• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Bruno

Tanker hits Destoyer, how is this possible?

1,150 posts in this topic

25 minutes ago, sidmon said:

Please tell me that you are -not- a Middie...

If you are, yet more evidence the USN has its collective head way far up its ass these days.

Gunni, you're the one who intimated that the ACX was constricted in her ability to maneuver...

That said, the Fitz -SHOULD- have reacted to the CBDR regardless of the COLREGS

Why she didn't is the question.

'Intimate' eh?  You should go back, read and attempt to comprehend what I actually said rather than make shit up to fit your narrative.  Far too many people are trying to defend the indefensible.  Like how an Aegis managed to get herself t-boned by a lumbering merchant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gunni said:

'Intimate' eh?  You should go back, read and attempt to comprehend what I actually said rather than make shit up to fit your narrative.  Far too many people are trying to defend the indefensible.  Like how an Aegis managed to get herself t-boned by a lumbering merchant. 

I am going to give you the usual greeting for n00bs - Fuck Off and Show Us Some Tits, except in your case you can skip the second half and not come back until you take some reading classes or otherwise learn how to read and comprehend the English language, which is what we use here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idiots to the left, idiots to the right...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I am going to give you the usual greeting for n00bs - Fuck Off and Show Us Some Tits, except in your case you can skip the second half and not come back until you take some reading classes or otherwise learn how to read and comprehend the English language, which is what we use here.

Think Gunni may be in USNA Prep School perhaps?

Watched too much of "The Last Ship"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gunni said:

'Intimate' eh?  You should go back, read and attempt to comprehend what I actually said rather than make shit up to fit your narrative.  Far too many people are trying to defend the indefensible.  Like how an Aegis managed to get herself t-boned by a lumbering merchant. 

You dont see me defending the actions of the Fitz...

Been a hard critic of the USN in other venues for some time now.

The folks on watch fucked up bad...

Seven shipmates dead and 10's of million dollars bad.

No doubt they are good people...

So. Why???

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, sidmon said:

 

So. Why???

 

Indeed!  This is really what enquiring minds want to know....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, sidmon said:

You dont see me defending the actions of the Fitz...

Been a hard critic of the USN in other venues for some time now.

The folks on watch fucked up bad...

Seven shipmates dead and 10's of million dollars bad.

No doubt they are good people...

So. Why???

 

Not everyone is good. Bound to be a few worthless fuckwads like Gunni on any boat. Skips job is to figure out who, and make sure they're never placed in a critical position of trust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2017 at 2:28 PM, sidmon said:

The USN has drifted away from its core basics for over a decade now...

Too busy involved with SAPR training and other similar stupid bullshit.

It was really bad during the Carter years (I was there for that)...But its been ridiculously stupid in the Obama years with Mabus as SECNAV.

 

https://m.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2016-10/deckplates-readiness-warfighting-must-drive-navy

 

 

Sat through my fair share of SAPR training and understand you can make a case about diversion from core but it seems a stretch to blame SAPR training for a possible trend of increased collisions.

Not even sure it's increased.

But it does need to be decreased!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Wess said:

Sat through my fair share of SAPR training and understand you can make a case about diversion from core but it seems a stretch to blame SAPR training for a possible trend of increased collisions.

Not even sure it's increased.

But it does need to be decreased!

In no particular order...

San Francisco, Greenville, John Paul Jones, Guardian. Port Royal, Porter...

Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. And each was a case of lost fundamentals in Seamanship.

I will argue that given the many fewer ships in the fleet since the 90's, the rate of accidents per hours underway is up.

This tells you all you need to know about where the USN places Seamanship in its priorities...

 

http://www.pilotmag.co.uk/2012/03/16/pilot-ladders-an-old-rust-bucket/

Pilot-Ladder-USS-Howard1.jpg

 

And here is what the then CO of the Howard thought was important...

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2012/01/diversity-thursday.html

andescrew.jpg

Pandering to a batch of frustrated women more worried about their goddamned pussies than "steaming" and fighting their ship...

There. I said it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mate we can agree that readiness and seamanship is on the decline, but you can't ascribe it to something you don't like just because it is new to you. 

 

What's troubling the Navy? Institutionally it failed to invest in personnel and there's a generation where skills and training didn't get pass from retiring wise pros to the next generation. We can trace it back wayyyy to the 1990s. It didn't happen overnight. 

Also we've been continuously at war for the longest time in the nation's history without any real modification to gov policies and we still behave as if we're in peace time. 

Republicans and Democrats have shit in Congress with GOP wanting to cut the budget to the point where the DOD ends up paying more in penalties and higher logistics, Democrats wanting to reduce deployable resources and acquisitions costs because everything is a fucking continuation bill and no long term programs can be run that way. 

 

Ships are not being maintained properly at dock, in drydocks or at sea. Why? Not enough money and too high operational cadence. 

 

Compared to the USAF - the Navy is funded like it is the unwanted stepchild. Navy maintains our best highest readiness in nuclear deterrence, but the AF gets to play with silly nuclear silos crewed by fuckers you wouldn't trust pumping gasoline. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, sidmon said:

Pandering to a batch of frustrated women more worried about their goddamned pussies than "steaming" and fighting their ship...

More interested in trading state secrets and state treasure for hookers and bling than running their ships? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Leonard_scandal

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines)

I suspect these are symptoms rather than causes of decay but surely this is PA fodder. More interesting to me is how and why the collision came about in a specific and immediate sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Miffy said:

Mate we can agree that readiness and seamanship is on the decline, but you can't ascribe it to something you don't like just because it is new to you. 

 

None of this is "new" to me Miffy. I was around to see the first women inducted into operational roles. For instance, was living in Pensacola (as a navy brat) when the first women were trained up as Naval Aviators. Top notch people. Met a couple at the sailing facility, and they were damned good sailors too.

Was also around to see the first women go to sea aboard the tenders and other auxiliaries. The 60-70 percent pregnancy rates just before deployment. The spectacular fights when those ships let their folks go on liberty and the drama because of spurned love bubbled over.

 

That was then. But the last 8 years has seen all the services, and the USN in particular since its been the least tasked with actual warfighting, treated as a fetid sociological petri dishes.

Perhaps your service does not span back to a time when Mission was more important than Genitalia.

 

38 minutes ago, Miffy said:

What's troubling the Navy? Institutionally it failed to invest in personnel and there's a generation where skills and training didn't get pass from retiring wise pros to the next generation. We can trace it back wayyyy to the 1990s. It didn't happen overnight. 

Also we've been continuously at war for the longest time in the nation's history without any real modification to gov policies and we still behave as if we're in peace time. 

 

Agree. And with the exception of Naval Aviation and the SEALS, the USN has been mostly irrelevant in the conflicts of the last decade and a half.

 

38 minutes ago, Miffy said:

 

Ships are not being maintained properly at dock, in drydocks or at sea. Why? Not enough money and too high operational cadence. 

 

Compared to the USAF - the Navy is funded like it is the unwanted stepchild. Navy maintains our best highest readiness in nuclear deterrence, but the AF gets to play with silly nuclear silos crewed by fuckers you wouldn't trust pumping gasoline. 

Take a look at the waterline of the Howard. What fleet there is looks like a bunch of nasty Chinese fishing trawlers. The USN stopped taking care of its ships and aircraft years ago. Now its all about contractors while the ships are rotting away before their time.

And shall we tally up the number of Flags(more Admirals than ships these days...) who spent -and are spending- their years in supposed leadership lining up cozy Executive jobs at LockMart and General Dynamics.

What a sorry ass venal bunch they are.

No leadership. Buffeted by faddish psychological theories, and straight up bigoted "Diversity" bullshit (oh yeah...I am bona fide "Black" btw...). And robbed blind by a whole Corporate network of Daddy Warbucks...

No wonder the USN regularly fucks up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy.  So far the collective wisdom of SA has the root cause as either SAPR training, terrorist with a big EMP, the lack of AIS to broadcast navy positions (and/or lights out), and a few pages back the answer to all ills was given was AI.  Oh boy...  I can see now why commercial shipping never hits anything?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looks like the US navy has learnt nothing since the RAN( aussie) Melbourne cut one of theirs in half in a similar event.

