View Full Version : USS Fitzgerald Collision (and another: USS McCain)
The USS Fitzgerald was involved in a collision with a freighter and some of the crew members are reported missing. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4612334/USS-Fitzgerald-involved-collision-merchant-vessel.html Let's hope they recover the crew members when they clear the flooded compartments.
Rescuers are searching for seven US Sailors thought to be lost at sea or trapped inside a damaged Navy destroyer which collided with a 29,000 ton cargo ship 56 miles off the coast of Japan Saturday.
The guided missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald suffered severe damage when the container ship ACX Crystal – which is four times the size of the naval vessel – plowed into it at 2.30am local time.
Aerial footage shows the crushed exterior of the 9,000 ton $1.5billion destroyer which is commanded by Commander Bryce Benson, who took over in May.
Japanese coast guard spokesman Yoshihito Nakamura said the rescuers are searching for the seamen who were thought to have been thrown into the sea or possibly trapped inside damaged sections of the destroyer. Two crew berthings and one engineering main space have been flooded.
Three aboard the destroyer were medically evacuated, including the ship's commanding officer, Cmdr. Benson, who was reportedly in stable condition after being airlifted to the U.S. Naval Hospital in Yokosuka, the Navy said.
The other two injured were transferred to the hospital for lacerations and bruises, while other injuries were being assessed, it said.
Not a Navy guy, so maybe I'm missing something. How do two large ships, on the open sea, no doubt with radar (for night use), run into each other? I can see if they were re-supplying and were therefore side-by-side, but it isn't like you crest a wave and suddenly say "Oh shit! A ship!"
I was wondering the same thing. What are the chances that those individuals on each bridge were asleep at the wheel at the same time?
My spidey senses tell me something else.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
"Hold her steady while I go get a cup of coffee."
I can't think of any way that this could be good for a captain's career.
I can't think of any way that this could be good for a captain's career.
He'll be submitting his retirement packet soon I'd imagine.
The Captain was medevacked to Japan.
My spidey senses tell me something else.
Do you think it was a purposeful collision?
I was stationed on a vessel that caused the decommissioning of the USS Robert Owens. It's a bad feeling when your ship hits another ship when you are miles off shore.
I'll be interested in what is learned during the investigation. Was weather an issue? Was there equipment failure? Were the vessels inside or outside a shipping channel? A collision at sea is definitely one heck of a way to wake up in the middle of the night.
dwhitehorne
06-17-17, 13:02
He'll be submitting his retirement packet soon I'd imagine.
The Captain was medevacked to Japan.
Probably had a heart attack after the collision. Fox news said he had just got the ship within the past few months. David
Probably had a heart attack after the collision. Fox news said he had just got the ship within the past few months. David
Bet your right, at the very least one hell of a career ending anxiety attack.
Pics I've seen show damage to the right side of the destroyer and to the front left part of the bow on the freighter. Looks like the Fitzgerald got T-boned, with the freighter either hitting at a slight angle off 90 degrees or veering to the right at the last second.
Pics I've seen show damage to the right side of the destroyer and to the front left part of the bow on the freighter. Looks like the Fitzgerald got T-boned, with the freighter either hitting at a slight angle off 90 degrees or veering to the right at the last second.
Also looks like that to me. It must have happened at a very slow speed. BTW.. Ships don't do any maneuvering at the last second. The container ship probably needed a mile or more to stop and a 90 degree turn may take a square mile to complete.
Anxiously awaiting the details.
I just can't see how this could happen. Were both of them being jackasses and expecting the other ship to yield?
Can anyone with maritime experience fill us in on who has the right of way in this situation? Seems like the large ship would, but that's is just a guess.
COLREG excerpts:
> When two power-driven vessels are crossing, the vessel which has the other on the starboard side must give way and avoid crossing ahead of her.
> A power-driven vessel must give way to:
a vessel not under command;
a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver (this may include vessels towing one another;[19]
a vessel engaged in fishing;
a sailing vessel.
When I was on active duty we gave freighters a wide berth, especially at night. Freighters traveling at night are often on auto-pilot in the sea lanes and are slow to respond regardless of whether they are the give way or stand on vessel. Freighters also require a great deal of room to maneuver.
It will be interesting what the investigation reveals and the resulting ruling by a maritime board of inquiry.
COLREG excerpts:
> When two power-driven vessels are crossing, the vessel which has the other on the starboard side must give way and avoid crossing ahead of her.
> A power-driven vessel must give way to:
a vessel not under command;
a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver (this may include vessels towing one another;[19]
a vessel engaged in fishing;
a sailing vessel.
When I was on active duty we gave freighters a wide berth, especially at night. Freighters traveling at night are often on auto-pilot in the sea lanes and are slow to respond regardless of whether they are the give way or stand on vessel. Freighters also require a great deal of room to maneuver.
It will be interesting what the investigation reveals and the resulting ruling by a maritime board of inquiry.
Thank you for that.
So in this case, who had the right of way, given the way they collided?
Thank you for that.
So in this case, who had the right of way, given the way they collided?
That would depend on the position and attitude of both vessels prior to taking evasive action, so I could only speculate.
Thank you for that.
So in this case, who had the right of way, given the way they collided?
Sounds like the freighter based on the Fitz having damage on the starboard side.
Sent from my Z956 using Tapatalk
Before venturing a guess concerning who's at fault, it would be good to know, position and course of both vessels prior to closing on one another, weather conditions, if either vessel experienced equipment failure and if either or both vessels were maneuvering to avoid other maritime traffic.
It's a bit early to tell.
COLREG excerpts:
> When two power-driven vessels are crossing, the vessel which has the other on the starboard side must give way and avoid crossing ahead of her.
> A power-driven vessel must give way to:
a vessel not under command;
a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver (this may include vessels towing one another;[19]
a vessel engaged in fishing;
a sailing vessel.
When I was on active duty we gave freighters a wide berth, especially at night. Freighters traveling at night are often on auto-pilot in the sea lanes and are slow to respond regardless of whether they are the give way or stand on vessel. Freighters also require a great deal of room to maneuver.
It will be interesting what the investigation reveals and the resulting ruling by a maritime board of inquiry.
With all the modern electronics and room full of radar techs, etc would seem totally implausible the US war ship not aware of that Freighter. Money is on human error, but what could possibly make sense they'd be that close?
Probably had a heart attack after the collision. Fox news said he had just got the ship within the past few months. David
FWIW - I think the Captain was reported as having head injuries. This is from Another forum:
I sailed in her. Got married on that tour. I think that area would be forward engineering berthing; yeah, lot's of bad potential there. CO is reported as incapacitated. CO's cabin is just a little below and aft of the SPY arrays.
Additionally, in a BBC article they showed the track of the freighter and it was apparent that the freighter did a u-turn, which according to the Naval Officer quoted above is not an uncommon maneuver to adjust arrival times to pick up the pilot who will get them into port.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40314128
With all the modern electronics and room full of radar techs, etc would seem totally implausible the US war ship not aware of that Freighter. Money is on human error, but what could possibly make sense they'd be that close?
A couple of Naval Officers on another forum have mentioned that the ship was possible running no electronic emissions. Additionally, one of them pointed out the problems with closing ships:
CBDR. Constant Bearing Decreasing Range. That is the definition of a collision course. And at night, you don't see any movement of the lights, just the lights or ship getting bigger. We register movement much easier than something slowly increasing in size, so a lookout might have seen the lights, saw that their position wasn't changing, but not fully registered it as getting closer until very/too late.
Another Naval Officer, who I quoted in another post, who had actually served on the USS Fitzgerald added this:
All watches, but particularly the night watches, are governed by the CO's "Standing Orders" which give expectations and requirements to the watch team. One of the most important of those is to inform the CO of any contact with a Closest Point of Approach (CPA) inside given parameters, often 10,000 yards, no matter what time of day. So that can lead to the CO getting multiple calls every night. But the catch is you have to report the 10,000 yard CPA by the time the contact is at 20,000 yards (so the CO has time to act).
