Something is wrong with your bloody ships.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Look whatever the cause this is a tragedy, at least ten young men have lost there lives, missing in this circumstance mean's they are not likely to be found alive.

But I have to admit I was very suspicious of how this could happen, are the US system's hacked, is there a virus at work, could this even be the hardware in there system's, what for instance flaws, backdoor's or even deliberate hardware based Trojans' could all those Chinese made IC's have built into them, maybe not on a single chip but put a group of them together and maybe they can talk to one another in digital term's, call it rogue hardware if you like.

Look this is not just the US, we British have had our fair share of problems' in recent years, a submarine captain running his sub aground for example and I heartily believe that the hardware may be more to blame than the seamanship in some of these circumstances.

But this is definitely poor seamanship - though was it exacerbated by such rogue hardware?

Today's generation have become too reliant upon there automation on board these vessel's.

There is no way this was the Tankers fault even if it made a wrong maneuver simply because the tanker being a huge vessel takes so long to perform even a course correction, tankers can take hour's to stop, hour's to turn and hour's to slow ask any port pilot and they will give you a lecture - if they are in the mood.

So this had to be the fault of the destroyers crew, what was the lookout doing, was the crew trusting there system's over there own senses and do they even use those senses in the way a true mariner does or has running these vessels become over automated with the incumbent loss of skill and true seamanship.

One thing is definite, ten young men have lost there live's, a number of officer's have all but lost there careers in disgrace as even if they are not wholly to blame they will still take it on the neck and the US has once again received international press coverage for all the wrong reason's.

My opinion the fault that has caused this is either a lack of true old fashioned seamanship and sailors trained to NOT rely upon there hardware but to use there sense's and common sense and suspect hardware upon which they were relying and those two fault's therefore do NOT lie with the crew but with there training and with the PRIVATE contractors that probably sourced there materials, IC's and other parts from ASIA and most likely from Chinese IC fabrication plants.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: SprocketUK

No other countries even have a navy that could give the US a shooting war..

The US has a bigger more advanced navy than everyone else combined..

Mainly because the concept of a navy is almost obsolete and only the US has a military industrial complex spending money on out dated tech.

Good thing we don't use the Navy for the sole purpose of sea engagements then.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Those two things together could well explain it.
I was talking to a RYA instructor years ago who told me how insistent people were that they didn't need to learn the use of a sextant because of gps. A view he scoffed at. I wonder if the US navy has gone that way...I do find it hard to believe, but stranger things happened.

originally posted by: mightmight

originally posted by: SprocketUK
www.660news.com...

The title is a homage to Admiral Beatty, but it is fitting.
What gives? How is another modern warship unable to steer clear of an oil tanker?
this is the second one in a couple of months.

USS John S. McCain apparently suffered an engineering casualty resulting in a temporay loss of steering while passing one of the busiest waterstraits on the planets where most ships are transiting at high speeds due to piracy in the region.
We'll see what the Investigation will turn up, but its entirely possible that the collision was unavoidable under those circumstances.

Bay the looks of it, the collision between Fitzgerald and Crystal was much more of an actual f*kup.

This is a great article on the subject:
gcaptain.com...

thank you for relevant information amidst the yammering

I wonder if there was any kind of backup steering system. I was on an FFG and our alt steering consisted of a bunch of us grabbing ropes to adjust the rudder (real hi-tech! but it worked)

a reply to: SprocketUK

You are quite correct. My guess is faulty training, poor quality of Officers, even worse quality of crew. And its not likely to get better anytime soon. I mean really, the best of the brightest aren't flocking to the US Navy to command a tin can. They are pursuing high tech jobs in silicon valley or posh positions on Wall Street. Patriotism in the US is near extinct in the ranks of the social class that once served in the US Navy. Today, that social class is concerned only with pursuing wealth and maintaining their status. That also explains the total absence of leadership in government.

Its ebarrassing all round.

I know very little about ships, the navy or military matters...but this quote speaks to me of a problem......training.
We hear it about police needing more training.....why not the military as well.

www.foxnews.com... ml

An active-duty Navy officer expressed concern to Fox News over the training of young Navy officers aboard ships.

“It’s not the same level of training you used to get,” the officer said.

Despite the relatively small size of the Royal Navy it is still the worlds fourth most powerful navy and it is resurgent. I'm not attempting to suggest that it could match the US resource wise of course, but I thought it was worth pointing out that it is not just the US that considers a navy an effective way to project power globally.
a reply to: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: mightmight

originally posted by: SprocketUK
www.660news.com...