They just dont put any focus on shipping/nav its all war based hence you can end up with crew on the bridge that can dodge a missile but not another vessel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wess said:

Oh boy.  So far the collective wisdom of SA has the root cause as either SAPR training, terrorist with a big EMP, the lack of AIS to broadcast navy positions (and/or lights out), and a few pages back the answer to all ills was given was AI.  Oh boy...  I can see now why commercial shipping never hits anything?!

If you don't see the focus on non-seagoing/non-warfighting crap such as SAPR....or more correctly the culture that makes such things a priority...having such a corrosive effect on the USN's proficiency to sail its ships and fight them...

Then you have your head well up in your ass ...."Mate."

More circumspect perspectives:

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2016-10/deckplates-readiness-warfighting-must-drive-navy

 

http://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2017/07/25/mattis-get-unnecessary-training-off-warfighters-backs/

 

https://www.stripes.com/news/mattis-targets-mandatory-training-in-effort-to-become-more-lethal-1.479980#.WXtFWYjyvIU

 

http://nextnavy.com/another-mishap-the-wreck-of-the-uss-fitzgerald/

 

The Fitz is still holed by a freighter. Join in and cheer the crew that got the Fitzgerald back to port, weep for the dead and share the sadness as responsible parties aboard–and likely often good people–are identified and punished for what could have been a momentary lapse, or a simple mistake or a wholesale failure of the crew or..anything.

But don’t stop there. Don’t stop with the board investigation findings.

We owe it to those lost to take a hard and unsparing look at the institution.

If sailors and officers are contributing to preventable accidents….if Navy personnel are failing each other by neglecting what they perceive as nitnoid rules, regs and practices, then the system has a problem that needs fixing.

Stamping out any of this sort of rot that exists (if it does) might be a good challenge for a future SECNAV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not your mate but I emphatically agree every single word of the Hooper piece. If you read back a bit I essentially said the same thing here repeatedly and most recently in #858.

However throwing in a SAPR rant takes away from that and you might note that you are the only one beating bushes down that path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Wess said:

Not your mate but I emphatically agree every single word of the Hooper piece. If you read back a bit I essentially said the same thing here repeatedly and most recently in #858.

However throwing in a SAPR rant takes away from that and you might note that you are the only one beating bushes down that path.

 

Wrong answer Wess...

Plenty of folks at the deckplate level see the focus on tangential social issues as a problem.

Best news is SECDEF Mattis does...if you had bothered to open the other links you would 've read it...but let me make it easy for you.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has ordered a Pentagon review of the mandatory training and administrative requirements his troops face each year that cut into time that they could be spending to prepare for combat.

Mattis, a former Marine general who commanded troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, ordered the formation of a group to study policies – including a wide range of mandatory training programs – that could be adjusted to free up servicemembers to focus more of their time “on the art and science of warfighting,” according to a memo that he sent Friday to top military service and combat command officials.

The idea is to scale back “mandatory force training that does not directly support core tasks” to “provide the military departments increased flexibility to organize, train and equip more ready and lethal forces,” Mattis wrote.

The group conducting the review is to be led by the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness alongside the vice chiefs of each service. Anthony M. Kurta is performing those undersecretary duties now, as President Donald Trump’s pick for the position, Robert Wilkie, has not yet been confirmed by the Senate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow Sidmon! You really are an angry old grandpa. A true fossil. You must be a hit with the ladies too!  Just glad you are in no position to influence future leadership...dry docked on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is this an either/or?  

Can't one learn about the human-relations stuff and still have sufficient sharpness of lookout and situational awareness to recognize a large ship with a small CPA on you?  Heck, your ARPA radar will do that for you.

We still (I think) have to learn Fitz's courses and speeds into collision to confirm whether this was a crossing, an overtaking, or (doubtful) some kind of special circumstance a la Rule 2.  Then all us armchair Admirals will have an easier time of it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Wess said:

We will have to agree to disagree. 

Disagree with Mattis all you want...

Time for the Mabus years in the Navy to end.

The period is a wound that will leave a scar.

Moving on....

The USN should bring some YP's to NTC Great Lakes and set up a summer Seamanship school. Great place to experience a range of conditions and do some realistic voyage planning. Could be initial SWO training, and C School training for OS's/QM's.

Tooling around Narraganset Bay does diddly. 

And why doesn't the USN  enter a boat in the Mac Races?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, nolatom said:

Why is this an either/or?  

Can't one learn about the human-relations stuff and still have sufficient sharpness of lookout and situational awareness to recognize a large ship with a small CPA on you?  Heck, your ARPA radar will do that for you.

We still (I think) have to learn Fitz's courses and speeds into collision to confirm whether this was a crossing, an overtaking, or (doubtful) some kind of special circumstance a la Rule 2.  Then all us armchair Admirals will have an easier time of it.

 

What we do know is there was a total lack of alarm aboard the Fitz about the threat of collision. Otherwise, the Captain would not have been in his cabin.

ARPA radar may ...or more succinctly the over-reliance/or misuse of ARPA... may have contributed to the lack of awareness.

I will unequivocally say CIC failed to adequately do its part to avoid this collision.

Quote

Wow Sidmon! You really are an angry old grandpa. A true fossil. You must be a hit with the ladies too!  Just glad you are in no position to influence future leadership...dry docked on this forum.

1. Sorry for your butt hurt. Actually, no I'm not.

2. The girls think I am still cute

3. Plenty of folks still on active duty have been saying what I have. Tells me you haven't been there if you don't know that.

http://www.duffelblog.com/2017/01/entire-navy-overjoyed-to-be-led-by-army-officer-instead-of-ray-mabus/

4. Can you do a basic moboard solution....Sonny?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are Navy bridge watch officers discouraged from using "their" radar on the bridge, in favor of asking CIC to do the plot and give them the info?   If so it would seem like a diffusion of responsibility, maybe too many bodies on or near the bridge, while merchant ships are criticized for having too few.  Yet there's practical value on having one person who sees both visually and electronically--i e the Filipino Mate or master on CRYSTAL who apparently did see and "realize" FITZ as a target of concern earlier than did Fitz realize the same about Crystal.

I can see the necessity for combat situations.  But it could be a "not my job" risk for ordinary meatball navigation/watchstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, nolatom said:

Are Navy bridge watch officers discouraged from using "their" radar on the bridge, in favor of asking CIC to do the plot and give them the info?   If so it would seem like a diffusion of responsibility, maybe too many bodies on or near the bridge, while merchant ships are criticized for having too few.  Yet there's practical value on having one person who sees both visually and electronically--i e the Filipino Mate or master on CRYSTAL who apparently did see and "realize" FITZ as a target of concern earlier than did Fitz realize the same about Crystal.

I can see the necessity for combat situations.  But it could be a "not my job" risk for ordinary meatball navigation/watchstanding.

The bridge and CIC have always been encouraged to keep independent plots and compare. As I said when I brought up the Belknap, sure looks like that kind of cooperation and communication did not exist on the Fitz. 

The Fitz is a WARship. A CBDR "skunk" is CIC's responsibility. And its everyone's responsibility to see the potential for a collision and act accordingly.

Quote

I can see the necessity for combat situations.  But it could be a "not my job" risk for ordinary meatball navigation/watchstanding.

It appears that the Fitz was not in any kind of alerted posture. Surmising here but looks like there was no TAO on watch for instance. Anyway, CIC's keep -THE- surface picture. My bet is they were letting "the box" do it and never saw the course change of the ACX.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah...

Just realized something...

The Fitz is one of the "BMD" ships:

https://missilethreat.csis.org/system/aegis/

She may well have been where she was due to the specifics of engagement geometry of NORK missiles.

May go a very long way too in explaining why CIC was notably silent in the whole accident.

And why the USN is being cagey about why she was there with nobody looking out the windows.