That leads to watch teams who can and do agonize over calling the CO on borderline cases (either because he's a good CO and you know he hasn't gotten decent sleep in days or because he's a screamer who will personally and professionally berate you no matter what you report to him...I've had both). For example, nav radars are not fire control radars, and slight changes in returns can give manual or computer generated CPAs that change by hundreds of yards between sweeps. Even SPY radar will do this, but for different reasons. So you can have a CPA that is jumping between 10,500 yards and 9,500 yards; do you call the CO? Sometimes you decide not to, and the contact is at say 14,000 yards before the CPA firms up to inside 10,000 yards.
Now you have to call the CO and tell him you failed to inform him at 20,000 yards. That's the right thing to do, and I've done it myself, but others have not. Yes there are other Officers and Chiefs on watch, but there is a strong institutional reluctance to override / undermine the OOD.
I'm not stating this as fact, but as a likely scenario. Given that the CO has reportedly been medevac'd with a head injury, and that his stateroom is within 50 ft of the point of impact, I'm strongly suspecting that he was in the rack at the time of collision, which would mean he either wasn't called by the watch team, or the team failed to adequately convey the situation (side note, I've called CO's at two am who didn't recall it the next morning; the best of them told me that if I had even the slightest suspicion that they weren't fully awake to take the report that I send the Messenger of the Watch to wake him). If the watch team thought they'd have a close CPA, but not collide, they likely maintained course and speed (did I mention that deviating from your nav track is also frowned upon) until they realized they were in trouble.
One thing to keep in mind when judging the watch team, outside of calling the CO: it's easy to say how do you NOT avoid that big a ship? But we don't know what other traffic may have been like. The obvious early evasion maneuver may have brought them across the course of another ship and it could have seemed like a close CPA is the lesser of two evils...right until you realize it's going to be a collision, not close. Which is why the CO wants to be called. It's ultimately his decision.
At this point, as these guys, who have both served as officers on the bridge of warships point out, none of us know what we don't know.
Has anyone made this eerie connection: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vST6hVRj2A
With all the modern electronics and room full of radar techs, etc would seem totally implausible the US war ship not aware of that Freighter. Money is on human error, but what could possibly make sense they'd be that close?
Reports indicate it's a heavily traveled area. I still haven't read anything indicating if there were other vessels within close proximity when the collision occurred. Whoever was in command of the stand on vessel may have waited until the ships were within close proximity before taking evasive action to avoid the give way vessel. If other maritime traffic was within a few thousand yards, it would make plotting a course to avoid collision more difficult. Fishing vessels don't always keep their distance and that can complicate things.
If the freighter was executing another U-turn to adjust their port arrival time, without regard to the USS Fitzgerald's course, speed and position, that would be a significant factor.
I like to compare adjusting a ship's course and speed on the water to adjusting your car's course and speed on icy pavement to avoid collision. It takes time and finesse.
It's entirely too early to tell with reasonable certainty who is at fault.
If the seven missing Sailors were killed, I hope they find them below decks when they pump out the flooded spaces so their families can have closure.
Fair winds and following seas to the departed.
CBDR. Constant Bearing Decreasing Range. That is the definition of a collision course. And at night, you don't see any movement of the lights, just the lights or ship getting bigger.
This is marine piloting 101... or piloting in general.
If you are angling toward another vessel, and the bearing is not moving, you are on a collision course.
Even applies to pleasure boats and airplanes.
I can only think of two causes:
1- CBDR, parallel courses slightly angled toward each other. Assuming converging heading and freighter was on starboard, due to right of way.
2- the Navy vessel was dead in the water or slow speed, and the freighter ran into it.
Case 1 Navy is at fault. Case 2 is the freighter fault
Everyone remembers the US Navy sub that hit the fishing boat? There was certain ineptitude to that collision as well. Human error happens.
I can't think of any way that this could be good for a captain's career.
Don't forget the XO, Navigator, Engineer and usually a few more.
Dan
Yeah, doesn't matter whose fault the collision was. I suspect that some spots will be opening up in the next round of Navy officer promotion boards. The US Navy represents one of the best-equipped and best-trained military forces in the world. Standards are high, expectations are high. I strongly suspect that even if the accident was entirely the merchant ship's fault, the fact that it wasn't avoided by the Fitzgerald means somebody ****ed up and will ultimately pay with their career.
.
Sounds like the seven sailors were located in the flooded areas of the ship.
RIP
https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/world/2017/06/17/uss-fitzgerald-massive-search-underway-for-7-missing-sailors-after-collision.amp.html
At least the families know the fate of their loved ones. That removes uncertainty, which is some consolation.
Fair winds and following seas.
Everyone remembers the US Navy sub that hit the fishing boat? There was certain ineptitude to that collision as well. Human error happens.
The Greenville/Ehime Maru collision was pure, malicious recklessness; they were hotshotting for guests on the ship. I just cant imagine how, post-USS Cole bombing, the US Navy allows ships of any size within a close proximity of one of their ships. Was someone asleep at the wheel? Are US warships incapable of detecting a threat the size of the merchant vessel? Imagine if it was a small, personal craft with a bomb...oh wait we did that nearly 20 years ago. There are so many WTF's I don't even know where to start with this one.
Everyone remembers the US Navy sub that hit the fishing boat? There was certain ineptitude to that collision as well. Human error happens.
The commander of that sub, Scott Waddle, does motivational speaking. Heard him at a safety stand-down 7 or 8 years ago. Interesting guy...he's made a career out of an incident that ended his career.
The commander of that sub, Scott Waddle, does motivational speaking. Heard him at a safety stand-down 7 or 8 years ago. Interesting guy...he's made a career out of an incident that ended his career.
Now that's irony!
Aside from individual commanding officers personal orders concerning vessels of any size within XYZ yards ect, ect,
does the Navy not consider every vessel not flying the national standard a possible enemy ?
One would think the Cole attack would of settled that !
The commander of that sub, Scott Waddle, does motivational speaking. Heard him at a safety stand-down 7 or 8 years ago. Interesting guy...he's made a career out of an incident that ended his career.
He lives local, heard him speak at a church about 12, maybe 13 years ago.
It's not his story he's selling, but rather a lecture on the responsibility of command.
SeriousStudent
06-18-17, 15:20
At least the families know the fate of their loved ones. That removes uncertainty, which is some consolation.
Fair winds and following seas.
By request, the choir at church today sang "Eternal Father."
Eternal Father, strong to save,
Whose arm hath bound the restless wave,
Who bidd'st the mighty ocean deep
Its own appointed limits keep;
Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee,
For those in peril on the sea!
Some us sang the lyrics from memory. :(
He lives local, heard him speak at a church about 12, maybe 13 years ago.
It's not his story he's selling, but rather a lecture on the responsibility of command.
It's an excellent presentation. I didn't intend to criticize, just an example of "when life gives you lemons...make lemonade."
Aside from individual commanding officers personal orders concerning vessels of any size within XYZ yards ect, ect,
does the Navy not consider every vessel not flying the national standard a possible enemy ?
One would think the Cole attack would of settled that !
Not even that, but a vessel about to collide with you by accident is as dangerous as an enemy vessel in combat!
Sadly, the military is a high-risk occupation, war or not. Sure, more die in combat, but "peacetime" activities churn up casualties you don't see in the civilian workplace.
It would seem to be a boost to the moral of any enemy of the U.S. like when the Iranians captured the navy boat a while ago. embarrassing to say the least. But then what is the whole story?
Moose-Knuckle
06-19-17, 05:35
Heard a radio spot that the Japanese Coast Guard stated that the merchant vessel made a sharp turn that suddenly changed their course into the USN ship.
Early still in the investigation but sounds as if the container ship maybe at fault here.
Averageman
06-19-17, 06:07
Sadly, the military is a high-risk occupation, war or not. Sure, more die in combat, but "peacetime" activities churn up casualties you don't see in the civilian workplace.
If there is a lesson to be learned from this, this might be it.
Complacency, a lack of understanding safety issues and a desire to meet goals regardless of the circumstances are killers.
Not even that, but a vessel about to collide with you by accident is as dangerous as an enemy vessel in combat!