The title is a homage to Admiral Beatty, but it is fitting.
What gives? How is another modern warship unable to steer clear of an oil tanker?
this is the second one in a couple of months.

USS John S. McCain apparently suffered an engineering casualty resulting in a temporay loss of steering while passing one of the busiest waterstraits on the planets where most ships are transiting at high speeds due to piracy in the region.
We'll see what the Investigation will turn up, but its entirely possible that the collision was unavoidable under those circumstances.

Bay the looks of it, the collision between Fitzgerald and Crystal was much more of an actual f*kup.

This is a great article on the subject:
gcaptain.com...

Is that the presser put out by the PR folks to cover their behinds in case the tanker company sues? I heard the audio clip and I did not hear anyone saying anything that resembled the fact they had a problem steering. In fact i heard suggestions about changing a heading, turning to the right, then an audible call out for Hard Left... Nobody said, hey we don't have steering. I am inclined to believe that the story about the steering failure was put forth without knowing the audio was going to be circulating due to a Freedom of Information Act.

ETA: I was informed in the next post that the audio was from a different incident. Ignore this!

a reply to: evc1shop

The audio clip is from another incident in 2012.

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: evc1shop

The audio clip is from another incident in 2012.

Ah, I did not realize that. Thanks.

You probably could, if we were on the same side as YOU!
The worlds worst blue-on-blue nightmare...guaranteed!

a reply to: JoshuaCox

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

Wonder what that young officer is basing that off of. Used to be junior officers where given very small roles when checking onboard the ship, Chiefs where respected and responsible for training them. So curious where his/her opinion comes from. Chiefs mess has been undermined greatly in recent years and now you have the largest accumulation of actual sailing experience doing a whole lot less because they are constantly undermined, shut down or walking on egg shells.
When I was an instructor in Great Lakes Chiefs I personally knew, spoke out about the revamping of training and where sent to IA duty (removed), just for voicing an opinion on it. Resistant to change I suppose, well here's your change, you got it. Wasn't directed at you.
But to the op, nothing wrong with the ships, allowed to do so the fleet sailors can keep 1980's ships going with bent shafts, leaking hulls, down equipment etc, I've seen them do it plenty... the problem is leadership not listening to them on what it actually takes or they need to sail them.

They're kidnapping those poor sailors for organs and/the secret space programs.

a reply to: SprocketUK


Just a theory but what if we've sort of perfected what they was doing in WW2 ----

Philadelphia experiment?! Then when they come back their in a collision course. Idk just a theory.

There is enough evidence available to say with reasonable confidence that this was a 50/50 accident in terms of insurance liability, however it also represents a failing of navigational professionalism on the part of the US Navy vessel.

Firstly, the vessel involved in the collision, the Alnic MC, is not a particularly large vessel. It is a small-to-medium sized vessel that would have reasonable maneuverability. Its details can be found here:

ALNIC MC - Marinetraffic.com

The AIS data for the merchant vessel is publicly broadcast information. The events can be seen here:



N.B. The time of the collision is approximately 21:24 to 21:26 UTC. It is difficult to determine whether the ALNIC took some action prior to the collision (possibly a late reduction in speed or a hard port turn). The reported location of damage to the ALNIC (fore peak tank) would lead me to suspect that she didn't maneuver. The damage to the McCain is consistent with the bulbous bow of the ALNIC impacting directly perpendicular to the direction of the McCain's travel.

AIS data for the McCain is not available which suggests that they were not broadcasting their position. Whilst this is not illegal for naval vessels it is highly recommended that they should broadcast AIS data of a limited nature (course, speed, position) when transiting high traffic density areas. This eastern approach to the straits of Singapore is one of the highest density traffic areas in the world. The only two areas more dense are the Western approach to Singapore via one-fathom-bank and the English Channel. The naval vessel, in my opinion, should have been broadcasting its position throughout.


Now, apportioning blame (as would be done by an Insurance Assessor). It is time for a quick tour of the IRPCS (International Regulations for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea) or as they are more commonly known; COLREGS (collision regulations). I am making the assumption throughout that no conditions of restricted visibility were in effect. None of the news reports mention the collision as being in fog or heavy rain.