But thats no excuse. Big lesson learned, and if I'm right stupidly forgotten, about the Belknap case was the really cool missile ship had to steam and navigate. That was not the culture in either the Kennedy's or Belknap's CIC's. Both basically blew off the surface picture as they were engaged in a WAS (war at sea) exercise at the time, and the results were not good. Will mention again I knew someone who was there...

Time to relearn it NAVY:

ALWAYS KEEP A SURFACE PICTURE.

Again, if my theory is correct, then it buttresses my case that seamanship fundamentals have not been a priority regardless of the spate of incidents and accidents over the last decade.

This is the second (Quite Expensive) BMD boat the USN has managed to fuck up in recent years. The other was the Port Royal. 

She could nail a  target the size of a basketball in the exo-atmosphere, but could not manage to stay off the reef just outside the channel to her home port on a pretty afternoon...

Basics People...Basics:

port-royal-20090209_news_navy1.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, sidmon said:

In no particular order...

San Francisco, Greenville, John Paul Jones, Guardian. Port Royal, Porter...

Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. And each was a case of lost fundamentals in Seamanship.

I will argue that given the many fewer ships in the fleet since the 90's, the rate of accidents per hours underway is up.

This tells you all you need to know about where the USN places Seamanship in its priorities...

 

http://www.pilotmag.co.uk/2012/03/16/pilot-ladders-an-old-rust-bucket/

Pilot-Ladder-USS-Howard1.jpg

 

And here is what the then CO of the Howard thought was important...

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2012/01/diversity-thursday.html

andescrew.jpg

Pandering to a batch of frustrated women more worried about their goddamned pussies than "steaming" and fighting their ship...

There. I said it.

 

Lack of respect doesn't lead to good teamwork. If there are actually widespread bad feelings about the women having a chat I can't imagine how the crew could possibly work together.

Here in North Brittany, there is a company which systematically makes sure that there is at least one woman on board their offshore trawlers (often the radio). This is probably the hardest work you can think of, they go fishing cod in cold and stormy waters.The reason they give is that men behave better and there are less issues when there is at least a woman on board!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

Lack of respect doesn't lead to good teamwork. If there are actually widespread bad feelings about the women having a chat I can't imagine how the crew could possibly work together.

Here in North Brittany, there is a company which systematically makes sure that there is at least one woman on board their offshore trawlers (often the radio). This is probably the hardest work you can think of, they go fishing cod in cold and stormy waters.The reason they give is that men behave better and there are less issues when there is at least a woman on board!

"Having a chat"  instead of focusing on being competent sailors who can wage a war at sea ...

Way.Way. too much of that in recent years. Often under the ruse of some contrived bullshit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sidmon said:

"Having a chat"  instead of focusing on being competent sailors who can wage a war at sea ...

Way.Way. too much of that in recent years. Often under the ruse of some contrived bullshit.

 

You can have the most competent sailors on board, if they aren't working together it ain't going to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

The navy might not have been able to do it but doesn't mean that it can't be done... lot of organisations manage to do it.

Fad theories in search of a problem to solve...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, sidmon said:

Fad theories in search of a problem to solve...

I know nothing about the US navy, but looking from far away and from this blog you are quoting, it doesn't look very impressive. Across the pond you give the impression of an organisation that is misogynistic and incompetent. I suspect that it is a false impression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Panoramix said:

I know nothing about the US navy, but looking from far away and from this blog you are quoting, it doesn't look very impressive. Across the pond you give the impression of an organisation that is misogynistic and incompetent. I suspect that it is a false impression.

Sorry Panoramix...not picking a fight with you...but really dont know anything about the USN.

In particular you are not seeing the context of social experimentation foisted on the Service.

Whats false is your perception that the USN is hard core misogynistic like the bad old days of the Tailhook era (really wasnt as as as branded...but thats another story).

Today, it is almost entirely emasculated, and as a Naval Service has strayed far from what its purpose is.

Will maintain ...again... a major underlying cause of the Fitz collision which resulted in the loss of a critical asset (Ballistic Missile Defense) when it is desperately needed is the toxic culture of purported "Diversity" getting in the way of battleminded mission readiness.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sidmon makes a valuable observation.  BMD ships also tasked to collect intel and in that neighborhood area these days you might imagine EMCON set with space ears up might be the order of the day.  Might be a reason for the baffling lack of a radar track on ACX.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, sidmon said:

 

Will maintain ...again... a major underlying cause of the Fitz collision which resulted in the loss of a critical asset (Ballistic Missile Defense) when it is desperately needed is the toxic culture of purported "Diversity" getting in the way of battleminded mission readiness.

What makes you think that it is one or the other?

My only navy experience is doing my national service on a French minehunter. Navy ships are all very well manned (and I imagine it is the same for US navy), there are more people than on merchant ships. IMHO there is absolutely no excuse to hit something. At worst, there were 3 of us at the bridge with clear visibility all around and a radar plus the CIC giving us CPAs of all moving objects around us. Even assuming that the CIC was overloaded (never seen this even when minesweeping), there are windows to look around and a radar, I just can't see why women can't do this job, you just have to pay attention. I suspect this is one of your pet hates and whenever something goes wrong you just say "told you so!"

Every year there are sailing races across the English channel, most boats are crewed by amateurs, they cross one of the busiest shipping lane under sail and they don't hit freighters. It is also much harder than from the bridge of a grey ship, no CIC to plot CPAs, when going upwind bad visibility to leeward, inability to fine tune speed, no Radar for most of them and in breezy situations everybody is sitting on the rail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

What makes you think that it is one or the other?

My only navy experience is doing my national service on a French minehunter. Navy ships are all very well manned (and I imagine it is the same for US navy), there are more people than on merchant ships. IMHO there is absolutely no excuse to hit something. At worst, there were 3 of us at the bridge with clear visibility all around and a radar plus the CIC giving us CPAs of all moving objects around us. Even assuming that the CIC was overloaded (never seen this even when minesweeping), there are windows to look around and a radar, I just can't see why women can't do this job, you just have to pay attention. I suspect this is one of your pet hates and whenever something goes wrong you just say "told you so!"

Every year there are sailing races across the English channel, most boats are crewed by amateurs, they cross one of the busiest shipping lane under sail and they don't hit freighters. It is also much harder than from the bridge of a grey ship, no CIC to plot CPAs, when going upwind bad visibility to leeward, inability to fine tune speed, no Radar for most of them and in breezy situations everybody is sitting on the rail.

1. Because it has been made an either or at ths expense of training in areas like...Seamanship. I know you are not from the US, but the Secretary of Defense has ordered a review of such "non-core" training across the Services. 

Mad Dog Mattis gets it.

2. Panoramix, nowhere anywhere, have I stated that women cant do the job. Go back to my post about meeting the first women Naval Aviators. Had nothing but respect for those women....And today I work for a woman who is top notch in the biz and glad she is my boss.

I have no idea of the gender of the OOD JOOD OPS Department Head CICWO or CIC watch supe are. Doesn't matter. They allowed their ship to be gravely damaged.

And much of the reason is beacause they got dropped under the bus by a Command Climate which puts advancing social agendas ahead of the things like Seamanship. It is the hold that Radical Feminism has on the USN which crowds out what really should be the overarching priority: Mission Readiness. And for the last 8 years, if you wanted to keep your job, you just had to STFU and pretend a 2 hour seminar on "Work/LifeBalance" is more important than gaming through some shipping situations and digging into the COLREGS.

The "command climate" aboard the Howard when that ladder was rigged is a shining example of how far such core skills such as seamanship get pushed aside to advance a frankly contrived social agenda.

3. Operated several times in the English Channel doing war stuff as a CIC watch supervisor....

I ....ALWAYS.... made sure we had a good surface picture.

And sailboats are a bitch to see on radar...Which is why I talk to a commercial ship who has a 1/2 mile CPA during the day and 1nm at night or less...Every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, sidmon said:

Fad theories in search of a problem to solve...