Sadly, the military is a high-risk occupation, war or not. Sure, more die in combat, but "peacetime" activities churn up casualties you don't see in the civilian workplace.
My unit lost more in peacetime than in combat while I was in (9 vs. 2). :(
SomeOtherGuy
06-19-17, 10:11
Heard a radio spot that the Japanese Coast Guard stated that the merchant vessel made a sharp turn that suddenly changed their course into the USN ship.
Early still in the investigation but sounds as if the container ship maybe at fault here.
Vessel tracking is available. Copy of the freighter's track and a photo of damage suffered by the freighter here:
https://twitter.com/thepacketrat/status/876151577857470464/photo/1
I don't know much about operating a ship, but the track looks unusual, and the damage to the side of the bow (vs. centered on the bow) seems odd too.
It sounds like an accident waiting to happen any time the CO isn't behind the wheel. Jr officers afraid to change course to avoid other ships?
From a not Navy, military perspective I find that hard to believe.
It sounds like an accident waiting to happen any time the CO isn't behind the wheel. Jr officers afraid to change course to avoid other ships?
From a not Navy, military perspective I find that hard to believe.
The CO is frequently not on the bridge. The Officer of the Deck is fully qualified to make course corrections.
If you think about all of the cruises, the millions of hours of hours ships are at sea, the system works pretty well. Besides, the CO was on the bridge of the Greenville when it surfaced into a Japanese fishing trawler, so having the CO there doesn't prevent error.
maybe this is payback for the time our submarine crashed into a fishing boat off Hawaii.
1_click_off
06-19-17, 12:59
From having Stevedore experience on bulk commodity cargo ships, I have always seen the competency level go to about "warm body" level by the time you get to the 1st mate. No telling what was happening on the cargo ship.
From having Stevedore experience on bulk commodity cargo ships, I have always seen the competency level go to about "warm body" level by the time you get to the 1st mate. No telling what was happening on the cargo ship.
I spent my share of time at sea, standing watch in CIC, in heavily traveled areas. The consensus among U.S. Navy line officers was that freighters were often on auto-pilot, especially at night, and were not to be trusted. When they were not on auto-pilot they were to be trusted even less.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-19-17, 22:39
Why would a freighter do loops to adjust arrival time rather than just slow down? It's not like an airplane that is going to stall out, plus it would be cheaper.
1_click_off
06-20-17, 04:00
Why would a freighter do loops to adjust arrival time rather than just slow down? It's not like an airplane that is going to stall out, plus it would be cheaper.
I would assume they are following ocean currents and it would take longer, but more efficient. Don't know for sure.
1_click_off
06-20-17, 04:19
I spent my share of time at sea, standing watch in CIC, in heavily traveled areas. The consensus among U.S. Navy line officers was that freighters were often on auto-pilot, especially at night, and were not to be trusted. When they were not on auto-pilot they were to be trusted even less.
I would believe that to be true.
Only ones I would assume are on par with auto-pilot were the ones flying a flag from Greece.
They were always checking draft marks and seemed like they cared before the last 2,000 MT was loaded. They knew for the most part where the final trim was going well ahead of the others. Very vocal, very enthused working with you. Translated, they liked to tell and get all upset. Didn't take many vessels to figure out that is just their culture. You push back and they like you even more. Many times I was given black and red label johnny walker, cartons of Marlboro reds and some type of liquor that was in a tall skinny bottle (can't remember name, been too many years ago).
SeriousStudent
06-20-17, 21:41
..... Many times I was given black and red label johnny walker, cartons of Marlboro reds and some type of liquor that was in a tall skinny bottle (can't remember name, been too many years ago).
Ouzo?
hotrodder636
06-21-17, 00:48
I had several fun experiences with that stuff in Greece!
Ouzo?
On a more somber note, I would like to see what comes of the investigation, don't care what is being reported right now. It is always easy to be the armchair quarterback. I am going to reach out to some of my Navy people in Japan and see what I can hear.
I had several fun experiences with that stuff in Greece!
Oy. Me, too. Which is why I can't drink it now (or saki).
There are still good men who are willing to risk it all to come to the aid of their shipmates. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/navy-sailor-sacrificed-himself-save-200434952.html
platoonDaddy
06-28-17, 20:38
Fitzgerald: When A Big Ocean Gets Small
It is a big ocean. Until you have been far into it, it is really hard to appreciate just how big. Bringing a ship back from Japan to Hawaii, I once went ten days without seeing another ship, either by eye or radar. That is a long time to be alone in the world, especially if you are moving in a straight line and at good speed.
On the other hand, you would be surprised at how crowded the ocean can get in certain places. The Strait of Malacca, for instance, divides the island of Sumatra from Malaysia. Not only is Singapore at the southern end—one of the great maritime ports of the world—but most of the shipping moving between Asia and Africa, the Middle East, and Europe, travels through this increasingly narrow, 600 mile-long passage. Every year, 100,000 ships transit this strait. By the way, these confined waters are infested with pirates and literally thousands of fishing boats. While a chart may make the strait seem wide, the passable channel for big ships is only a couple of miles wide.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017-06/fitzgerald-when-big-ocean-gets-small
Fitzgerald: When A Big Ocean Gets Small
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017-06/fitzgerald-when-big-ocean-gets-small
That was a really interesting article. Very illuminating. For me though, the bottom line was in this observation in the comments section:
If you can't see and track a 30,000 ton loaded container ship, that's helpfully transmitting its position via AIS, on a dark clear night, till it plows into your side, how do you propose to fight a surface action against enemy warships, who definitely won't be cooperating, with missiles in the air?
I'm sure it was a busy ocean out there, but to read the article you'd think that collisions would be happening left and right. They don't. And this one happened to a US Navy vessel, one of the best-equipped vessel in the world crewed by some of the best trained sailors in the world, and something that I perceive that the world holds to a higher standard. They failed.
That was a really interesting article. Very illuminating. For me though, the bottom line was in this observation in the comments section:
I'm sure it was a busy ocean out there, but to read the article you'd think that collisions would be happening left and right. They don't. And this one happened to a US Navy vessel, one of the best-equipped vessel in the world crewed by some of the best trained sailors in the world, and something that I perceive that the world holds to a higher standard. They failed.
well reckon the worst ones were on watch ! sadly the best trained anymore makes me wonder we have the best tech but from some folks that do training the military is not what it used to be
Fitzgerald: When A Big Ocean Gets Small
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017-06/fitzgerald-when-big-ocean-gets-small
That was a well written article. Captain Eyer made several good points. The best statement in the article is "It is too early to speculate exactly what happened in the Fitzgerald that night........."
To absolutely no one's surprise...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/17/commanding-officer-navy-warship-in-deadly-collision-relieved-duty.html
Commanding officer of Navy warship in deadly collision relieved of duty
It's definitely not over yet. Investigators and upper command are looking closely at the whole watch section on duty at the time of the incident.
It's definitely not over yet. Investigators and upper command are looking closely at the whole watch section on duty at the time of the incident.
Could someone on watch on the opposite side of the ship be held accountable?
USS John S. McCain collides with merchant ship in Pacific.
The guided-missile destroyer USS John S. McCain was involved in a collision with a merchant vessel east of Singapore and the Strait of Malacca, the 7th Fleet announced in a tweet.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/08/20/uss-john-s-mccain-collides-with-merchant-ship-in-pacific.html
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-20-17, 20:30
USS John S. McCain collides with merchant ship in Pacific.
The guided-missile destroyer USS John S. McCain was involved in a collision with a merchant vessel east of Singapore and the Strait of Malacca, the 7th Fleet announced in a tweet.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/08/20/uss-john-s-mccain-collides-with-merchant-ship-in-pacific.html
Aegis radar? They need my cars blind spot warning light.
This has to be a command issue. I guess the last few years have been ruff on command selections.
10 missing and 5 injured.
