Another US Navy ship collides with merchant ship

[spectras only]

what is going on? Drunk captain, incompetent sailors? something doesn't add up.:rolleyes

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/20/asia/us-navy-destroyer-collision-singapore/index.html

 

[LHC Kirby]

what is going on? Drunk captain, incompetent sailors? something doesn't add up.:rolleyes

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/20/asia/us-navy-destroyer-collision-singapore/index.html

I can't imagine ANY excuse for this....

 

[Enen]

How does this happen?

 

[RiverDave]

I don't even know how this happens? With charts / radar / secret military shit on board / and navigation lights..

I'd say the drunks in Parker are doing pretty good getting home from the bar!

RD

 

[AzGeo]

forgot to put on their "sober driver wristband" ..............

 

[RiverDave]

You see if the cops would stop busting those oil tankers for blue indirect lights and underwater lights this wouldn't be an issue.

 

[jet496]

Young sailors drive these ships while the Captain gives the orders. We had an 18 year old take us into tight situations which I was always uncomfortable with.

 

[Cray Paper]

I'm starting to wonder if their is something else at play. Tin foil hat aside, the military would never admit to some one altering what they are seeing on radar. Just seems so strange the most sophisticated war ships on the planet cannot avoid being hit by the largest and slowest vessels on the water? It cant be just human error, can it?

 

[Get415]

And this is exactly why a have little faith in being able to intercept anything fire at us from North Korea or any other place for that matter

 

[shueman]

Take away their cell phones ...

 

[underpressure]

I'm starting to wonder if their is something else at play. Tin foil hat aside, the military would never admit to some one altering what they are seeing on radar. Just seems so strange the most sophisticated war ships on the planet cannot avoid being hit by the largest and slowest vessels on the water? It cant be just human error, can it?

Had exactly the same thought! Too many instances recently to just be kids on their cell phone. How the eff can some of the most modern vessels in the USN not see and avoid a tanker or cargo ship? WTF?:yikes

 

[Ouderkirk]

I'm starting to wonder if their is something else at play. Tin foil hat aside, the military would never admit to some one altering what they are seeing on radar. Just seems so strange the most sophisticated war ships on the planet cannot avoid being hit by the largest and slowest vessels on the water? It cant be just human error, can it?

Donning tin-foil hat.

One wonders if the Chinese have been messing with the GPS satelites in that area. You run your machine on all sorts of high tech, and we're suprised that this is happening.

Back in the day (1980's), to work "Heavy Military" at GE or others you got a background investigation, and nobody worked there who was in the least bit suspect. Now, those standards have relaxed considerably and the defense contractors are buying IC's and whatever made in....China, Indonesia, and elsewhere. Who knows what sort of backdoors they've put in those chips.

Used to be that everything had to be made in the USA to be Mil-Spec.

Removing tin-foil hat

Have to consider that this may be a direct result of 8 years of degradation from Obama.

 

[buck35]

Besides all the radar and gps on board do they run dark at night ? I would assume the cargo ship was well lit and visible for miles.:headscratch:

 

[JDKRXW]

what is going on? Drunk captain, incompetent sailors? something doesn't add up.:rolleyes

Ever been to Singapore?
The area near the port at the tip of the Malaysian peninsula is like a Walmart parking lot on Christmas eve.
This happens there.
Prayers to those that didn't make it and to those still missing.

 

[Old Texan]

I've got to think it has to do with inexperience at the helm. The Navy all but admits it in the article. When in congested areas where these incidents occur, senior pilots need to be in control and better attention paid towards all ships in the area.

I do not know how the Navy works or how helmsman are trained, but at least in the 7th Fleet something isn't working.

RIP to the sailors lost.

 

[wzuber]

Sadly, it would appear the ol' proverbial "army intellegence" has infiltrated the Navy. very sad. RIP to those brave men and/or women lost.

 

[Taboma]

If this unfortunate tragedy is in any way similar to the recent tragic collision of the USS Fitzgerald, how is it OK, when navigating in severally congested sea lanes, in the dark, that your CO, XO and top enlisted chief are all sleeping ?

I think I'd be inclined to look hard at that, before I'd start considering hacked GPS and radar systems. Inexperienced command on the bridge, at least in the case of the Fitzgerald, would seem to be at a minimum a major contributing factor.