As a civilian we get plenty of news on the military's skill at sexual assault.    That's kind of a no no in the civilian world but he military appears to model itself after the Catholic Church.   Some remedial training really is necessary.   Civilians can be taught workplace respect and also their jobs.    Perhaps the military can avoid large commercial ships, and also not rape each other.   I'm including men on men.  My perception may not be unique.    Expensive littoral combat ships that don't work, rail guns too expensive and unreliable to use, sexual assault and the occasional collision or vessel lost by capture.   Was a fine fighting force back in the day, but now used to lob missiles from a safe distance.    Clearly navy damage control is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lark said:

As a civilian we get plenty of news on the military's skill at sexual assault.    That's kind of a no no in the civilian world but he military appears to model itself after the Catholic Church.   Perhaps some remedial training really is necessary.   Civilians can be taught workplace respect and also their jobs.    Perhaps the military can avoid large commercial ships, and also not rape each other.   I'm including men on men.  My perception may not be unique.    Expensive littoral combat ships that don't work, rail guns too expensive and unreliable to use, sexual assault and the occasional collision or vessel lost by capture.   Was a fine fighting force back in the day, but now used to lob missiles from a safe distance.    Clearly navy damage control is good.

Check out the provenance of the stats you are being fed....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sidmon said:

Check out the provenance of the stats you are being fed....

Not everything on the news is fake.   Many of the failings are also reported in the Navy Times.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Lark said:

Not everything on the news is fake.   Many of the failings are also reported in the Navy Times.   

When it comes to sexual assault in the military: Lies Damned Lies Statistics.

Firmly controlled by this crowd:

Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS)

Dont have the time right now, but check out the details of the folks running the place.

Radical Feminist Central

Frankly, they are the kind of "activists" who will always come up with the numbers to suit their agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless...went back to the Port Royal and Arleigh Burke..both at the entrances to their home ports...both BMD ships.

And in both cases input from CIC was nonexistent.

Does this occur on BMD boats as a matter of course?

Or simply three coincedences?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to get too PA here, but let us say the Navy is not the only victim. Where I work at XXX, we are very short of people, have more work than we can get done if everything goes perfectly, and then we get hit with the bullshit mandatory training of the week/month and you might miss every critical path deadline there is, but you had better not be late on the training:rolleyes: (*which has 0 to do with your job)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, this thread has taken a few twists and turns. I'm learning a lot but struggling to keep up. Let me see if I've got this right.

They give you a few 100 million dollars of equipment and a few years of training with a goal to be able to identify fast moving threats from perhaps 100nm away and engage and destroy them if necessary.

But because they won't let you be real men, you're unable to avoid a lumbering container ship that is navigating in a traffic separation scheme?

Did I get that straight? Is that your argument?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blame it on the trannies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Moonduster said:

Wow, this thread has taken a few twists and turns. I'm learning a lot but struggling to keep up. Let me see if I've got this right.

They give you a few 100 million dollars of equipment and a few years of training with a goal to be able to identify fast moving threats from perhaps 100nm away and engage and destroy them if necessary.

But because they won't let you be real men, you're unable to avoid a lumbering container ship that is navigating in a traffic separation scheme?

Did I get that straight? Is that your argument?

 

Obama did it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

 you might miss every critical path deadline there is, but you had better not be late on the training:rolleyes: (*which has 0 to do with your job)

I knew I wasn't ever going to be an executive when I had this discussion:

"So, this not very valuable admin you want me to do, is it top priority? Is it more important than these projects"

    "No, of course not"

"Fair enough, I'll maybe get round to it in a couple of months then"

    "Oh no, its got to be done"

At this point I gave up before my head exploded...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still trying to understand how a modern destroyer gets run over by a 900' container ship on a clear night. Called a BMD ship, i was afraid that was some new acronym like LGBT that I don't quite get. It's a relief to learn that we can blame Obama for poor watchkeeping, especially now that we have a CIC who is all about personal responsibility and accountability. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, sidmon said:

Regardless...went back to the Port Royal and Arleigh Burke..both at the entrances to their home ports...both BMD ships.

And in both cases input from CIC was nonexistent.

Does this occur on BMD boats as a matter of course?

Or simply three coincedences?

Burke wasn't a BMD shooter at the time, that capability was added several years later.  Both Port Royal and Burke had the same root causes: failure to look out the window, loss of SA, and incorrect nav system setup.  GPS-fed nav display said the ships were someplace else, and the bridge crews (and CIC, on Burke) relied on a single source of nav data without crosschecking.

In Burke's case, those missed crosschecks included the simple "read the number on the buoy you just passed."

No, I wasn't there at the time.  I got to that ship about two years later, but made it a point to know the details.  One of my standard OOD board questions was "where was Burke's illegal parking spot, and how did they get there?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Moonduster said:

Wow, this thread has taken a few twists and turns. I'm learning a lot but struggling to keep up. Let me see if I've got this right.

They give you a few 100 million dollars of equipment and a few years of training with a goal to be able to identify fast moving threats from perhaps 100nm away and engage and destroy them if necessary.

But because they won't let you be real men, you're unable to avoid a lumbering container ship that is navigating in a traffic separation scheme?

Did I get that straight? Is that your argument?

 

 

22 minutes ago, BrianM v2 said:

Burke wasn't a BMD shooter at the time, that capability was added several years later.  Both Port Royal and Burke had the same root causes: failure to look out the window, loss of SA, and incorrect nav system setup.  GPS-fed nav display said the ships were someplace else, and the bridge crews (and CIC, on Burke) relied on a single source of nav data without crosschecking.

In Burke's case, those missed crosschecks included the simple "read the number on the buoy you just passed."

No, I wasn't there at the time.  I got to that ship about two years later, but made it a point to know the details.  One of my standard OOD board questions was "where was Burke's illegal parking spot, and how did they get there?"

Damn all you guys with your logic and facts. This is the land of idiots and dinosaurs. Next up another literal and incorrect reading of COLREGS that will not survive Admiralty court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Moonduster said:

Wow, this thread has taken a few twists and turns. I'm learning a lot but struggling to keep up. Let me see if I've got this right.

They give you a few 100 million dollars of equipment and a few years of training with a goal to be able to identify fast moving threats from perhaps 100nm away and engage and destroy them if necessary.

But because they won't let you be real men, you're unable to avoid a lumbering container ship that is navigating in a traffic separation scheme?

Did I get that straight? Is that your argument?

 

No. That is not my argument.

The Navy isnt producing "real" Sailors ... of any gender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BrianM v2 said:

Burke wasn't a BMD shooter at the time, that capability was added several years later.  Both Port Royal and Burke had the same root causes: failure to look out the window, loss of SA, and incorrect nav system setup.  GPS-fed nav display said the ships were someplace else, and the bridge crews (and CIC, on Burke) relied on a single source of nav data without crosschecking.

In Burke's case, those missed crosschecks included the simple "read the number on the buoy you just passed."

No, I wasn't there at the time.  I got to that ship about two years later, but made it a point to know the details.  One of my standard OOD board questions was "where was Burke's illegal parking spot, and how did they get there?"

Thanks. Thought that was you.

BZ on navigating your way through the extraneous bullshit with a pretty decent set of priorities.

Reminiscent if the days the Brownshoes  had to choke down the Johnson /McNamara way to fight an air war.

Guess CIC's dont do radar fixes (electronic way of looking out the window)any more?

Do they even participate in maneuvering and navigation?

Is everyone relying in ARPA for detection and CPA? 

If not...These are archaic "non-transformational" concepts that need to come back.

As for the argument I am presenting here ... in typical SA decorum ... probably isnt something you are going to touch, there is no doubt too many in your biz are worried about a bunch of bullshit that only gets in the way of sailors' competence and unit cohesion and the ability of the USN to fight and win wars.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bruno said:

I'm still trying to understand how a modern destroyer gets run over by a 900' container ship on a clear night. Called a BMD ship, i was afraid that was some new acronym like LGBT that I don't quite get. It's a relief to learn that we can blame Obama for poor watchkeeping, especially now that we have a CIC who is all about personal responsibility and accountability. 