08/20/10-missing-5-injured-after-uss-john-s-mccain-collides-with-tanker-in-pacific.html
This has to be a command issue. I guess the last few years have been ruff on command selections.We had someone in office for 8 years who deliberately wanted us less able as a worldwide force, so that would be a possible result.
i know a lot is asked of our sailors, so I expect mistakes to happen, this would be the second time this year that a guided missile ship collided with another ship, both happen to be commercial merchant ships and both incidents occurred in busy shipping lanes near ports, but the third one (which hasn't happened yet) will make me wonder.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-21-17, 00:47
This marked the fourth mishap for U.S. Navy ships in the Pacific since February.
Aside from the USS McCain and USS Fitgerald incidents, the Navy crusier USS Antietam ran aground dumping over 1,000 gallons of oil in Tokyo Bay in Februray. In May, another cruiser, USS Lake Champlain, hit a South Korean fishing vessel.
Didn't hear about the fishing boat.
Moose-Knuckle
08-21-17, 05:52
I wished I was a fly one the wall when Chaos called his SECNAV.
This has to be a command issue. I guess the last few years have been ruff on command selections.
We'd like to think so, but what if it isn't? What if China or Russia has figured out a way to fool our systems and that is what's happening?
We'd like to think so, but what if it isn't? What if China or Russia has figured out a way to fool our systems and that is what's happening?
That is a remote possibly but the most likely answer is leadership issues. Bad leaders cause a poor environments that leads to people cutting corners and errors occur because of it.
Is it out of the realm of possibility that someone has been able to hack our systems and cause the problems? No it is not. If it were I would venture to guess that the issues would be more world wide as opposed to just in that area that the last 5 problems happened in the last year. They would want to not localize the issue.
That is a remote possibly but the most likely answer is leadership issues. Bad leaders cause a poor environments that leads to people cutting corners and errors occur because of it.
Is it out of the realm of possibility that someone has been able to hack our systems and cause the problems? No it is not. If it were I would venture to guess that the issues would be more world wide as opposed to just in that area that the last 5 problems happened in the last year. They would want to not localize the issue.
I agree it's most likely is poor leadership. I dunno about it being world wide, we have a lot of assets in that area and China doesn't like us being in what they consider their backyard. It would be a good way to embarrass us and make it look like we shouldn't even let our ships leave San Diego. I'm leaning 70% poor seamanship/ 30% something nefarious...
It's definitely not over yet. Investigators and upper command are looking closely at the whole watch section on duty at the time of the incident.
There was an article in Proceedings written by a retired captain who had commanded destroyers. His feeling, sketchy terrorist-related possibility aside, is that unless you have commanded a ship or have been on watch, then you (not 'you' you, but the royal 'you') don't know what you are talking about; how those straits are littered with craft that radar won't pick up; how the rules of navigation can change in seconds as craft on certain headings change their headings; how many near-misses occur that no one will ever know about.
His feeling is 'there but for the grace of God go I' and that near-misses have happened to every ship.
That is a remote possibly but the most likely answer is leadership issues. Bad leaders cause a poor environments that leads to people cutting corners and errors occur because of it.
Leadership is a part of it, but just a part of it. And for ships at sea, the leadership issues start way above the ship's captain.
See my post above re: those straits. These things don't happen at sea; they happen in congested lanes. Not excusing any leadership, just pointing out that it is a bigger issue.
Could someone on watch on the opposite side of the ship be held accountable?
A person with leadership responsibilities, regardless of location on watch, could be held accountable. I am certain upper command is reviewing training records, watch records, logs and past performance of all involved. Regardless of the electronic capabilities of a vessel, humans operate the equipment, evaluate data and make decisions. Every one of the personnel involved in the process will be subject to close scrutiny.
I stood my share of watches, many times on the midwatch, during rough weather and when the Sea and Anchor Detail was set. There is a lot that goes on and everyone has to be on top of their game, especially when other shipping is closing on your position.
A person with leadership responsibilities, regardless of location on watch, could be held accountable. I am certain upper command is reviewing training records, watch records, logs and past performance of all involved. Regardless of the electronic capabilities of a vessel, humans operate the equipment, evaluate data and make decisions. Every one of the personnel involved in the process will be subject to close scrutiny.
I stood my share of watches, many times on the midwatch, during rough weather and when the Sea and Anchor Detail was set. There is a lot that goes on and everyone has to be on top of their game, especially when other shipping is closing on your position.
I was never haze gray and underway as ship's company. I was aboard for some floats, where I did hang out with watches (because there was nothing else to do). My observation is that despite technology, the human factor is incredibly complex on a a ship. Add to that extra watches (or longer watches) if the ship is at sea undermanned.
Part of me wishes I did at least one sea tour to see what the real Navy was like, but it never panned out.
There was an article in Proceedings written by a retired captain who had commanded destroyers. His feeling, sketchy terrorist-related possibility aside, is that unless you have commanded a ship or have been on watch, then you (not 'you' you, but the royal 'you') don't know what you are talking about; how those straits are littered with craft that radar won't pick up; how the rules of navigation can change in seconds as craft on certain headings change their headings; how many near-misses occur that no one will ever know about.
His feeling is 'there but for the grace of God go I' and that near-misses have happened to every ship.
I did two tours at sea and I concur with this. Having been witness to a couple of near misses, all it takes are sub-optimal conditions and a dash of indecision to make for a bad day.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-21-17, 10:11
There has to be a database of collisions somewhere and then you could run stats on how far out of the norm these are. If these are not random and something like a hack of our systems or the commercial ships. I don't see the navy publicizing that.
I couldn't wrap my head around two 500+ foot colliding until my buddy took me out on his boat on Lake Lanier a few weeks back. Smaller scale, but limited space, a lot of water traffic and piloting skill levels from drunk and stupid to professional and wary.
It was amazing to me how fast boats come together that are moving idle speed in or out of no wake zones, when someone isn't paying attention and/or indecisive about their movements. Add 477+ feet of ship and reduce maneuverability by that same factor and easy to see how small errors add up to big collisions.
I couldn't wrap my head around two 500+ foot colliding until my buddy took me out on his boat on Lake Lanier a few weeks back. Smaller scale, but limited space, a lot of water traffic and piloting skill levels from drunk and stupid to professional and wary.
It was amazing to me how fast boats come together that are moving idle speed in or out of no wake zones, when someone isn't paying attention and/or indecisive about their movements. Add 477+ feet of ship and reduce maneuverability by that same factor and easy to see how small errors add up to big collisions.
Try doing it in a 70 mph bass boat navigating through playcraft who love to plot intercept courses to catch air on the biggest part of your wake. If only I could replace the rear pedestal seat with a pintle mount and gpmg. :(
Nightvisionary
08-21-17, 19:53
With all the modern electronics and room full of radar techs, etc would seem totally implausible the US war ship not aware of that Freighter. Money is on human error, but what could possibly make sense they'd be that close?
From personal experience having served/lived on an aircraft carrier and battleship for two years as part of a Marine Detachment I can recall numerous occasions where sailors on deck watch were found asleep at their posts and even left their post. That may not be what happened here but I cannot imagine that the U.S. Navy has seen an increase in discipline and professionalism since the time of Reagan's 600 ship navy. I did notice that most if not all of the disciplinary actions handed down after the Fitzgerald collision were non-judicial punishment. Hell I received NJP for having two unopened cans of beer in my wall locker at 0600 on a Monday morning and a friend received a week in the brig on bread and water for getting in a fight. The deaths of several service members, hundred of millions if not a billion in damage and the strategic effect of tying up a majority of the ship repair facilities in the far east when the North Koreans, Chinese, and Russians are on the radar should require a few heads to roll in the form of summary or general court martial. If there is a lack of accountability we can only expect more of the same. Giving an 0-6 NJP then his walking papers with a generous retirement just doesn't cut it when we are losing more people to ship collisions than enemy action in Afghanistan.