 

[Old Texan]

If this unfortunate tragedy is in any way similar to the recent tragic collision of the USS Fitzgerald, how is it OK, when navigating in severally congested sea lanes, in the dark, that your CO, XO and top enlisted chief are all sleeping ?

I think I'd be inclined to look hard at that, before I'd start considering hacked GPS and radar systems. Inexperienced command on the bridge, at least in the case of the Fitzgerald, would seem to be at a minimum a major contributing factor.

Especially when it appears the Navy vessel cut directly across the bow of the tanker......What in the hell were they looking at to not see a ship of that size approaching? :yikes

 

[Flying_Lavey]

If this unfortunate tragedy is in any way similar to the recent tragic collision of the USS Fitzgerald, how is it OK, when navigating in severally congested sea lanes, in the dark, that your CO, XO and top enlisted chief are all sleeping ?

I think I'd be inclined to look hard at that, before I'd start considering hacked GPS and radar systems. Inexperienced command on the bridge, at least in the case of the Fitzgerald, would seem to be at a minimum a major contributing factor.

I agree. I think that is absolute crap that the senior officers not be present at their stations when coming into or going out of port. Besides the obvious congestion issue with the navigating, that also has to be the point in which those ships are the most vulnerable to attack.

 

[spectras only]

If they can't rely on their superior technology on these ships, send a few sailors manning visual observation on the deck. At least that way, they would know who's at blame. congested area or not, it would be hard to miss an effin 900' ship with navigation lights on.:rolleyes Here's a interesting take on new replacements navy or airforce crews. Just read it that the leader of the Canadiaan Airforce Snowbirds had to cancel a few shows recently, due to new/young pilots lacking skillset. He sent them for more training to brush up on their programs. So there you have it.

 

[stephenkatsea]

When navigating in congested waters such as those off Tokyo/Yokosuko, Singapore/Straits of Malaca, approaches to the Panama Canal, Straits of Hormuz etc. you are at the "top of your game", most attentive and following the Rules of the Road to the letter and it works. But, if risk of collision exists both vessel shall take whatever actions necessary to avoid collision. These vessels have collision avoidance radars, they indicate CPA, they indicate preferred course to avoid collision (assuming the other vessel holds course and speed). But no modern electronics over ride the need for a proper look out and early/positive reactions to the situation. US Navy investigation showed the Fitzgerald was at fault in the recent Japan area collision. Although there was some blame on both vessels. Let's also let the investigation play out on this tragic collision.

 

[spectra3279]

From what I remember from being in the navy. A lot of it I think is hard headedness. A lot of these guys get the big head. "I am the captain of United States warship ?????. You will turn ???degrees to port." But the captains of the commercial ships are saying no, I have the right of way. Messican standoff.

 

[JDKRXW]

I think there's going to be a shit storm over this one.
[video=youtube;vlrA36GzHNs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlrA36GzHNs[/video]
The tanker's track is shown in the video...... and from what I understand, he was in the correct lane at the proper speed.
The McCain was hit broadside going across the lane ... on the port side.

You don't need much more than a compass and a paper chart to know that you'd better have full watch on deck to try this maneuver in water that's this busy.

 

[rvrrun]

The larger vessel has right of way, but shouldn't guns and warheads trump size?

 

[getreal]

Something to strong consider...
By way of Bruce A. Frank - Edit: Let me create a preface that I didn't originally include, The two US Navy ships that have been hit and taken out of commission, by in one case a freighter and in the second a tanker. Are strategic ships on the line specifically designated to launch, according to Fox News, missiles to intercept ICBMs, that may be carrying nukes, launched by North Korea at the US. There is little doubt in my mind that there is collusion among the countries of origin of these ships, or paid arrangements with the captains, to disable these US Warships.
==
I am going to blow a gasket. The media is claiming that the US Ship John McCain collided with a a tanker ship. All of the incidents in the last few months HAVE NOT been collisions of the US Navy ship with other ships. ALL have been the collisions of those ships with the US Navy ships. All of the US Ships have been hit amidships by the foreign vessels. I am SICK and TIRED of the implication that US Ships are running into other ships. IT IS CLEAR that foreign vessels are apparently targeting US vessels. The bows of those foreign ships are spearing the the US Navy ships, They seem to be intentionally colliding with the US ships bow first, The US vessels are being hit in their sides.
The US Media, and this includes Fox, is intentionally misleading the public with an implication that the US Navy ships are carelessly operating such that they are hitting other ships, and nothing is further from the truth. I will say again, US Navy ships are NOT colliding with foreign vessels. Foreign vessels are going out of their way to ram/collide with US Vessels.
Contact news media and complain about their biased and incorrect phrasing that is claiming the US ships are the ones at fault! SOMETHING IS WRONG!