Blame Mabus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, sidmon said:

Blame Mabus.

Mabo?  What do the Australians have to do with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

:lol:

BZ Cheers,

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Priorities...

http://www.navytimes.com/news/your-military/2017/07/25/mattis-get-unnecessary-training-off-warfighters-backs/

 

WASHINGTON – Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has ordered a review of all the administrative and training requirements that prevent trigger pullers and pilots alike from focusing on warfighting.

In the memo obtained by Military Times, Mattis on Friday directed the services, the National Guard Bureau and the combatant commanders to determine what changes are needed to give each branch increased flexibility to organize, train and equip more ready and lethal forces.

 

R 141659Z OCT 11 ZYB
FM COMUSFLTFORCOM NORFOLK VA//N1//
TO ALFLTFORCOM
INFO CNO WASHINGTON DC//N1/N134//
COMUSFLTFORCOM NORFOLK VA//N00/N1//
COMNAVREG MIDLANT NORFOLK VA//N00/N1//
BT
UNCLAS
SECINFO/U/-//
MSGID/GENADMIN/COMUSFLTFORCOM NORFOLK VA//


SUBJ/DIVERSITY TRAINING EVENT//

POC/[redacted], BARBARA/CIV/UNIT:USFF N1CP/NAME:NORFOLK, VA/TEL:757-836-0494/EMAIL:BARBARA.[redacted]@NAVY.MIL//
POC/[redacted], MICHAEL/CIV/UNIT:USFF N1Z/NAME:NORFOLK, VA/TEL:757-836-[redacted]/EMAIL:MICHAEL.BREH@NAVY.MIL//
GENTEXT/REMARKS/1. THIS MESSAGE ANNOUNCES A SPECIAL DIVERSITY TRAINING EVENT SPONSORED BY COMMANDER, U.S. FLEET FORCES COMMAND ON 27 OCT 11 AT DEVARY HALL (BLDG C-9), 9475 BACON AVE, NAVAL STATION NORFOLK.
2. THIS TRAINING SESSION IS INTENDED TO HELP DEFINE DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION, DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS OF DIVERSITY, AND OUTLINE STEPS IN DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING A DIVERSITY PLAN. THE GUEST SPEAKER WILL BE DR. SAMUEL BETANCES, A RENOWNED MOTIVATIONAL SPEAKER AND EXPERT IN DIVERSITY.
3. TWO TRAINING SESSIONS WILL BE PRESENTED AND OPEN TO ALL HANDS:
DATE TIME
27 OCT 11 0830-1130
27 OCT 11 1300-1600
4. TRAINING IS OPEN TO ALL MILITARY AND CIVILIAN PERSONNEL. THE SESSION WILL BE OF SPECIAL INTEREST TO CMEO'S, COMMAND EEO LIAISONS AND SUPERVISORS/MANAGERS. COMMANDING OFFICERS AND COMMAND MASTER CHIEFS ARE ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND.
5. RELEASED BY C. M. [redacted], ASSISTANT DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, FLEET PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT AND ALLOCATION (N1).//
BT
#0002
NNNN

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017-07/restore-lost-art-visual-identification

n a contested body of water surrounded by maritime powers, the bridge crew of an Arleigh Burke -class destroyer sights a ship on the horizon. The contact appears on radar, but there is no correlating information in the Automatic Identification System (AIS). The combat information center (CIC) reports there are no indications of a warship operating nearby, but as the ship draws nearer it becomes obvious this contact is a warship. In this familiar scenario, surface warfare officers (SWOs) know that their next step is to rifle through the pages of Combat Fleets of the World or Jane’s Fighting Ships to attempt to match a small photograph to the ship they see looming on the horizon. CIC watchstanders turn their electro-optical/infrared sensors on the contact for a closer view. If all else fails, the ship’s nautical or otherwise photographic interpretation and examination (SNOOPIE) team—a group of sailors trained to photograph vessels for intelligence purposes—will be called to help identify the target. Eventually the watchstanders will agree on the ship’s likely class and nationality. Often, they are wrong.

SWOs receive no formal training on how to visually identify ships and aircraft. Like flag hoists and Morse code, the fundamental naval skill of identifying ships and aircraft is absent from the SWO training pipeline. Identification training is not a part of the Basic Division Officer Course (BDOC) curriculum, nor is it included in the Advanced Division Officer Course, and there is no personnel qualification system (PQS) item that covers this skill. It has been relegated to tribal knowledge and on-the-job-training, meaning most SWOs are taught little more than how to tell the difference between a “group I” and a “group III” merchant ship.

In the increasingly competitive maritime domain, we expect our adversaries to secure tell-tale emitters, maneuver to blend in with merchant traffic, and take advantage of adverse weather conditions to close us while remaining undetected. In the face of such threats, it is possible that the eyes of a bridge watchstander will be the first sensors to make contact. SWOs must be capable of rapidly identifying foreign naval ships and aircraft. SWOs, for instance, should be able to recognize quickly a Chinese Luyang II-class or a Russian Sovremennyy-class destroyer, and tell them apart from an ANZAC-class frigate. They should be able to distinguish between a South Korean P-3 and a Russian Il-38 May.

Rather than leaving the development of critical identification skills to on-the-job-training, the Navy should learn from the U.S. Army. Army 2nd lieutenants training to become armor officers must complete the Armor Basic Officer Leader Course (ABOLC), an 18-week course that combines classroom instruction with field exercises to give students in-depth, practical training. Officers in the course are required to identify more than 200 friendly and adversary vehicles and tanks by name, sight, and thermal image. If an officer misidentifies even a single U.S. vehicle, he or she must retake the exam.

Ship and aircraft identification, like vehicle recognition in the Army, should be taught in the training pipeline for Navy junior officers. It is a skill that can be taught without the context of experience on a ship, meaning that it could easily be incorporated into the BDOC curriculum. Newly commissioned officers who have not yet reported to their ships often struggle to understand more arcane topics, like maintenance and material management or the composite warfare concept, when they are presented in a classroom environment out of context. Why not replace one of those lessons—which are amply covered by SWO PQS—with a lesson on ship and aircraft recognition? Even the World War II-era method of issuing “spotter” cards, depicting images or silhouettes of various foreign and U.S. ships and aircraft, would make an effective training tool, and one that could be developed into a smartphone app.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly I need to get out more, but did they completely naff up the redactions in that memo? They redact one 'phone number, but leave the other intact. They redact both surnames from the start of the line, but leave one email intact, from which it is not too tricky to infer a surname. Very odd really.

 

p.s. speaking of Morse, looks like the iPad's the future for that skill: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/19/us_navy_morse_code_fix/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, nolatom said:

Here from an industry publication, "possible scenarios".  I make no comment, but don't let that stop you:

http://maritime-executive.com/editorials/a-possible-scenario-for-the-uss-fitzgerald-collision

Second time now keep hearing about CIC losing a ship on radar due to proximity.  Recall this also in the Porter; that CIC did not have paint on the ship that hit them.

How is that possible, does Navy not track AIS targets?  Both ships in Porter and Fitz collisions were AIS broadcasting so how can CIC (or bridge team) lose them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know how the NAVY Radar(s) work, but from using personal: 

Regarding losing contact due to proximity, if the range were set to "long", the near (quicker return) signals may have been blanked, or lost in center clutter. 

On a 200 mile scale a 2 mile target could be ignored. 

AIS alarms are irritating enough in confined waters that we turn ours off in the Estuary, as otherwise they would be constantly alarming. Can imagine a similar choice. 