From personal experience having served/lived on an aircraft carrier and battleship for two years as part of a Marine Detachment I can recall numerous occasions where sailors on deck watch were found asleep at their posts and even left their post. That may not be what happened here but I cannot imagine that the U.S. Navy has seen an increase in discipline and professionalism since the time of Reagan's 600 ship navy. I did notice that most if not all of the disciplinary actions handed down after the Fitzgerald collision were non-judicial punishment. Hell I received NJP for having two unopened cans of beer in my wall locker at 0600 on a Monday morning and a friend received a week in the brig on bread and water for getting in a fight. The deaths of several service members, hundred of millions if not a billion in damage and the strategic effect of tying up a majority of the ship repair facilities in the far east when the North Koreans, Chinese, and Russians are on the radar should require a few heads to roll in the form of summary or general court martial. If there is a lack of accountability we can only expect more of the same. Giving an 0-6 NJP then his walking papers with a generous retirement just doesn't cut it when we are losing more people to ship collisions than enemy action in Afghanistan.
I served when Ronald Reagan was Commander in Chief. If you don't cover your watch in a responsible manner and your ship is involved in a collision, people die, sometimes dozens of them. If you dozed off while standing watch at night or left your post, you did not have to concern yourself with what Command would do to you on a vessel at sea. Upper Command would have to protect the slacker from the crew.
Tplaycraft who love to plot intercept courses to catch air on the biggest part of your wake.
We call 'em smokers from Waterworld.
Try doing it in a 70 mph bass boat navigating through playcraft who love to plot intercept courses to catch air on the biggest part of your wake. If only I could replace the rear pedestal seat with a pintle mount and gpmg. :(
Or maybe not go 70 freaking miles an hour. (oops, was that my outside voice?)
Or maybe not go 70 freaking miles an hour. (oops, was that my outside voice?)
When one can do 70 mph (safely) on the water, one does 70 mph. Technically, 71.6 according to my GPS. :)
Averageman
08-22-17, 09:36
According to Fox News they are now investigating the issue and looking for a possible "hack".
According to Fox News they are now investigating the issue and looking for a possible "hack".
While a hack is possible what stops the sailors on watch from raising an alarm about a big ship getting closer and closer.
Don't know, but I'd wager this is a leadership issue that is catching up with us.
Averageman
08-22-17, 10:45
Training/Leadership would be my first guess we've had a Navy for 250 years, these problems aren't new.
I'm not a Navy guy but Army, I have noticed a over reliance on technology to answer problems that for years were trained and ingrained in junior noncom's.
I can't answer for the Navy, but it's troubling to observe here.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-22-17, 10:50
When one can do 70 mph (safely) on the water, one does 70 mph. Technically, 71.6 according to my GPS. :)
Never knew that bass were that fast.....
Hack of a cargo ship is more likely
Training/Leadership would be my first guess we've had a Navy for 250 years, these problems aren't new.
I'm not a Navy guy but Army, I have noticed a over reliance on technology to answer problems that for years were trained and ingrained in junior noncom's.
I can't answer for the Navy, but it's troubling to observe here.
Good article about technology vs the human factor:
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017-08/fitzgerald-there-grace-god-go-i
My concern is that if the crew of a given US warship has insufficient training and discipline to safely navigate crowded, non-hostile waterways, how's it going to go if they have engage in combat?
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-22-17, 11:20
My concern is that if the crew of a given US warship has insufficient training and discipline to safely navigate crowded, non-hostile waterways, how's it going to go if they have engage in combat?
Americans seem to have more trouble not shooting things that shooting things.
When one can do 70 mph (safely) on the water, one does 70 mph. Technically, 71.6 according to my GPS. :)
Yep. I have a couple years of on the water sheriff's lake patrol under my belt. I liked to think in my gear I looked like Bruce Willis in Striking Distance.
70mph 'safely' in waters with other craft present is a fig newton of your imagination. Let's see, you were also drinking a beer and had your PFD 'close at hand.'
Averageman
08-22-17, 12:54
The Navy has eliminated the possibility of a hacked system.
Yep. I have a couple years of on the water sheriff's lake patrol under my belt. I liked to think in my gear I looked like Bruce Willis in Striking Distance.
70mph 'safely' in waters with other craft present is a fig newton of your imagination. Let's see, you were also drinking a beer and had your PFD 'close at hand.'
PFD always on when the big motor is on, kill switch attached, throwable floatation device is right on top in the locker with the 1st Aid kit and other emergency provisions (including USACE and USCG boating pamphlets), and I have the safe boating tips sticker attached right next to the ignition. I don't drink when I fish (except Gatorade & water) and I steer very wide of other boats, which is easy to do in a faster boat. I've been doing this for over 20 years and I've never had an accident. I've been inspected by both USACE and state Lake Patrol with zero findings, which is pretty rare according to them.
I did get run into the shallows once by a jet ski and chewed up my prop. I came off plane and went to idle while steering to avoid her. She went full throttle across a peninsula in about 6-8" of water and it's a miracle she didn't kill herself. I control my boat very well, but if some moron decides to plot an intercept course, there's not much I can do to stop them. :(
Whiskey_Bravo
08-22-17, 15:37
but if some moron decides to plot an intercept course, there's not much I can do to stop them. :(
Fire all torpedoes and phasers? Oh wait....
Training/Leadership would be my first guess we've had a Navy for 250 years, these problems aren't new.
I'm not a Navy guy but Army, I have noticed a over reliance on technology to answer problems that for years were trained and ingrained in junior noncom's.
I can't answer for the Navy, but it's troubling to observe here.
Everyone should learn to shoot with Irons before a RDS!
I talked to a buddy about preparing to deploy. They took everyone's cellphones. Lots of his troops were late. They didn't have watches and didn't know what time it was w/o their smart phones. I bet there was a run on watches at the PX.
Americans seem to have more trouble not shooting things that shooting things.
Boom! Truth.
PFD always on when the big motor is on, kill switch attached, throwable floatation device is right on top in the locker with the 1st Aid kit and other emergency provisions (including USACE and USCG boating pamphlets), and I have the safe boating tips sticker attached right next to the ignition. I don't drink when I fish (except Gatorade & water) and I steer very wide of other boats, which is easy to do in a faster boat. I've been doing this for over 20 years and I've never had an accident. I've been inspected by both USACE and state Lake Patrol with zero findings, which is pretty rare according to them.
Tourney fisherman?
PWC (aka JetSkis) are one of the biggest headaches on any lake.
Tourney fisherman?
PWC (aka JetSkis) are one of the biggest headaches on any lake.
I used to. Made enough to pay 100% of my expenses, but not enough to make a living at it. Then the real career took too much time. Now that I have more time again, my wife and I fish as often as possible. We've been on the water 37 days so far this year. It's time away from a mad world, except in the summer when the amateurs come out of the woodwork. We try to hit the water on weekdays and very early in the morning to avoid the idiots as much as possible, but recovery at the ramp mid morning on the weekend can drive you crazy. As bad as they are on the water, they can piss you off at the ramp too.
Bringing it back around, I've been on four Navy warships and even though commercial boat operators on the open seas require licensing and certifications, I've seen some crazy stuff out there too. The closest I've been present for was a smallish Greek freighter at about 150 yards. That one was a broadside at night and the pucker factor was way high. :(
Leadership, negligence and complacency. How does a shark get hit by a manatee?
Moose-Knuckle
08-23-17, 05:14
Leadership, negligence and complacency. How does a shark get hit by a manatee?
Ah yes, the human condition.
Well, a 3 star just lost his job over these...
US Navy dismisses 7th Fleet commander after deadly mishaps
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/23/us-navy-dismisses-7th-fleet-commander-after-deadly-mishaps.html
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well, a 3 star just lost his job over these...
US Navy dismisses 7th Fleet commander after deadly mishaps
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/23/us-navy-dismisses-7th-fleet-commander-after-deadly-mishaps.html
Yep. Rolling heads all up and down the chain is a time-honored tradition in the US Navy. As is often the case in the military, incompetent leadership costs lives.
Well, a 3 star just lost his job over these...
US Navy dismisses 7th Fleet commander after deadly mishaps
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/23/us-navy-dismisses-7th-fleet-commander-after-deadly-mishaps.html
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Observing the general condition of the McCain on TV last night, I immediately wondered if the Navy's budget is really that tight or if the command is too lax. Besides the hole in the boat, it looked awful. :(
Averageman
08-23-17, 13:12
If you retire him three months before he chose to retire, other than sending him off on essentially what amounts to a ninety day vacation before he was already going to retire, what's been achieved?
