In Singapore, Another US Navy LCS Is Sidelined With Machinery Problems

I don't recall ever seeing this happen with our Military (other than earlier this month) in my lifetime, and here we go again. I am guessing that our ships are just old and decrepit?

I am hoping this is not a serious problem and all on board are safe. Any sailers on ATS please educate us on the mechanical condition of these vessels.

The Fort Worth, a Freedom-class LCS that has been operating for more than a year in the western Pacific, “experienced a casualty to the ship’s combining gears during an in-port period in Singapore Jan. 12,” according to Lt. Cmdr. Matt Knight, a spokesman for the US Pacific Fleet.

So far, according to Knight, “the casualty appears to be caused by a failure to follow established procedures during maintenance.”

The ship remains at the Changi Vaval Base in Singapore while an investigation continues. “A maintenance team consisting of technical representatives and shipyard personnel is on board to evaluate the gears and to make the necessary repairs,” Knight said in an email.

L I N K

a reply to: ReadLeader

“During startup of the main propulsion diesel engines, lub[rication] oil was not supplied to the ship's combining gears due to an apparent failure to follow standard procedures."

Well, thats one way of extending liberty.

a reply to: ReadLeader

They're brand new ships. The LCS classes have had design and builder issues from the start.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I'll bet money that these incidents are only the tip of the iceberg of what is going on with these ships.

Or, perhaps sabotage??!

Where's Bond when you need him?

originally posted by: NightFlight
Or, perhaps sabotage??!

Where's Bond when you need him?

Bonds back helping us get our carriers sorted

a reply to: Aliensun

The LCS program has been a joke. The Freedom Class had to have several major changes made just to get it able to deploy. The Independence has been better, but both have had major issues.

Any time you run out a new concept of ship or anything else it is going to have problems early on. It is what they do with the lessons learned as they build new ones that make all the difference. These things are suppose to replace frigates as ships that are small enough to go where true warships can not. I honestly do not see the point. I know using the modular design they can change the mission package so that you have one class of ship that takes the place of frigates, mine sweepers and amphibious assault ships and they are suppose to be cheaper and faster but, how viable is that really? And what is this thing doing in Singapore? They are made for places like the Med, Persian Gulf, the Caribbean and coastal waters. Singapore seems like an odd choice to have one. I suppose it is just testing out there.

a reply to: MrSpad

They're a pathetic POS is what they are. They have no modules ready for testing, their mine hunting equipment is massively over budget and can't find anything, the Freedom had design flaws that guaranteed they were going to die quickly and be maintenance intensive...

Its a possibility the MIC has become the bloated leech that's sucking Americas blood er probly not.....

a reply to: bandersnatch

When the Navy comes out with a list of 10 things they want one hull to do, what do you expect.

just my opinion - but :

WTF ?

i am not getting into the merits // demerits arguments of the LCS concept

but the entire powertrain is off the shelf components - that have not fundamental issues

the problem lies with the crew here - not the vessels or thier equipment

a reply to: ignorant_ape

This particular one does. This is the sixth or seventh time they have lost one or both engines, including a brand new ship with 20 hours on the engines.

a reply to: Zaphod58

i will opine again :

the RR components are not custiom built to USN spec or design - they are the same stuff that operators world wide are using in other similar tonage highspeed craft - with minimal issues

a reply to: ignorant_ape

And it's been proven that a number of the engines failed due to manufacturing issues, including the Milwaukee, which had metal shavings in both engine oil samples. So somewhere along the way either Rolls is screwing up their QA process on these wonderfully reliable engines, or something else is going on.

a reply to: Zaphod58

i just find it odd that the same engine is used around the world in hundreds of instalations - yet only 3 vessels - all owned by the same user is having multiple problems

a reply to: ignorant_ape

When I was a young boy, occasionally, some other lad in my class would have a birthday nosh up at McDonalds. We would all sit there with our Happy Meals, munching fries and burgers, and playing with the free toy. Every time, mine would be the one with the dodgy axle, or the broken plastic cog, or the malformed release switch or what have you.

Mind you, this has to be something other than luck of the draw. Being for the USN, you would have thought that components would be tested to the highest possible standards, since navy vessels have to be able rely on their workings, not just in rough weather, but under assault (although the last time there was a major naval engagement was a very long time ago, and no, I do not count pounding a beachhead flat to make way for Marines in landing craft!).

It seems statistically unlikely that these failures are entirely explainable by way of the newness of the design, or by pure chance. Someone's either selling the USN duff gear, or someone made a hash of something at the design end, that has not be identified by now, somehow. The only other possibility is that someone, or someone's are doing their level best to screw with these LCS craft. Either way, something needs a fire lightning under it, to find out what the devil is going on.

One thing is for certain. One cannot operate a navy with vessels that are unworkable for whatever reason.

a reply to: TrueBrit

If the USN is having teething troubles, so is the Royal Navy.

The new Type 45 air defence destroyers have suffered total electrical power failures. Each ship requires the urgent installation of additional diesel generators. It's essential work: HMS Daring & HMS Dauntless both drifted at sea without an electrical supply.

Strangely, the British taxpayer is expected to pay the repair bills, not the designers/shipyard. That's totally unsatisfactory. I really wish the armaments companies were held to account when they deliver late, over budget or when the equipment they supply is simply a load of crap.

I guess the Defence Department pen pushers don't want to put their new jobs at risk. So many join the armaments companies after their period of public service is complete.

That revolving door does no favours to the taxpayer.

These ships probably have technology such as a a sleeve style drive shaft to save weight or even protect the fuel tank to limit damage from hull intrusion.
Something like that would require the drive shaft be driven with non standard external ring gears.

a reply to: TheShippingForecast

I was just about to post this. How can they miscalculate the electrical usage needs of the ship so badly that they need to cut the things open and install an additional generator to handle the load. How can they not pick this up in the modelling or the testing.

I agree about footing the bill too. How when it's a design problem, not something that's come up through a change of requirement, can they turn round and say "Nothing to do with me gov, you'll need to pay extra for that"??