 

[Bigbore500r]

From what I remember from being in the navy. A lot of it I think is hard headedness. A lot of these guys get the big head. "I am the captain of United States warship ?????. You will turn ???degrees to port." But the captains of the commercial ships are saying no, I have the right of way. Messican standoff.

I believe the term was "Mexican Cock-off"

 

[Bigbore500r]

I heard there was alcohol on board one of the ships

 

[DickieB]

Back in the mid 60's , I was attached to an Attack Cargo Ship (AKA108) When we were underway, my duty station was the Helmsman, meaning I steered the ship on my watch. That being said, we always had a port and starboard watch(Real Person), also a live person on the forcastle (front of the ship) and another live person on the fantail (rear). Their job and only job was to scan the horizon, day and night and report to the bridge, any contact they might see. I don't remember any collisions then........

One would think, with all the technology that is now available, you would know when someone is getting close..............(I'm jus' sayin)

 

[searaydoug]

[Because the navy ship was hit on it's port side, he was the stand on vessel, which means he has the right of way. Unless he was overtaking the other vessel and came a crros the bow of the vessel being overtaken. And i believe that rule applys even in the shipping lans.QUOTE=DickieB;2753259]Back in the mid 60's , I was attached to an Attack Cargo Ship (AKA108) When we were underway, my duty station was the Helmsman, meaning I steered the ship on my watch. That being said, we always had a port and starboard watch(Real Person), also a live person on the forcastle (front of the ship) and another live person on the fantail (rear). Their job and only job was to scan the horizon, day and night and report to the bridge, any contact they might see. I don't remember any collisions then........

One would think, with all the technology that is now available, you would know when someone is getting close..............(I'm jus' sayin)[/QUOTE]

 

[Old Texan]

Something to strong consider...
By way of Bruce A. Frank - Edit: Let me create a preface that I didn't originally include, The two US Navy ships that have been hit and taken out of commission, by in one case a freighter and in the second a tanker. Are strategic ships on the line specifically designated to launch, according to Fox News, missiles to intercept ICBMs, that may be carrying nukes, launched by North Korea at the US. There is little doubt in my mind that there is collusion among the countries of origin of these ships, or paid arrangements with the captains, to disable these US Warships.
==
I am going to blow a gasket. The media is claiming that the US Ship John McCain collided with a a tanker ship. All of the incidents in the last few months HAVE NOT been collisions of the US Navy ship with other ships. ALL have been the collisions of those ships with the US Navy ships. All of the US Ships have been hit amidships by the foreign vessels. I am SICK and TIRED of the implication that US Ships are running into other ships. IT IS CLEAR that foreign vessels are apparently targeting US vessels. The bows of those foreign ships are spearing the the US Navy ships, They seem to be intentionally colliding with the US ships bow first, The US vessels are being hit in their sides.
The US Media, and this includes Fox, is intentionally misleading the public with an implication that the US Navy ships are carelessly operating such that they are hitting other ships, and nothing is further from the truth. I will say again, US Navy ships are NOT colliding with foreign vessels. Foreign vessels are going out of their way to ram/collide with US Vessels.
Contact news media and complain about their biased and incorrect phrasing that is claiming the US ships are the ones at fault! SOMETHING IS WRONG!

Have you really thought that out? How did the tanker know the USS McCain was going to be where it was? How did it then get it self in the area to the perfect timing for a broad side? Is their a posted bounty to certain nation's registered ships? Do you realize the difficulty of manuevering a 600' tanker even one unloaded?