Whiskey_Bravo
08-23-17, 14:17
Observing the general condition of the McCain on TV last night, I immediately wondered if the Navy's budget is really that tight or if the command is too lax. Besides the hole in the boat, it looked awful. :(
Noticed that as well. Just didn't look maintained.
Observing the general condition of the McCain on TV last night, I immediately wondered if the Navy's budget is really that tight or if the command is too lax. Besides the hole in the boat, it looked awful. :(
You know, that crossed my mind as well.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Singlestack Wonder
08-23-17, 19:02
Still cannot get my head around these collisions. Besides electronics, doesn't the Navy still station lookouts with high power glass with night capabilities at several locations? Even if the radar and other electronics failed, its hard to imagine the sailor steering the ship as well as the lookouts could see something as big as a ship no avoid it. If the U.S. ship was stationary and the lookouts spotted a ship on a direct course to their position, why can't the engines be engaged and get the ship out of the way? Very strange indeed.....
unless the ships are purposely being hit and changing course to get hit etc. which would be really easy to prove the Navy is messing up big time
something is happening though and one needs to get to the bottom of it
Still cannot get my head around these collisions. Besides electronics, doesn't the Navy still station lookouts with high power glass with night capabilities at several locations? Even if the radar and other electronics failed, its hard to imagine the sailor steering the ship as well as the lookouts could see something as big as a ship no avoid it. If the U.S. ship was stationary and the lookouts spotted a ship on a direct course to their position, why can't the engines be engaged and get the ship out of the way? Very strange indeed.....
Not strange, at all. It has been addressed here multiple times. The human factor + Murphy = potential for massive failure. Undermanned crew means fewer watches and fewer watch stations, people at watch longer, craft don't obey rules of navigation in a channel that is full of craft, undertrained/inadequately trained crew....
The pro's in the risk business call it the Swiss cheese effect...when all the holes in the Swiss cheese line up, system failure occurs.
Thought this article was insightful. Also touches on the apparent condition of the ship in the pics/video.
http://taskandpurpose.com/fitzgeralds-watch-team-mine/
The area this last one happened is apparently a very busy stretch of ocean due to geography. Which significantly increases probability of interaction.
Don't know what really happened. I'm at least a bit suspicious that we have multiple events, makes me think there may be some systematic issue. (Tech or people).
Another excellent article from Proceedings:
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017-08/collisions-part-i%E2%80%94what-are-root-causes
Is it true that there is no "school" and thus no washouts for new Navy Officers?
SeriousStudent
08-24-17, 19:16
Is it true that there is no "school" and thus no washouts for new Navy Officers?
Here's some info regarding training of Surface warfare Officers (SWO's):
http://cimsec.org/circles-surface-warfare-training/24050
TL:DR - there was a school. They closed it, and gave everyone CBT's to watch while underway. Bad. Idea. New school starts up again.
Here's some info regarding training of Surface warfare Officers (SWO's):
http://cimsec.org/circles-surface-warfare-training/24050
TL:DR - there was a school. They closed it, and gave everyone CBT's to watch while underway. Bad. Idea. New school starts up again.
So this was/is the Navy's version of, for instance, IOBC for Infantry officers? While not a Navy guy I cannot believe they would send newly minted officers to the fleet without specific training for being a surface warfare officer. They don't send submarine officers straight to a sub do they? Jeesh.....
Here's some info regarding training of Surface warfare Officers (SWO's):
http://cimsec.org/circles-surface-warfare-training/24050
TL:DR - there was a school. They closed it, and gave everyone CBT's to watch while underway. Bad. Idea. New school starts up again.
Do you think upper command felt technology was a substitute for standardized training before assigning a surface officer to the fleet?
SeriousStudent
08-24-17, 23:05
Do you think upper command felt technology was a substitute for standardized training before assigning a surface officer to the fleet?
Do I think that some beancounter with little or no time underway thought that? Yep, I bet they probably did.
Do I think it was a good idea? Nope, not at all.
Coal Dragger
08-31-17, 03:30
..... a bit of humor at the 7th Fleet's expense....
https://www.duffelblog.com/2017/08/navy-destroyer-collides-with-building-in-downtown-houston/
Is it true that there is no "school" and thus no washouts for new Navy Officers?
The schoolhouse in Newport has been closed, for years. The Navy in all of its wisdom believed that OJT/apprenticeship-type training was more valuable. It is the way that many of the enlisted rates learned their trade.
I don't know of a single SWO who thought closing the schoolhouse was a good idea.
Being a SWO, especially a junior one, is a herd life underway. Every minute of non-sleep time (which is about 5 hours) is accounted for, and the collateral duties are enormous.
platoonDaddy
09-14-17, 19:36
Knew this was coming:
The military is examining whether compromised computer systems were responsible for one of two U.S. Navy destroyer collisions with merchant vessels that occurred in recent months, Vice Admiral Jan Tighe, the deputy chief of naval operations for information warfare, said on Thursday.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/09/14/u-s-navy-investigating-if-destroyer-crash-was-caused-by-cyberattack/
Knew this was coming:
The military is examining whether compromised computer systems were responsible for one of two U.S. Navy destroyer collisions with merchant vessels that occurred in recent months, Vice Admiral Jan Tighe, the deputy chief of naval operations for information warfare, said on Thursday.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/09/14/u-s-navy-investigating-if-destroyer-crash-was-caused-by-cyberattack/
Its good that they are looking at all possibilities, but unless they hacked a few sailors on watch it still doesn't explain the incidents adequately for me. The closure rate for these ships is low enough that watches should still be able to protect the vessels.
https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2017/11/01/navy-crews-at-fault-in-fatal-collisions-investigations-find/
Well, the Navy has released it's report on the two collisions this past summer. Talk about clusterf***s of epic proportions. You have GOT to read the linked article. It is very disconcerting.
SomeOtherGuy
11-01-17, 09:50
https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2017/11/01/navy-crews-at-fault-in-fatal-collisions-investigations-find/
Well, the Navy has released it's report on the two collisions this past summer. Talk about clusterf***s of epic proportions. You have GOT to read the linked article. It is very disconcerting.
Yes, anyone interested needs to read that article. It is appalling, and incredible.
It sounds like the entire pacific fleet needs to stand down for re-training and a review of the whole officer corps. And a few officers will probably live out their days in prison.
Yes, anyone interested needs to read that article. It is appalling, and incredible.
It sounds like the entire pacific fleet needs to stand down for re-training and a review of the whole officer corps. And a few officers will probably live out their days in prison.
I have a feeling this is gonna be felt Navy-wide, not just the Pacific guys.
I have a feeling this is gonna be felt Navy-wide, not just the Pacific guys.
You have to at least give the Navy credit in that they don't appear to be trying to downplay or white wash it:
“The thing that stood out to me was in both situations they had minimal situational awareness,” said Hoffman. “In the case of Fitzgerald, nearly criminal negligence on the part of the bridge watch team. And in neither case did the ship sound five short blasts or raise the general alarm to let anyone know they were in danger.”
Just wow.
Interesting report. It's surely a poop sandwich of epic proportion, and many people are gonna be eating from it.
What bothers me is that the report blames crew for lack of SA, it really doesn't explain why there was a lack of SA. I would be curious to hear/read the testimony from the crews.
SeriousStudent
11-01-17, 19:08
Interesting report. It's surely a poop sandwich of epic proportion, and many people are gonna be eating from it.
What bothers me is that the report blames crew for lack of SA, it really doesn't explain why there was a lack of SA. I would be curious to hear/read the testimony from the crews.
Because the reason why is a leadership failure from the skipper up through the chain of command. But that rarely looks good in a report.
If I recall correctly, you were a Sailor yourself. We both know that there is no such thing as a bad crew or bad battalion, just poor leadership.
But nobody makes Admiral pointing that out. Mattis will probably take more heads over this, and he should.
I wonder wha % of the crews involved were from the DVD school of sailing?
Because the reason why is a leadership failure from the skipper up through the chain of command. But that rarely looks good in a report.
If I recall correctly, you were a Sailor yourself. We both know that there is no such thing as a bad crew or bad battalion, just poor leadership.
