Side issue, but this bit in the article is not quite right:
There are technical terms for this kind of disintegration. Austal USA, Independence‘s Alabama-based builder, calls it “galvanic corrosion.” Civilian scientists know it as “electrolysis.” It’s what occurs when “two dissimilar metals, after being in electrical contact with one another, corrode at different rates,” Austal explained in a statement.
First, it's strange to distinguish what the "civilian" term is, because there isn't any military/civilian terminology difference here that I know of. The standard civilian term for this kind of corrosion is also "galvanic corrosion". It's a common issue in water pipes, when there are joints between different kinds of metals (commonly steel pipes with copper joints).
Secondly, electrolysis isn't the same thing as galvanic corrosion. Galvanic corrosion requires only the dissimilar metals in contact, immersed in an electrolyte (the situation here). Electrolysis is a more general process, but in the context of corrosion, it refers to corrosion driven by an external current, usually some kind of stray electrical contact. Brief summary should be readable in this Google Books preview: http://books.google.com/books?id=Z3mTf1licJIC&pg=PA169
It should be (relatively) easy to find out which process has occurred here, as it is possible to eliminate electrolysis by grounding all the systems which make contact with the sea.
It is also worth noting that a large percentage of electronic device failures (after they get wet,) are caused by electrolysis. You can see this for yourself if you look at a circuit board after the device got wet and failed; the large green (copper oxide) and white (lead oxide) splotches on the board are symptoms of electrolysis.
It should be (relatively) easy to find out which process has occurred here
The fact that the article mentions that cathodic protection was not installed on the ship strongly indicates, to me (based on prior US Navy experience), that it was galvanic corrosion. It looks to me like someone signed off on eliminating cathodic protection to save money and didn't realize the technical implications.
Not that that exonerates the manufacturer: cathodic protection is not just a special thing for military ships, even small boats need it if they have metal props (because the props are generally a dissimilar metal from the prop shafts, so without cathodic protection the props just dissolve away over time). So the manufacturer should have waved a red flag about removing it.
There are technical terms for this kind of disintegration. Austal USA, Independence‘s Alabama-based builder, calls it “galvanic corrosion.” Civilian scientists know it as “electrolysis.” It’s what occurs when “two dissimilar metals, after being in electrical contact with one another, corrode at different rates,” Austal explained in a statement.
First, it's strange to distinguish what the "civilian" term is, because there isn't any military/civilian terminology difference here that I know of. The standard civilian term for this kind of corrosion is also "galvanic corrosion". It's a common issue in water pipes, when there are joints between different kinds of metals (commonly steel pipes with copper joints).
Secondly, electrolysis isn't the same thing as galvanic corrosion. Galvanic corrosion requires only the dissimilar metals in contact, immersed in an electrolyte (the situation here). Electrolysis is a more general process, but in the context of corrosion, it refers to corrosion driven by an external current, usually some kind of stray electrical contact. Brief summary should be readable in this Google Books preview: http://books.google.com/books?id=Z3mTf1licJIC&pg=PA169