's probably in decent enough shape.

[Kidd]

they are built in limited numbers unless you happen to be one of just three nations currently active.

Oh come now, it's not that bad right?

Active shipbuilding nations: US, Russia, China, UK, France, Germany, italy, India, Japan, South Korea...?

[DoctorMonkey]

I wonder if the Fridtjof Nansen class is close enough to the Hobart class still being built to allow an extra order to be "tagged on" for hull construction while either re-using or sourcing new military systems (radar, sonar etc)?


There has to be some sort of advantage to using a relatively widely used ship type (the Navantia F100) and given the number of Arleigh Burke class being built Lockheed Martin should be able to send over some spares for the SPY-1


Or I guess the Norwegians could see if they could tag on an order for a Type 26 or an Arleigh Burke directly?

[kato]

given the number of Arleigh Burke class being built Lockheed Martin should be able to send over some spares for the SPY-1

The Fridtjof Nansen design uses the SPY-1F FARS, which is an export-only model with different electronics (and a smaller antenna). All older F100 use SPY-1D, all current F100 variants - Hobart class and F-105 - use SPY-1D(V) with new processors and different waveform. SPY-1D(V) is no longer built for US destroyers, all Flight III Arleigh Burkes receive SPY-6(V) instead.

[Øystein]

All options are on the table with regards to a replacement.

Germans are aquiring the MKS 180 and some new F125s.
Brits are building Type 26s and working on Type 31s.
France/Italy are building FREMM.
The US are on their FFG(X) study.

But also increasing the lifetime of the Skjold-class corvettes is also on the table.

[kato]

MKS180 at currently projected 10,000 tons aren't really in the same class as the others mentioned.

[I am Belch II]

With the small budgets of some nations, rebuilding or a new ship is probaly the like the equlivent of a Ford Aircradt carrier for the US.

[Feenix74]

Oh come now, it's not that bad right?

Active shipbuilding nations: US, Russia, China, UK, France, Germany, italy, India, Japan, South Korea...?

Add Australia to that list (officially we are in the shipbuilding "valley of death" between winding down after completion of the third and final Hobart-class destroyer and before we start building the Attack-Class subs and the Hunter-class frigates, however we have started construction of the Arafura-class OPVs)

[Fat Guy]

A Russian cargo ship crashed into a bridge in South Korea today.




The captain was drunk at the time.   :beer:



Russia never takes a day off from being Russia.   ::)

[truetanker]

Ask Gorky {Russian accent} : In Russia, drunk South Korean bridge crashes boat.

TT

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

I like how the cars stopped for a couple seconds, then kept driving.

[I am Belch II]

That would be so weird your just minding your own business and look over while driving on a bridge and a boat crashes into the bridge.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Russia never takes a day off from being Russia.   ::)

When Florida Man just isn't Florida enough.

[beachhead1985]

That would be so weird your just minding your own business and look over while driving on a bridge and a boat crashes into the bridge.

GUYS!

We found the new M. Night Shamaylan twist!

[Wrangler]

That would be so weird your just minding your own business and look over while driving on a bridge and a boat crashes into the bridge.

Ahh...you mean like this?



Stupid cars cutting in front of people.

[Nightlord01]

Oh come now, it's not that bad right?

Active shipbuilding nations: US, Russia, China, UK, France, Germany, italy, India, Japan, South Korea...?

And how many of those are producing more than 10 of any given class? Warships are built in limited numbers, with a specific class size agreed upon prior to commencement of preparations to construct. You can't just say "Spin us out a couple more can you?" The contract needs to be amended, or another contract signed, and that means the contracted ship builder can more or less name their price.

I wonder if the Fridtjof Nansen class is close enough to the Hobart class still being built to allow an extra order to be "tagged on" for hull construction while either re-using or sourcing new military systems (radar, sonar etc)?


There has to be some sort of advantage to using a relatively widely used ship type (the Navantia F100) and given the number of Arleigh Burke class being built Lockheed Martin should be able to send over some spares for the SPY-1


Or I guess the Norwegians could see if they could tag on an order for a Type 26 or an Arleigh Burke directly?

This depends, but the short answer is No. I'm not sure how much of what I know is considered commercial in confidence, will have to see if I can find it online. Essentially, there's something called FTA or Foreign Trade Agreement, it's when one nation agrees to provide certain military equipment or designs to another nation under certain stipulations, such as you don't export that equipment/design unless we say it's ok. Navantia and the Spanish government would be most displeased if Australia started offering export versions of their ship design, preferring that the design was bought from them.

[Kidd]

And how many of those are producing more than 10 of any given class? Warships are built in limited numbers, with a specific class size agreed upon prior to commencement of preparations to construct. You can't just say "Spin us out a couple more can you?" The contract needs to be amended, or another contract signed, and that means the contracted ship builder can more or less name their price.

Even 10 ships of one class is a lot these days. Hmm... US, China, Russia (debatably), Canada's Type 26 program (Halifax-class), Australia's Attack-class submarines... I think that's it. A few more programs in the ~8-ship range though.

I think it would not be too difficult to add more ships so long as there are 2 or 3 more ships in the queue - that gives time to arrange for more long-lead items on the end, though it will still play merry hell with everybody's schedules to get an extra ship out at any useful time. The additional design work and nation-specific equipment would be more of a hurdle.

[Wrangler]

(Speculating Mode)
Isn't that the problem with modern warship production?  You need specialized craftmen, supplies of specialize components etc to suppose this beast?  More analog production shipyards kept hot because the ships weren't that sophisticated incomparison to modern warship.  Government shipyards maintained vessels, government development outfits had their own design outfits building say naval cannons.   