COLREGS

If this incident were out in open waters with no other factors, the merchant vessel would be the primary cause of the accident. A power-driven vessel meeting another so as to involve risk of collision would follow the rules set out in Part II, particularly rules 15-17. In this circumstance a PDV with another PDV crossing from starboard would be obliged to give way (primarily by altering course to starboard).

The location, within the boundaries of a traffic separation scheme (shown by the magenta separation lines on the AIS video above) mean that rule 10 comes into play. The most important part here is that the location within a TSS does not remove the responsibility from the vessel which has the other on her starboard side, however: it clearly states that where possible vessels should avoid crossing a TSS and should navigate with particular caution. I would suggest that the naval vessel did not do this. The decision to cross at that location and at that point whilst not broadcasting AIS data is reckless in the extreme.

Failure of the ALNIC - Once the USS McCain makes the decision to cross (and without its AIS data it is difficult to know just how much warning the ALNIC had of the McCain's intended crossing) the ALNIC by the letter of the regs is required to give way. Her only two options are to alter to starboard or slow down. She can achieve neither of these due to the vessels around her. As the collision situation develops the ALNIC has vessels boxing her in on all sides. She has no real room to maneuver.

As one can imagine, the codified rules of conduct between vessels cannot always realistically represent every single possible situation. As such, the COLREGS contain a very interesting rule at the start that I think is appropriate here, so will quote in full:

Rule 2 Responsibility
(a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.

(b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger

I think it is safe to say that the USS McCain did not follow the ordinary practices of seamen in this case.

originally posted by: VengefulGhost
The captain was testing the rum stores onboard .

It's an American ship; they are dry.

I think these are Chinese or Russian hyper-slow missiles. When they said Mach 10, they meant 10 knots.

Joking aside, there does seem to be a problem. They really should have seen this (tanker) coming.

a reply to: paraphi

Even if they seen it,doesn't mean they could just steer clear.. lots of shallow areas, ships and fishing boats etc... not sure if they where in restricted maneuvering at the time or not, in the straights they should have been though. Hard to try and determine this one since they where in the straits.. Fitz was easier to say they where at fault just because the Crystal should have never been that close by Navy rules alone.

a reply to: swimmer15

That's what it's going to come down to ultimately.

Your Navy, or Army--any military force-- is only as good as your senior enlisted. They, and mostly they alone, are the keepers of the flame. Junior officers have no experience in the real world--same as a junior executive in a business environment--do you trust a young 22 year old just out of college to close multi-million dollar deals? Or do you trust that to the guys or gals who've been in the business world for years? Unless things have changed since I was in that aspect of the business world, it's the latter.

Training. Traditions. Whatever it is that keeps a military force ticking over is the responsibility of those men and women. It's been that way since the days when swords were bronze, and ships were human-powered.

If the Chiefs and the equivalents in the Army/Air Force, etc... are, indeed, being forced out--that right there is the answer, or a large part of it.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: swimmer15

That's what it's going to come down to ultimately.

Your Navy, or Army--any military force-- is only as good as your senior enlisted. They, and mostly they alone, are the keepers of the flame. Junior officers have no experience in the real world--same as a junior executive in a business environment--do you trust a young 22 year old just out of college to close multi-million dollar deals? Or do you trust that to the guys or gals who've been in the business world for years? Unless things have changed since I was in that aspect of the business world, it's the latter.

Training. Traditions. Whatever it is that keeps a military force ticking over is the responsibility of those men and women. It's been that way since the days when swords were bronze, and ships were human-powered.

If the Chiefs and the equivalents in the Army/Air Force, etc... are, indeed, being forced out--that right there is the answer, or a large part of it.

I would actually argue the opposite in this case. My understanding is that the US Navy does not consider navigational watchkeeping to be an officer-level task but that of an NCO. The only other navy I know of that did/does it that way round is the Kriegsmarine pre-1945.

In the RN, watchkeeping falls to junior officers supported by more senior officers who have chosen to follow the specialist navigator career path. All warships carry at least 1 spec-nav and capital ships have at least 2.

There are two obvious benefits to the system: First, your officers are typically of a higher mental and behavioural calibre than ratings and the spec-nav in particular are trained to a vigorously high standard. Secondly, it means that EVERY officer, regardless of their eventual specialist path has served multiple years on the bridge. It avoids the ridiculous situation of having a vessel commander who wouldn't know proper seamanship if it bit them on the are.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Chinese parts?

....woooopss