SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A U.S. Navy vessel has collided with a container vessel southwest of Yokosuka, Japan:
Seven U.S. sailors are unaccounted for after a Navy destroyer collided with a merchant ship southwest of Yokosuka, Japan, early Saturday local time, a U.S. official and the Navy said.
Some flooding was reported aboard the USS Fitzgerald, a 505-foot destroyer, after the collision with a Philippine container vessel at approximately 2:30 a.m. Saturday local time (1:30 p.m. ET Friday), about 56 nautical miles of Yokosuka, the U.S. 7th Fleet said.
Also at Reuters.
mrpg wrote in with another story about a U.S. Navy sailor who was reported missing and presumed dead after a search by the Navy, Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, and Japan's Coast Guard. He was found days later, hiding in one of the engine rooms.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DutchUncle on Saturday June 17 2017, @02:23AM (6 children)
I realize that a container ship has kilotons of momentum (and yes I also realize those are the wrong units), but isn't a Navy ship supposed to be tough enough to survive some attack damage?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 17 2017, @02:32AM
My guess its like hardening a tank to withstand a freight train.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 17 2017, @02:39AM (2 children)
Could have been worse. At least it didn't sink.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 17 2017, @04:14AM (1 child)
Judging by the amount of water coming from the destroyer's bilge pumps visible in the photos, it looks like the came close to sinking the thing....if those bilge pumps shut down, it looks like it just might do a Titanic on us.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Saturday June 17 2017, @07:04AM
If they sealed the watertight compartments, it will not sink even without pump (the shipyard would face some really tough questions if it did).
But not sinking isn't the same as being seaworthy. It would limp to port or need help.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 17 2017, @02:20PM (1 child)
No. The US Navy, and most other navies, build a steel hull, with an aluminum superstructure. There are all sorts of benefits to this, but an aluminum superstructure isn't very tough at all. You can shoot through most of it with a high powered rifle. There isn't any part of it that won't be penetrated by a .50 machine gun or cannon. Further, that steel part is not armored - today's navies don't rely on armor. The steel part of the hull is mostly only about 3/8 inch thick, maybe 1/2 inch in some places where a little more rigidity is desired. If you care to chase down relatively close up photos of aging destroyers, you will find places where the steel hull have been dented inward, so that the frames stand out.
First photo on this page shows some of that hammering damage, straight back from, and level with the bottom of the numerals, and almost even vertically with the leading edge of the gun turret. This is a pretty good photo - wonder if it's worth blowing up larger . . . Oh yes, download it and blow it up to fill your screen. You can see a good bit of sea damage all the way back to under the flying bridge. Another equally good photo from a different angle would show the frames standing out clearly amidships. There is more of the same at the stern, both port and starboard.
Oh, I mentioned aluminum superstructure. I believe the "superstructure" seam is just about two feet above the black painted waterline. I'm not certain of the precise location, but it is near the waterline.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 17 2017, @04:42PM
I would have sworn that I pasted the URL into my post, but it isn't there.
http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/destroyers/photos/richard_e_byrd_ddg23/ddg23_01.JPG [maritimequest.com]