Missile age things start shift to private companies, but cost of the ships and other vehicles gone up. 
Isn't that why Burke Class has remained in production for such long time since, there no real room to experiment with new things without terrible cost, such as DDG-1000 program?  Half those ships systems aren't fully used since half it was made. 

Here the USS Marblehead CL-12 at launch in Philly in 1922. There wasn't much in hightech going on there!
(By the way, the ship was ordered in Jan 1919.  Now hundred years ago!


Here a Omaha Class Light Cruiser USS Raleigh (CL-7) in drydock in the 1920s.

[Kidd]

(Speculating Mode)
Isn't that the problem with modern warship production?  You need specialized craftmen, supplies of specialize components etc to suppose this beast?  More analog production shipyards kept hot because the ships weren't that sophisticated incomparison to modern warship.  Government shipyards maintained vessels, government development outfits had their own design outfits building say naval cannons.   

Missile age things start shift to private companies, but cost of the ships and other vehicles gone up. 
Isn't that why Burke Class has remained in production for such long time since, there no real room to experiment with new things without terrible cost, such as DDG-1000 program?  Half those ships systems aren't fully used since half it was made. 

Yes, things are way more sophisticated and expensive these days. That's just the nature of technology. A modern destroyer is lots more capable than older warships, it can probably win the Battle of Trafalgar all by itself.

Governments have been contracting military construction out for centuries. The "modern" system doesn't change anything.

The Burkes have remained in production because of the USN's strategies. Essentially in the USN, there is no "high-low mix" like there is with the USAF's F-15 and F-16. This might not be the best solution, but... the US military is so huge it's hard to see a rationale for a high-low mix. And it's hard politically, as the American public is unwilling to accept that some people are going to be risked more than others.

The DDG-1000 program suffered from the end of the Cold War and the uncertainties that followed. That's... the best way to characterise that I think.

[kato]

Even 10 ships of one class is a lot these days. Hmm... US, China, Russia (debatably), Canada's Type 26 program (Halifax-class), Australia's Attack-class submarines... I think that's it.

German K130 are being expanded to ten, steel has been cut on the next batch of five. There's of course the French-Italian FREMM programme with a planned layout of 20. Or the Italian PPA multi-outfit "light frigate" at 10 units planned. For submarines the Type 212 with 10 in the water will end up at around 18 units with current plans between Germany, Italy and Norway.

We'll get higher raw production numbers when the MCM vessels are up for replacement next decade. Benelux is in the market for a dozen, with a 3700t (!) multi-role design likely to win. Germany will order 11 in 2-3 years, with the only design decision so far being "considerably larger than what we have".

[God and Davion]

(Speculating Mode)
Isn't that the problem with modern warship production?  You need specialized craftmen, supplies of specialize components etc to suppose this beast?  More analog production shipyards kept hot because the ships weren't that sophisticated incomparison to modern warship.  Government shipyards maintained vessels, government development outfits had their own design outfits building say naval cannons.   

Missile age things start shift to private companies, but cost of the ships and other vehicles gone up. 
Isn't that why Burke Class has remained in production for such long time since, there no real room to experiment with new things without terrible cost, such as DDG-1000 program?  Half those ships systems aren't fully used since half it was made. 

Here the USS Marblehead CL-12 at launch in Philly in 1922. There wasn't much in hightech going on there!
(By the way, the ship was ordered in Jan 1919.  Now hundred years ago!


Here a Omaha Class Light Cruiser USS Raleigh (CL-7) in drydock in the 1920s.

I'm sorry to rain in your parade, but the first picture is not the USS Marblehead from 1922. The bow is quite different and the hull has a lot of casemates and other details that don't belong to an Omaha Class. I guess it is an older cruiser. Here is a pic from 1923 and they are very, very different.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/012/0401215.jpg

Despite the mistake, the picture is very nice.

[kato]

The single bow torpedo tube and the design of anchoring systems combined with the low deck are somewhat irksome. Both point at something like the early 1890s.

My guess would be C-9 Montgomery or one of her class.

[Feenix74]

I am not a squid or ex-squid, so I will happily be corrected if I am wrong.

The jack being flown on the jackstaff at the bow of the ship in question does not appear to be the USN Jack for the period 1919-1922. During the period 4 July, 1912 until 3 July, 1959, the USN Jack (with 48 stars) looked like this:



The Jack looks more like the USN Jack (with 32 stars) which was flown between 4 July, 1858 and 3 July, 1859 which looks like this:

[Daryk]

I'm pretty sure they weren't building ships like that prior to the civil war...

[chanman]

The single bow torpedo tube and the design of anchoring systems combined with the low deck are somewhat irksome. Both point at something like the early 1890s.

My guess would be C-9 Montgomery or one of her class.

I'm pretty sure you're right on the money regarding the class, but we probably are looking at a picture of the USS Marblehead... C-11 USS Marblehead. Laid down 1890, commissioned 1894, decommissioned 1919. Third ship of the Montgomery class. The portholes and casemates look like they match.

https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/NH-00001/NH-266.html

[Feenix74]

I'm pretty sure they weren't building ships like that prior to the civil war...

I do not disagree with you there but the USN Jack (with 44 stars) used in during the period 4 July, 1891 – 3 July, 1896 has four shorter rows of seven stars in the middle of the jack:



And the jack flying from the jackstaff appears to only have three rows of seven stars in the middle of the jack  :-\