Tools are only useful if they are being used. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I was not clear.  I get that close in targets can be lost on radar in various ways.  I thought there was protocol for tracking those closer in targets that radar could/would lose involving gun cameras, lookouts, and AIS, so just trying to understand how a target could be completely lost... not just lost to radar. They had to have known it was there at some earlier stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You all are talking about Main Bang Suppression, which on any radar I have used, is not big enough to hide a full sized ship. Maybe if the range is up to 100 miles or something????

http://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/Minimal Measuring Range.en.html

You have to have the radar receiver off with conventional radar when it is transmitting. so anything close enough to have reflected a signal back to the ship while the radar pulse is still going out will not be visible. For an entire ship to hide like this, assuming the main bang was that big, it needs to sneak right up while no one notices :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arleigh Burkes have multiple radar - the primary high powered system AN/SPY-1 (subsequent variants I'm sure are improved) have four fixed arrays that provide overlap. IOW there's inherently a gap but the gaps disappears at a certain range. Cannot speculate as to whether the freighter happened to be in the gap, but past systems had difficulty dealing with high clutter. We're talking about a high powered system with a range of ~100nm designed to track warships, aircraft and projectiles alike.

Not for navigation.

That's why there are multiple surface search systems. 

Can't tell you if anyone was paying attention to them. Or if they were operating. Perhaps someone forgot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea if any Navy ship uses Doppler radar, but there have been collisions with military airplanes because their Doppler radar declutters by rejecting what they think is useless or erroneous relative velocities that are assumed to be too low to be an aircraft. Well if the two airplanes are flying at the just the "right" speed and bearing, the traffic disappears :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if they lose the target on the radar, people at the bridge should notice something. For these kind of accidents to happen, several people need to drop the ball. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I have no idea if any Navy ship uses Doppler radar, but there have been collisions with military airplanes because their Doppler radar declutters by rejecting what they think is useless or erroneous relative velocities that are assumed to be too low to be an aircraft. Well if the two airplanes are flying at the just the "right" speed and bearing, the traffic disappears :o

For the layperson, Doppler is the frequency change from a moving target. The classic example is sitting at a train crossing and hearing the pitch change of the train's whistle as it approaches and recedes.  It is the basis of all police radars.  Aircraft use Doppler radar, SAR is based on it (my specialty), ships do not because it doesn't make sense.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LionessRacing said:

Don't know how the NAVY Radar(s) work, but from using personal: 

Regarding losing contact due to proximity, if the range were set to "long", the near (quicker return) signals may have been blanked, or lost in center clutter. 

On a 200 mile scale a 2 mile target could be ignored. 

AIS alarms are irritating enough in confined waters that we turn ours off in the Estuary, as otherwise they would be constantly alarming. Can imagine a similar choice. 

Tools are only useful if they are being used. 

 

IMG_1792.JPG

AN/SPS-67(V) RADAR SET

 
Description
The AN/SPS-67(V) is a search and surveillance radar is designed primarily for use on surface vessels. The radar performs the functions of navigation, station keeping, and general surface search functions. The AN/SPS-67(V)3 and (V)5 variants additionally provide a quick reaction automated target detection and track capability to the MK 34 Gun Weapon System (GWS) in surface engagements, low elevation air engagements and Naval Gunfire Support aboard the DDG-class ships. 

AN/SPS-67(V)1 was installed in the 1980s on BB, FF, LCC, LHD, LHA, LSD, LPD, CV and CVN-class ships. The AN/SPS-67(V)3 was installed beginning in the 1990s on DDG 51-102. It was implemented to provide track data to the GWS via AEGIS Command and Decision (C&D). AN/SPS-67(V)5 installations began in the 4th quarter of FY07 aboard DDG 72-102 and DDG 103-112. The system is currently being installed on DDG 113-118. The AN/SPS-67(V)5 is a Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) Refresh for AN/SPS-67(V)3 Radar, which eliminates all the Synthesizer Expander Modules, replaces the Signal Processor Unit with new Versa Module Eurocard (VME)-based COTS processors and still maintains existing (V)3 requirements and interfaces. 

The AN/SPS-67(V)5 has been tested and qualified to Shock MIL-STD-901D, Vibration MIL-STD-167 and Electromagnetic Interference certification MIL-STD-461D and E. 

The AN/SPS-67(V)5 radar is maintained by the Electronics Technician rating under Navy Enlisted Classification 9615. Tactical operation and monitoring of the radar's AEGIS C&D interface is performed by an Operations Specialist from the ship's Combat Information Center (CIC) console in the Surface Detector Tracker sub-mode, as a collateral duty. There are no watch station requirements for this system. 

AN/SPS-67(V)5 maintenance training is provided in an instructor-guided classroom format using Computer Aided Instruction modules to train and learn equipment operation, testing, fault identification and system troubleshooting. Part-Task Trainers are used to train students in transmitter modulator driver assembly maintenance tasks. Students also use the radar's Interactive Electronic Technical Manual in the classroom. 

The maintenance technician is required to troubleshoot, fault isolate and replace Lowest Replaceable Unit (LRU)-level and, in some instances, even isolate and repair faults at the component level. The Source Maintenance and Recoverability codes in the system's provisioning documentation identify the repair level for each maintenance significant item. Troubleshooting and fault isolation of COTS parts is primarily accomplished by system Built-In-Test (BIT) function. BIT identifies and isolates 95 percent of detected faults to a single LRU in the parts it monitors within the Receiver Processor (RP), and up to a maximum of four LRUs within the Receiver/Transmitter (R/T), Power Distribution Unit (PDU) and Antenna Control Unit (ACU). BIT measures output power, noise figure and Voltage Standing Wave Ratio (VSWR) while the radar is operating without degrading the radar performance.
 
Features
The current AN/SPS-67(V)5 radar is a two-dimensional (azimuth and range) pulsed radar set primarily designed for surface operations with a secondary capability of anti-ship-missile and low flier detection. The radar set operates in the 5450 to 5825 MHz range, using a coaxial magnetron as the transmitter output tube. The R/T is capable of operation in a long (1.0 usec), medium (0.25 usec) or short (0.10 usec) pulse mode to enhance radar performance for specific operational or tactical situations. Pulse Repetition Frequencies of 750, 1200 and 2400 pulses per second are used for the long, medium and short pulse modes, respectively. The antenna can be rotated at two different speeds (15 and 30 Revolutions Per Minute) and the system includes an automatic tracker. The system also operates as the backup Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) antenna. 

The AN/SPS-67(V)5 radar set includes seven (7) major functional elements: Radar Set Control (RSC), R/T, PDU, ACU, Antenna Safety Switch, Antenna, and RP. The radar is used on Flight II and IIA DDGs. All below deck hardware is located in Radar Room #2, which is in a cipher locked room, with the exception of the RSC which is located in CIC, also a cipher locked area. 

The RP processes 60 MHz Intermediate Frequency from the R/T and provides display video and track data output as directed by the operator via the C&D system. The RP provides automatic target detection, centroiding and tracking of targets. It provides track and contact data to C&D for GWS use. The RP also features comprehensive BIT functionality and an Electronic Fault Isolation Tool that allows fault detection and localization down to the LRU-level. The unit is a bulkhead mounted cabinet containing a control panel, multi-voltage power supply, power conditioning and distribution subassemblies and a VME card rack subassembly. 

The RP Control Panel (RPCP) provides radar and BIT controls using a Thin Client that provides a menu driven windowed display interface. Operator inputs are made using a touch-sensitive overlay on the display screen. The RPCP communicates with the Tracker Processor, Centroid Processor and RSC via the internal Local Area Network. The RSC provides the operator controls using a windowed Graphical User Interface (GUI) with a touch screen. Radar operating modes are selected using the touch screen and the associated display menus. Radar status is displayed on the RSC. 

The AN/SPS-67(V)3 and (V)5 radars are compatible with and meet the interface requirements of the AN/SLA-10, IFF equipment, Radar Display and Distribution System, Data Multiplex System (WS-21333), and AEGIS C&D (WS-21343).
 
Background
In 1983 Northrop Grumman Norden Systems commenced production of the AN/SPS-67 radars, producing a total of 126 AN/SPS-67(V)1 radars and 36 AN/SPS-67(V)3 radars. In 1997, procurement of the AN/SPS-67(V)3 Radar was split into two solicitations, one for below deck equipment and one for the above deck antenna group. Both contracts were competitively awarded and the resulting two procurements included fulfillment of all system requirements through FY2001. In the split procurement, the below decks equipment contract, for 26 units, was awarded to DRS Electronic Systems while the Antenna Group contract, for 26 units, was awarded to Electro-Mechanical Systems. 

