USS Milwaukee Woes Continue

How many more minutes, Kulwaskl ??



not many will remember this often asked question..

The choice of that monohull vessel was the wrong choice anyway. It was a political give away to Lockheed. That ship really doesn't have the capabilities that the tri-hull vessel concept had.

I think this little statement sums it up

...the Tri-hull vessel
http://www.yachtforums.com/threads/new-tri-hulled-navy-ship.11783/#post-81993

Here are some better photos of the tri-hull, and some discussions about its capabilities
http://www.yachtforums.com/threads/trimarans-and-the-bladerunner.2701/page-8#post-131399

As reported here the tri-hull also had some problems with its construction, BUT its concept as a fast shallow water combat ship certainly exceeded that monohull vessel.

I thought by now we had this sort of stuff figured out. Sounds expensive.

Sounds like sabotage from a disgruntled worker to me.

I could take that as a segway to get outside of the boating realm here........ Nope, wouldn't be prudent.

That is one wet riding mono-hull!

A couple years ago Russian defense minister was sacked for loudly asking why locally built tanks of the famous "red tank swarm" are now more expensive for the budget then German and French MBT's export price, despite being older, simpler, sporting less sophisticated equipment and being built bu a workforce 2-3 times cheaper. ("For corruption." Really, he was not even remotely in the league..)
Then I happened upon a small intra-Chinese scandal where public found out that local "unlicensed copies" of USSR tactical missile systems costed more then present russian export prices for the same, again despite bearing no RnD costs and being built by a significantly cheaper workforce.
And I won't tell you people about f22 and f35, ofc

It's a defense contract! If you're not behind schedule, below technical expectations and over budget - you are doing it wrong. Specifically, you didn't get that contract to begin with, because your promised specifications, costs and schedules weren't the best

Underpromise overdeliver may get you the next job when people are spending their own money, but when people are spending OPM it's overpromise and underdeliver that gets you the big bonus checks.

Segueing back to the topic of the ship: If filings in the oil were the problem then that's not really a monohull vs multihull issue. Multihulls can have metal filings in the oil too. I don't think we necessarily have to postulate sabotage either. If you spend much time around hydrolic equipment you will find that a fair number of parts come with bearing catchers and similar screening devices to protect the component. Not all of them of course, but really if some random robotic arm in a lumber mill can prepare for foreign objects in the oil it's probably not about protecting it from employee sabotage as much as it is about protecting it from mistakes and mechanical failures. If someone manually deburred the cut end of some metal tubing you would expect some filings to fall into the tubing. If they thought it was someone else's job, and someone else thought that surely the first guy had taken care of it you don't have far to go before you have a problem. Or a pump impeller could have been defective inside of an aluminum housing, and chipped a lot of bits of housing into the oil stream. These things don't happen often when you have a workforce that checks every component for defects, and to make sure it is installed properly, and running properly, and communicates with each other effectively, but it's an impressive feat for a team building something huge like this vessel to keep that level of professionalism up. You get one incompetent manager with a few new guys who don't know the right way to work under him, and you've got problems really fast. If you're already behind schedule and overbudget you might not care to stop and fix the problems like you ought to either.

Not all oil is part of a hydraulic system.

http://news.usni.org/2015/12/23/lit...kee-repairs-estimated-to-extend-into-february

Interesting that they are running a German combiner box, I wonder what else uses that powering package?

If the clutches fail after a flame out as suggested in the linked article above I think who ever approved the system design needs the generous application of a large steel capped boot to their rear end.

Anybody know what's the deal with Pielstick? Are they a subsidiary of Fairbanks Morse or MAN? Where are Colt Pielsticks manufactured etc.

In the interest of speculation ... if the initial event was a flameout at high power it is not too much of a stretch to suppose that something allowed the overrunning clutch to operate for a few seconds in the netherland of engagement and loading where it might produce some swarf . But, if the lube oil systems were not cross connected during the initial event it might indicate an entirely different and much more serious issue with the gearboxes.

http://www.fairbanksmorse.com/engines/colt-pielstick-pa6b-stc/

I think the engines used on military vessels are manufactured in Beloit, Wisconsin.

Manufactured under license so the shoulders of responsibility will make the slopes of Everest look like river plains

The failure analysis (if ever made public) will make an interesting read. It's not like the technology is cutting edge, CODAG combining gearboxes have been around for a long time as have the overrunning clutches for gas turbines and the plate clutches used in the combiner. Reports say the swarf is from the plate clutches so if the lube oil systems were not cross connected it sounds like they may have a design problem.

Evidently the LCS application is the first that does not use a cross connect gear.

The whole LCS thing reeks of politics. The design and engineering were certainly taken out of the oven a bit early in my opinion.

Drilling down further reveals that MAN is tasked with parts and service for Pielstick. Pielstick France has licensed no less than eight different manufacturing companies from Korea to India to make these motors. Has to be hard to keep the quality intact through that type of deal. Fairbanks Morse has a longstanding relationship with the U.S. Navy but find this selection of manufacturer as strange. The Senator from Wisconsin must chair the Military Arms select commission.

I don't think that I was implying that. Merely talking about another type of system which uses oil and experiences foreign bodies, to get people thinking about failure as failure rather than sabotage.

Another US Ship is out of commission
From The Dailey Caller :

The USS Fort Worth, a Navy littoral combat ship,has suffered extensive gear damage while docked at a port in Singapore. The Navy is blaming the incident on a crew error.

According to reports, the crew failed to use sufficient lube oil, leading to excessively high temperatures on the gears. Debris also found its way into the lubrication system, which also contributed to failure, Defense News reports. The crew did not follow standard operating procedures.

Immediately following the incident, ship repair experts arrived on the scene to assess the damage. Until the investigation wraps up, the ship will remain at the Changi Naval Base in Singapore.

“We have the right resources in place to conduct the necessary inspections, determine the extent of the damage and required repairs, and return Fort Worth back to operational status,” Lt. Cmdr. Matt Knight, a spokesman for the US Pacific Fleet, told Defense News. “USS Fort Worth has been a model of reliability for more than one year while deployed in the US 7th Fleet. We are working diligently to minimize the operational impact of this maintenance casualty.”

This marks the second incident over the last couple months that an LCS ship has been brought down due to mechanical failure. The Milwaukee broke down approximately 40 miles off the coast of Virginia. The Navy had to collect the ship and tow it back to Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story.

Navy officials told Defense News that the problem with the USS Fort Worth and the USS Milwaukee is somewhat similar, though the actual causes are distinct. It is unknown when the problems with Fort Worth will clear up. A few weeks ago, Defense Secretary Ash Carter told Navy Secretary Ray Mabus that orders of LCS ships were to be capped at 40, rather than the original amount of 52. The Navydisputed the decision at the time and still hopes Carter will have a change of heart.

Fort Worth has been deployed to Asia since November 2014

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/22/s...down-because-someone-forgot-to-check-the-oil/