But nobody makes Admiral pointing that out. Mattis will probably take more heads over this, and he should.
No, that's true, all of it. I guess my questions about the lack of SA are operational: Why didn't the crew go to GQ or hit the alarm? (i.e., did they not know to? Were they afraid? No training?) Why didn't the crew enable radar settings for those conditions (although radar likely would not have affected the outcome)? I totally agree it was a leadership failure, and I think it WILL be reflected, just not publically. Some warfighting flag rank will be reassigned to something like procurement, which will force an early retirement.
I am totally unsurprised the report is damning and deflecting poop-flinging downward to protect senior leadership as much as possible.
I wonder wha % of the crews involved were from the DVD school of sailing?
For enlisted, it's all OJT. But for div-O's, they went from schoolhouse training to CDs/DVDs and OJT. To a man, officers regret this move away from the schoolhouse.
But nobody makes Admiral pointing that out. Mattis will probably take more heads over this, and he should.
It was a pretty broad-based indictment of the system though. Not only was the carrier group commander sacked, but the vice-admiral in command of the entire 7th Fleet got the axe as well. That can’t be a very common occurrence.
Negligent homicide charges for the skippers of both the McCain and the Fitzgerald. I think that's warranted.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/16/navy-files-homicide-charges-against-commanders-2-ships-in-deadly-crashes.html
SeriousStudent
01-16-18, 19:25
Negligent homicide charges for the skippers of both the McCain and the Fitzgerald. I think that's warranted.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/16/navy-files-homicide-charges-against-commanders-2-ships-in-deadly-crashes.html
Which makes it a death penalty case.
Article 110 of the UCMJ refers to Hazarding a Vessel. If it is deremined to be willful (probably not in this case) then if convicted, they can be put to death.
https://www.bileckilawgroup.com/court-martial-defense/articles-of-the-ucmj/article-110-improper-hazarding-of-vessel/
I remember a case in SoCal where a junior Marine actually stole an A-4 Skyhawk and took off in it. He was charged with Article 110, and they decided not to make it a capital case. But they could have hung his ass, figuratively and literally.
I hope they burn both skippers for negligent homicide. They deserve it - Sailors gave their lives to save their ship, and their shipmates.
Which makes it a death penalty case.
Article 110 of the UCMJ refers to Hazarding a Vessel. If it is deremined to be willful (probably not in this case) then if convicted, they can be put to death.
https://www.bileckilawgroup.com/court-martial-defense/articles-of-the-ucmj/article-110-improper-hazarding-of-vessel/
I remember a case in SoCal where a junior Marine actually stole an A-4 Skyhawk and took off in it. He was charged with Article 110, and they decided not to make it a capital case. But they could have hung his ass, figuratively and literally.
I hope they burn both skippers for negligent homicide. They deserve it - Sailors gave their lives to save their ship, and their shipmates.
When is the last time the Military gave out capital punishment?
SeriousStudent
01-16-18, 19:59
Sadly, much too long ago. On April 13, 1961, former U.S. Army Private John A. Bennett was hanged after being convicted of rape and attempted murder.
I remember a guy being sentenced to death for brutally murdering his commanding officer and his wife at Camp Lejeune. It was commuted to life by the convening authority.
In 2013, Nidal Hassan was sentenced to death for murdering 13 people at Fort Hood, but that sentence has not been carried out yet.
There are five US military members on death row right now. Former United States Army Private Ronald A. Gray, who had been convicted in April 1988 of multiple murders and rapes has had his last stay of execution lifted. I believe he is the next one to dance on a rope.
I guess I don't agree with you guys.
These accidents were evidence of a systematic breakdown throughout the entire Navy, not just those two vessels.
The responsible parties, those who have risen through the system to positions of high command knew full well the problems that existed and chose to do nothing about it. They are just as culpable as the skippers of the Fitzgerald and the McCain.
Oh yeah, big Navy acted on this quickly and decisively, relieved a Rear-Admiral (Commander TF70), a Captain (Commander DESRON 15), and a Vice-Admiral (Commander, 7th Fleet) who was due to retire within 6 months anyways. Wanna bet the Rear-Admiral and Captain have time enough to retire if they want? Ohh, yeah, eff them over, full retirement, full insurance.
It is all maskirovka, to allow the upper levels to escape relatively unscathed, while the underlings take it in the shorts.
I'm sorry about the loss of life and have offered prayers for the families of the dead service members, but this advocating for the death penalty as some of you are is overkill.
Sorry, but those are my feelings.
Coal Dragger
01-17-18, 01:46
I don’t see this as a death penalty worthy offense. It’s not like the captains of these vessels were intoxicated while on the bridge operating the vessel recklessly.
Instead they were allowing poorly trained junior officers and watch standers to navigate in crowded sea lanes. Bad decision? Yep. Question is, were either of these men aware of the deficiencies in their crews? Did either of these men also have the experience and skills to correct those problems? Honest question since the training involved is no longer taught in school but OJT. How long has that been a thing? Did either captain go through the school house to learn these skills or were they OJT too?
If the answer is all OJT then this is definitely higher ups doing a CYA prosecution.
I guess I don't agree with you guys.
These accidents were evidence of a systematic breakdown throughout the entire Navy, not just those two vessels.
The responsible parties, those who have risen through the system to positions of high command knew full well the problems that existed and chose to do nothing about it. They are just as culpable as the skippers of the Fitzgerald and the McCain.
Oh yeah, big Navy acted on this quickly and decisively, relieved a Rear-Admiral (Commander TF70), a Captain (Commander DESRON 15), and a Vice-Admiral (Commander, 7th Fleet) who was due to retire within 6 months anyways. Wanna bet the Rear-Admiral and Captain have time enough to retire if they want? Ohh, yeah, eff them over, full retirement, full insurance.
It is all maskirovka, to allow the upper levels to escape relatively unscathed, while the underlings take it in the shorts.
I'm sorry about the loss of life and have offered prayers for the families of the dead service members, but this advocating for the death penalty as some of you are is overkill.
Sorry, but those are my feelings.
Yeah. This. Completely.
I guess I don't agree with you guys.
These accidents were evidence of a systematic breakdown throughout the entire Navy, not just those two vessels.
The responsible parties, those who have risen through the system to positions of high command knew full well the problems that existed and chose to do nothing about it. They are just as culpable as the skippers of the Fitzgerald and the McCain.
Oh yeah, big Navy acted on this quickly and decisively, relieved a Rear-Admiral (Commander TF70), a Captain (Commander DESRON 15), and a Vice-Admiral (Commander, 7th Fleet) who was due to retire within 6 months anyways. Wanna bet the Rear-Admiral and Captain have time enough to retire if they want? Ohh, yeah, eff them over, full retirement, full insurance.
It is all maskirovka, to allow the upper levels to escape relatively unscathed, while the underlings take it in the shorts.
I'm sorry about the loss of life and have offered prayers for the families of the dead service members, but this advocating for the death penalty as some of you are is overkill.
Sorry, but those are my feelings.
Yeah. This. Completely.
I'm with these guys.
NYH1.
SeriousStudent
01-17-18, 20:49
I am not advocating the death penalty for the skippers. I said it was a death penalty eligible case.
I think they should be court-martialed, and do time.
If you read my earlier posts in the thread, I also think that their food chain should have adjoining cells. Go ahead and open up a wing in the brig, make plenty of room.
Because I was taught that you do not always wear your rank, you sometimes bet it as well. Was their a gun put to their head, forcing them to assume command of their vessel? Sounds harsh, right?
But as someone who has folded over a dozen flags and handed them to widows and next of kin, I can tell you that's even more harsh.
Do they need to fundamentally restructure what they are doing? Yes.
Do they need to burn the Admirals involved? You bet.
No one is going to hang at the end of a rope for this. But when they send kids to the brig for a few years for stealing a case of beer from the PX, then I have no problem sending an Admiral away for a decade (or two) when a bunch of Sailors are killed.
Just my dos not very shiny centavos.
I am not advocating the death penalty for the skippers. I said it was a death penalty eligible case.
I think they should be court-martialed, and do time.