In FY2003, two follow-on contracts were awarded in support of additional radar system procurements. A Sole-Source contract was awarded to DRS Surveillance Support Systems, Inc. for 12 AN/SPS-67(V)3 below deck units and procurement of 26 AN/SPS-67(V)5 COTS Refresh Kits. The Antenna Group contract was recompeted and awarded to EDO Corporation for 17 antenna units. Congressional Plus-Ups supplemented the program procurement budget through FY04-FY08, bringing the total number of Refresh Kits up to 40. 

The AN/SPS-67(V) program is currently being supported by the DDG-51 Restart effort (DDG 113-118). The Program Office has delivered the last two AN/SPS-67(V)5 systems, finishing production with DDG 117 and DDG 118. The SPS-76(V)5 is being replaced by the AN/SPQ-9B on DDG 119 and up. The AN/SPS-76(V)5 is currently installed on DDG 51 Flight II and IIA-class ships and interfaced with existing shipboard systems. DDG 51 Flight I ships require this upgrade to alleviate obsolescence and to gain the enhanced benefits of the AN/SPS-76(V)5 modernized detection and tracking processing supporting Surface GWS engagements in a littoral environment. An engineering Design Agent contract associated with the continued engineering, maintenance, system enhancements and mitigating obsolescence is currently in place to support AN/SPS-67(V) system life cycle sustainment.
 
Point Of Contact
Naval Sea Systems Command
Office of Corporate Communication
Washington, D.C. 20376
 
General Characteristics
Primary Function: Search and surveillance radar designed primarily for use on surface vessels.
Contractor: DRS C3, Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Unit Cost: $3.16 million
Weight: Above Deck: OE-374/SPS-67(V) - 665 lbs., SA-2230A/SPS-67(V) - 12 lbs.
 
Last Update: 24 January 2017

 

AN/SPS-73(V)12 RADAR SET

 
Description
The Radar Set AN/SPS-73(V)12 is a short-range, two-dimensional, surface search/navigation radar system that provides contact range and bearing information. The AN/SPS-73(V)12 provides for signal processing and automatic target detection capability. The AN/SPS-73(V)12 surface search function provides short-range detection and surveillance of surface units and low-flying air units, while the AN/SPS-73(V)12 navigation function enables quick and accurate determination of own ship position relative to nearby vessels and navigational hazards. The system's radar processors and displays combine Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) products and specialized technologies to create navigational awareness. The AN/SPS-73(V)12 is replacing the AN/SPS-64(V) and AN/SPS-55(V) systems in their capacity as navigational radars on the US Navy Ships. 

The AN/SPS-73(V) Surface Search Radar is a navigation and surveillance system which can be configured for ship or land-based applications. Integrated data from own ship sensors provides the AN/SPS-73(V) operators with a comprehensive view of the maritime environment. The AN/SPS-73(V) system meets or exceeds International Maritime Organization requirements and the Radar Technical Commission for Maritime Services requirements for an Automatic Radar Plotting Aid (ARPA). With implementation of the Technology Refreshment (Tech Refresh) upgrades, the system's configuration can comply with International Electrotechnical Commission 62388 performance requirements. 

Identified shipboard configurations comprise Navigation Radar and Shipborne Dual Radar Systems (NRS and SDRS). A typical NRS architecture is understood to comprise a Furuno 2120 antenna, a safety switch unit, and a Stand-Alone Operator's Position (SAOP). A typical SDRS configuration comprises two Furuno 2120 antennas, two SAOPs, two safety switch units, an Ethernet switch and a junction box, which provide a single feed for raw radar video from both antenna sets. 

The AN/SPS-73(V)12 includes its own display indicator which is capable of displaying AN/SPS-73(V)12 radar or other shipboard radars. Radar video is displayed on consoles to provide a means for the operators to perform manual radar search, and detection and tracking functions. AN/SPS-73(V)12 with Tech Refresh receives National Marine Electronics Association (NMEA) track messages from AN/URN-31 to display Automatic Identification System (AIS) tracks. Radar video from the AN/SPS-67(V) or AN/SPQ-9B radars are provided to the AN/SPS-73(V)12 SAOP console processor in the Pilot House to provide the Officer of the Deck (OOD) an alternate source of navigation data for processing and display. In addition, the AN/SPS-73(V)12 interfaces with the Integrated Bridge System (IBS) to provide navigation interfaces for track incoming threats. 

Legacy AN/SPS-73(V)12 systems utilize Versa Module Europa (VME) architecture and host a VxWorks Operating System (OS), which runs software version 11.7 on a Synergy Microsystem PowerPC single board computer. The Field Change 13 upgrade was designed to mitigate obsolescence by replacing the legacy VME card cage with a Compact Peripheral Component Interconnect architecture, which runs Linux Centos release 5.3 OS on a GE Fanuc Single Board Computer. Ethernet interfaces utilize proprietary Radar Data Service Communication middleware protocols developed by Raytheon. External Ethernet interconnections are routed through an Ethernet switch. 

The AN/SPS-73(V)12 has been tested and qualified to Shock MIL-STD-901D, Vibration MIL-STD-167 and Electromagnetic Interference certification MIL-STD-461D and E. 

The AN/SPS-73(V)12 Radar Set requires no addition to ship's manning, and maintenance is supported by existing billets. Formal Maintenance Training for the Electronics Technician (ET) rating is conducted at Center for Surface Combat Systems (CSCS) Norfolk and CSCS San Diego under Navy Enlisted Classification 1520, which was authorized in a Navy Manpower Analysis Center letter (serial number, 10/0222) dated Aug. 3, 2006. AN/SPS-73(V)12 Radar Operator's Computer-Based Training (CBT) is provided for the Bridge Watch Team (i.e., the OOD, Junior OOD, Quarter Masters, Operations Specialists and ETs at the ship's discretion). The CBT is self-paced which provides Surface Search Radar introduction and five (5) radar operator familiarization modules, including Controls and Indicators, System Start Up/Shut Down, Graphics Functions, Tracking Functions and Navigation Functions. 

Operation and maintenance training is also provided by the Alteration Installation Teams during initial system installations using Technical Training Equipment. Subsequent operator training is provided via CBT. 

The AN/SPS-73(V)12 Radar Set is currently installed onboard approximately 100 ships across CVN, CG, DDG, LHA, LHD, LPD, LSD, LCC, PC and MCM ship classes. 

The AN/SPS-73(V)12 program was placed into Caretaker Status in FY17. The Next Generation Surface Search Radar (NGSSR) is currently in development to replace the AN/SPS-73(V)12 radar.
 
Features
The AN/SPS-73(V) radar has Built-In-Test functionality for improved reliability, capability and maintainability. The AN/SPS-73(V) can track up to 200 targets on a single system or 300 targets on a dual system with speeds up to 210 knots. The AN/SPS-73(V) Radar tracks surface crafts, obstructions, shorelines, buoys and navigational markers in order to assist in navigation, collision avoidance, surface surveillance and limited detection of low flying aircraft. The AN/SPS-73(V) is designed to commercial standards for navigation radars and is in compliance with various electronics interfacing standards (e.g., NMEA 0183). This radar system is a digital system, which outperforms the previous analog AN/SPS-64(V) Radar. The system can be easily integrated with other navigation and information processing systems, such as AIS, Electronic Chart Display Information System-Navy (via IBS) and Navigation Sensor System Interface. The AN/SPS-73(V) system can also be modified to accommodate future interfaces and requirements; the systems' Interface Design Document describes the data, status, and control inputs and outputs of the radar and facilitates integration into other systems. 

The AN/SPS-73(V) is a program of record per Chief of Naval Operations letter (serial number, N865D/7U654045) dated May 2, 1997.
 
