« FOIA Friday: Davis Polk Continues Its Courtship of Former SEC Officials | Main | Will Obama, Issa, and Warner Revolutionize Federal Spending Transparency? »

Jun 17, 2011

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c68bf53ef01543314d79e970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New Combat Ship Battling Corrosion:

Comments

Ben Freeman

Hi, Matt and Ryan. Thanks for the comment.

The issue on the LCS was an electrolysis (aka galvanic corrosion) problem between the steel waterjets and the aluminum hull. Unfortunately, in an effort to keep sea frame costs down the LCS-2 was not equipped with a cathodic protection system, which would have likely prevented the "aggressive corrosion." The next time the boat is dry docked one will be installed and all future models will have a cathodic protection system built in. For more information see: http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/06/austals-lcs-corrosion-problem.html or Wired's piece - http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/shipbuilder-blames-navy-as-brand-new-warship-disintegrates/

Ryan

It seems that the galvanic corrosion prevention system was removed by some budgetary decision, is that accurate? where is the source material for that?

Galvanic corrosion is a certainty in any metal hulled ship in the Navy or otherwise and it's easy to prevent major impact with regular maintenance and corrosion prevention systems.

Matt

Piece of junk, expensive too. I think they are a crap design, I would have preferred future frigates that can fill both roles. A 313 ship navy made of LSC's or the poor mans destroyer the frigate.

We can always go in with the Australians and split the cost, development with their future frigates yet to be built.

That could require major development changes. This what we complain about build it make it work and these promises and when you get it headache after headache cost overruns to get what was originally promises.

The comments to this entry are closed.