If you read my earlier posts in the thread, I also think that their food chain should have adjoining cells. Go ahead and open up a wing in the brig, make plenty of room.
Because I was taught that you do not always wear your rank, you sometimes bet it as well. Was their a gun put to their head, forcing them to assume command of their vessel? Sounds harsh, right?
But as someone who has folded over a dozen flags and handed them to widows and next of kin, I can tell you that's even more harsh.
Do they need to fundamentally restructure what they are doing? Yes.
Do they need to burn the Admirals involved? You bet.
No one is going to hang at the end of a rope for this. But when they send kids to the brig for a few years for stealing a case of beer from the PX, then I have no problem sending an Admiral away for a decade (or two) when a bunch of Sailors are killed.
Just my dos not very shiny centavos.
My old man spent 32 years as a naval officer, including major commands at sea and VietNam. He is losing his mind over this stuff. "You can delegate responsibility but not accountability".
My old man spent 32 years as a naval officer, including major commands at sea and VietNam. He is losing his mind over this stuff. "You can delegate responsibility but not accountability".
Great post. I worked for some damn fine officers and this statement sums them up.
I am currently reading "Neptune's Inferno" about our Navy's engagements around the Solomon Islands in the very early part of WW2. Very brutal and gives me a new respect for those sailors. I don't know if we will ever be involved in large ship to ship battles again but those guys were every bit the warriors.
These are politically-motivated charges that will get most assuredly reduced. I would bet good money there's no jail time. It was systematic in the 7th Fleet, but not systematic throughout THE fleet. If it were, ships would be grounding themselves and running into ships all over the world, all the time. And yes, ALL the officers involved in the chain of command should share culpability.
Nothing surprises me anymore, knew it had to be something like this.
http://theothermccain.com/2018/06/17/tip-pentagon-covering-up-fact-that-female-officers-nearly-sank-navy-ship/
Tip: Pentagon Covering Up Fact That Female Officers Nearly Sank Navy Ship
An anonymous email came in over the transom this morning:
Hi, Stacy.
During the early weeks after the USS Fitzgerald was speared by a lumbering Philippine container ship, it was noteworthy that the captain and a couple of admirals were publically named, but not the actual officer in charge, the officer of the deck. (OOD) The other person who should have kept the Fitz out of trouble is the person in charge of the combat information center, the Tactical Action Officer. That individual is supposed to be monitoring the combat radar, which can detect a swimmer at a distance of two miles.
Not until a year later, when the final reports are made public and the guilty parties have been court-martialed, does the truth come out. The OOD was named Sarah, and the Tactical Action Officer was named Natalie, and they weren’t speaking to each other!!! The Tactical Action Officer would normally be in near constant communication with the OOD, but there is no record of any communication between them that entire shift!
Another fun fact: In the Navy that won WWII, the damage control officers were usually some of the biggest and strongest men aboard, able to close hatches, shore up damaged areas with timbers, etc. The Fitz’s damage control officer was also a woman, and she never left the bridge. She handled the aftermath of the accident remotely, without lifting a finger herself!
Look it up: The OOD was Sarah Coppock, Tactical Action Officer was Natalie Combs. . . .
When I noticed last year that they were doing all they could to keep the OOD’s name out of the headlines, I speculated to my son that it was a she. Turns out all the key people (except one officer in the CIC) were female!
Nothing surprises me anymore, knew it had to be something like this.
http://theothermccain.com/2018/06/17/tip-pentagon-covering-up-fact-that-female-officers-nearly-sank-navy-ship/
Your story is dated 06/17/2018.
This story was in Star and Stripes a month earlier:
https://www.stripes.com/fitzgerald-officer-of-the-deck-pleads-guilty-at-court-martial-1.525888
Combs is going before a court-martial:
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/06/20/2-uss-fitzgerald-officers-face-courts-martial-wake-collision.html
As far as this:
When I noticed last year that they were doing all they could to keep the OOD’s name out of the headlines, I speculated to my son that it was a she. Turns out all the key people (except one officer in the CIC) were female!
They were doing an investigation, the officers and enlisted personnel were referred to by their duty/watch stations. Perhaps to avoid stigmatizing folks until they are adjudicated.
Here is the report, notice the only names in the report are the names of the dead sailors.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4165170-Fitzgerald-and-McCain-Report.html
Some cover-up!
Ned Christiansen
02-08-19, 07:05
Not reading the whole thread, but I just ran across this:
https://features.propublica.org/navy-accidents/uss-fitzgerald-destroyer-crash-crystal/
Maybe it has already been mentioned and linked. I link it because it is a very interesting reporting format with integrated illustrations and animations. It is very long and yet every paragraph is full of relevant info. This is my first exposure to Propublica, I will be looking into them more.
Not reading the whole thread, but I just ran across this:
https://features.propublica.org/navy-accidents/uss-fitzgerald-destroyer-crash-crystal/
Maybe it has already been mentioned and linked. I link it because it is a very interesting reporting format with integrated illustrations and animations. It is very long and yet every paragraph is full of relevant info. This is my first exposure to Propublica, I will be looking into them more.
Thanks Ned. That was an excellent read. I agree, I will be looking at ProPublica in the future.
titsonritz
02-08-19, 13:19
Not reading the whole thread, but I just ran across this:
https://features.propublica.org/navy-accidents/uss-fitzgerald-destroyer-crash-crystal/
Maybe it has already been mentioned and linked. I link it because it is a very interesting reporting format with integrated illustrations and animations. It is very long and yet every paragraph is full of relevant info. This is my first exposure to Propublica, I will be looking into them more.
Great article.
Not reading the whole thread, but I just ran across this:
https://features.propublica.org/navy-accidents/uss-fitzgerald-destroyer-crash-crystal/
Maybe it has already been mentioned and linked. I link it because it is a very interesting reporting format with integrated illustrations and animations. It is very long and yet every paragraph is full of relevant info. This is my first exposure to Propublica, I will be looking into them more.
"The Fitzgerald’s captain selected an untested team to steer the ship at night. He ordered the crew to speed through shipping lanes filled with cargo ships and fishing vessels to free up time to train his sailors the next day. At the time of the collision, he was asleep in his cabin."
What could possibly go wrong?! Complacency kills
So many things wrong in the 7th fleet according to that report. Cmdr. Benson sounds like he was a good leader most times, that inherited a mess of a ship and crap caught up to him before he could fix everything. BUT, training his crew for long hours, then expecting them to perform under high risk circumstances while he sleeps because he may be over tired??!! Even as a civilian manager where lives are not at stake, I NEVER asked my staff to work longer hours than me. Even on long weekends of 24-56 hrs overtime I was always the last one out. I consider it good barometer: if I who have the most experience am not able to function reliably then my staff should have been home resting a while ago. Tasking his green officers with going 20 kts at night through congested waters is insane, especially with known faulty navigation systems.
Then there are the multiple smaller failures of officers and crew just not doing their job on watch, communicating, and using alternative means to achieve the mission.
Sadly most of the blame has to go to higher Fleet command for deploying a ship with multiple mission critical system failures and lack of required certification. How can anyone justify sending a warship to sea without reliable and accurate radar? It is useless in a fight and a danger to other warships and civilian shipping.
No US commercial ship would be allowed to sail with so many failed systems, yet the Navy exempts itself for war fighting ships!! Maybe if you are in a shooting war but just to make a show of force transit??
It looks like the Navy learned zero from the Army’s hollowing out experience in the 70s and 80s. They need to stand down every defunct ship, consolidate resources (money, sailors, equipment, parts) to run what ships they can at war fighting trim. New ships should only be added when there is a budget for their life cycle maintenance and operation. It is like they bought a fleet of Maseratis, monster trucks, Mercedes, Range Rovers but can’t afford the repairs or insurance. Down size to fit your budget. Park or sell off what you can’t afford.
If Congress doesn’t want to maintain a large Navy then live with it. But presenting the nation with a ghost fleet of derelicts and pretending they are ready for war is a betrayal of the nation. Probably too many Admirals trying to curry favor with cost cutting Congress critters and defense contractors for future job prospects.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.