The tanker was maintaining a line in the channel and the Navy ship had to cut across it's bow at a very specific moment. Timing for a preplanned offensive blow had to be more than perfect with crazy odds of pulling it off. :yikes

There is a whole lot of "perfect storm" events to pulling even one collision off, much less multiples in a short period........I'm really missing the "clear" part of this conjectured theory.:rolleyes

 

[searaydoug]

Because the navy ship was hit on it's port side, he was the stand on vessel, which means he has the right off way. Unless the nave ship was overtaking the other vessel and came across his bow, then it would have been the navy ships fault. I believe the rule applies even in the shipping lanes.

 

[Flying_Lavey]

Because the navy ship was hit on it's port side, he was the stand on vessel, which means he has the right off way. Unless the nave ship was overtaking the other vessel and came across his bow, then it would have been the navy ships fault. I believe the rule applies even in the shipping lanes.

I'm fairly certain the USCG rules don't apply in Asian countries. Some may be the same though.

 

[spectras only]

Maneuvering a tanker compared to a navy ship is like comparing a bus vs Corvette. I for one don't buy the scanario of a cargo or tanker ship captain would deliberately trying to ram a warship.:rolleyes Like said before, if there were multiple eyes on the bridge, a slow turtle like a freighter wouldn't have had the chance to ram the warship. The navy can try twisting their story to shift blame, but it would just make them look more incompetent Maybe the captain used to be a PWC owner in Havasu and thought he can cut across the bow without due care,
There are restricted areas between the lower mainland and Vancouver Island where you're on your own, if venture there, chancing a torpedo blows up your ass. If this tanker was heading in a marked shipping channel, I can't see how a navy warship would want to cross the bow. Not making sense at all.

 

[nowski]

Intentional acts??? I'm starting to wonder...

 

[searaydoug]

That's what i'am thing, it was done on purpose.

 

[JDKRXW]

That's what i'am thing, it was done on purpose.

.... the commander of Navy ship putting it's beam across the tanker's bow in a shipping lane in one of the busiest shipping area in the world???

 

[stephenkatsea]

I'm fairly certain the USCG rules don't apply in Asian countries. Some may be the same though.

USCG rules are published in document CG169. The International Rule portion of this document is applicable to all nations. Yes, even Asian countries. And the Rules do work, when followed. A special circumstance in this case involves a TSS (Traffic Separation Scheme), a fast easily manouvered Navy warship and a relatively slow, ackward commercial tanker. Let the investigation do its job.

 

[RitcheyRch]

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/08...tigate-after-uss-john-s-mccain-collision.html

Adm. John Richardson ordered an operational pause in all the fleets around the world while the Navy works to determine the factors behind the collision. Richardson tweeted that the Navy will conduct a wide investigation, including a review into the possibility of "cyber intrusion or sabotage."

 

[Perlmudder]

I've heard a couple interesting things about these latest collisions. First which is not new is the Navy does not use AIS to transmit location, speed, heading, etc. So while you may see a blip on the radar for a navy ship, you do not get the rest of the information which the tanker could pull on all other ships in the area. I have also heard that another problem is the chain of command and communication between ships. When two tankers are in a congested area like this, both captains would be on the bridge, and they can easily communicate with each other to determine a course of action to avoid each other. When you are trying to contact a Navy ship in a busy location, you probably have to speak to some kid, who passes the message on to ten different people before the captain is even aware of what is going on. I still think it is crazy that this is not avoidable, but those are some things to think about.

 

[stephenkatsea]

US Navy ships do have AIS on the bridge, but operating in passive mode. They are receiving the info on other ship's, but not transmitting their info to other ships. Not really that big of a deal. AIS gives info such as next port, owner, crew size, vessel dimensions, etc. It also provides some collision avoidance info such as predicted CPA. Collision avoidance radar is the primary electronic tool. It operates in true or relative motion display. RM display provides present and future CPAs (closest point of approach), course and speed, in both graphic and digital formats.

 

[spectras only]

The accident where all this happened is only 1.7 mile wide. How is it possible, they rely on electronic gadgetry only, putting the warship perpendicular to the oil tanker to get broad sided?:rolleyes if as some suggested that the oil tanker deliberately changed course to ram the warship, that tanker would have hit shore. It takes a mile to slow/stop a freighter.Some speculating cyber attack, give me a break.:thumbsdown Old fashion radar works just fine, if it's used, let alone human eyes, if there was one:skull. I was on a US warship's war room and saw no less than a few dozen radar screens, some manned, even though the ship was at dock.