Point Of Contact
Naval Sea Systems Command
Office of Corporate Communications
Washington, D.C. 20376
 
General Characteristics
Primary Function: Short-range, two-dimensional, surface-search/navigation radar system that provides contact range and bearing information.
Contractor: Raytheon Portsmouth, Rhode Island (Original Equipment Manufacturer).
Unit Cost: $421,000.
Weight: Above Deck: AS-4472/SPS-73(V) - 18.5 lbs., AS-4473/SPS-73(V) - 21.8 lbs., AB-1399/SPS-73(V) - 63.9 lbs., AB-1399(A)/SPS-73(V) - 68.9 lbs., 7614132. Antenna Safety Switch - 2.0 lbs.
 
Last Update: 24 January 2017
 
 
 
 

Printer Friendly View of Fact Sheet Printer Friendly View of Fact Sheet

Share

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cal20sailor said:

For the layperson, Doppler is the frequency change from a moving target. The classic example is sitting at a train crossing and hearing the pitch change of the train's whistle as it approaches and recedes.  It is the basis of all police radars.  Aircraft use Doppler radar, SAR is based on it (my specialty), ships do not because it doesn't make sense.  

Furuno has decided otherwise:

http://www.panbo.com/archives/2016/08/testing_furuno_drs4d-nxt_solid-state_doppler_radome_radar_redefined_most_definitely.html

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, nolatom said:

Here from an industry publication, "possible scenarios".  I make no comment, but don't let that stop you:

http://maritime-executive.com/editorials/a-possible-scenario-for-the-uss-fitzgerald-collision

Based on his bio the author is certainly knowledgeable and experienced and his surmises seem at least credible (except, to me, the part about putting a "night steaming box" in the middle of shipping lanes), but unless he's seen information that hasn't been released he's completely pulling this stuff out of his ass.

Found this official statement from the Navy Chief of Information, released on 7/21 (the same day that CNN released it's report citing "two unnamed Navy officials" as sources):

“We are in the early stages of the investigation process to develop a comprehensive picture of what caused the collision and do not have any definitive information to release at this time. It is premature to speculate on causation or any other issues. Once we have a detailed understanding of the facts and circumstances, we will share those findings with the Fitzgerald families, our Congressional oversight committees and the general public.”

So that's what we currently know...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can clearly see the SPS-67 and SPS 73 antennas on the Fitz's mainmast after the collision...So that is in fact her surface search radar suite:

85dd49ce8b8d4d3a83d243886365d450_18.jpg

 

Quote

Based on his bio the author is certainly knowledgeable and experienced and his surmises seem at least credible (except, to me, the part about putting a "night steaming box" in the middle of shipping lanes), but unless he's seen information that hasn't been released he's completely pulling this stuff out of his ass.

Not really that uncommon. Take a look at a map, then take a look at the engagement geometry for an SM 3 BLK I. As you say, don't know for sure, but his idea is plausible :

082416-North-Korea-missile.jpg

 

blockiia-footprint5.png?w=600

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, and retention is going to plummet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the people they were retaining were apparently not in critically needed billets ashore anyway. I agree, it will result in losses but I'm not sure it will hurt all that much, at least in the short term. Maybe for the long term a reallocation of those billets will change the Table of Organization for shore establishments. 

What's really needed is to halt the madness of continued overseas commitments in the face of progressive budget cuts forcing our armed services to keep trying to do more and more with less and less. Buying 5th Generation combat aircraft like the F-35 isn't helping either, but that's another shit storm for PA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kinardly said:

But the people they were retaining were apparently not in critically needed billets ashore anyway. I agree, it will result in losses but I'm not sure it will hurt all that much, at least in the short term. Maybe for the long term a reallocation of those billets will change the Table of Organization for shore establishments. 

What's really needed is to halt the madness of continued overseas commitments in the face of progressive budget cuts forcing our armed services to keep trying to do more and more with less and less. Buying 5th Generation combat aircraft like the F-35 isn't helping either, but that's another shit storm for PA. 

The military gets plenty of money, they are just bad at spending it.  We were spending a billion a week during the early years of OIF/OEF.  The Marines spending a large part of their meager budget on the V-22 Osprey just like they did earlier on the AV-8 Harrier doesn't help either.  The Marines are unnecessary anyway, there hasn't been a significant amphibious landing since the Korean War.  Sure tradition is nice but...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, soak_ed said:

The military gets plenty of money, they are just bad at spending it.  We were spending a billion a week during the early years of OIF/OEF.  The Marines spending a large part of their meager budget on the V-22 Osprey just like they did earlier on the AV-8 Harrier doesn't help either.  The Marines are unnecessary anyway, there hasn't been a significant amphibious landing since the Korean War.  Sure tradition is nice but...

We need the balls to reorganize.   Leave Congress with lump some procurement for each agency, but not managing weapons programs.   Limiting ourselves to the spending of the next three largest military spenders would make any arms race kind of silly, and likely cut spending of both countries more effectively then any treaty.   The leaders drool at the thought of a country powerful enough to justify a bunch of new weapons but weak enough not to wipe out butt yet again.   If they miscalculate we just run away like Somalia and Beirut, or alternately occupy for generations like the Bush wars.    North Korea is too tempting to ignore.

Soaked raises a great point.   All four branches play with aircraft.  The Army competes with the Navy for the most boats.    The Marines are infantry with good physical fitness.   The Air Force couldn't run from their office chairs to their cars to go home at night.   

 

Perhaps biggest of all, living in the leach field of a large military complex, is the huge army of ex military people who retired once and now earn big money working for military contractors.   I know one ex enlisted with a high school education earning (I've seen the court documents) 90,000 a year working for the corporate military.   That's twice the mean income in my county.    He's not guarding Camp Halliburton in Afghanistan, he has a 40 hour per week (no that is not a typo, they do exist still for select salary workers) desk job that occasionally requires him to travel to an office in another state.   He has good benefits.   He strikes me as fairly average in all respects, in the real world he'd be an assistant manager at a JC Penny's slated for closure, or a service rep stuck with weekend calls, off clock travel time and still working a side gig.   The tens of thousands of civilians like him in central Ohio may not count as military, but they are still US Defense spending.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Lark said:

We need the balls to reorganize.   Leave Congress with lump some procurement for each agency, but not managing weapons programs.   Limiting ourselves to the spending of the next three largest military spenders would make any arms race kind of silly, and likely cut spending of both countries more effectively then any treaty.   The leaders drool at the thought of a country powerful enough to justify a bunch of new weapons but weak enough not to wipe out butt yet again.   If they miscalculate we just run away like Somalia and Beirut, or alternately occupy for generations like the Bush wars.    North Korea is too tempting to ignore.

Soaked raises a great point.   All four branches play with aircraft.  The Army competes with the Navy for the most boats.    The Marines are infantry with good physical fitness.   The Air Force couldn't run from their office chairs to their cars to go home at night.   

 

Perhaps biggest of all, living in the leach field of a large military complex, is the huge army of ex military people who retired once and now earn big money working for military contractors.   I know one ex enlisted with a high school education earning (I've seen the court documents) 90,000 a year working for the corporate military.   That's twice the mean income in my county.    He's not guarding Camp Halliburton in Afghanistan, he has a 40 hour per week (no that is not a typo, they do exist still for select salary workers) desk job that occasionally requires him to travel to an office in another state.   He has good benefits.   He strikes me as fairly average in all respects, in the real world he'd be an assistant manager at a JC Penny's slated for closure, or a service rep stuck with weekend calls, off clock travel time and still working a side gig.   The tens of thousands of civilians like him in central Ohio may not count as military, but they are still US Defense spending.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Yes to all of that.  I could tell many stories about military folks leaving active duty on Friday and coming back Monday as a civilian, to the same desk, for much higher pay.  Or incredible tales of fraud, waste, and abuse.  But now were are venturing to PA territory and I'll leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree we'll leave it but I want to make one point: if your problem is that the job the newly minted civilian is taking isn't necessary or could be done more cost effectively by someone else, I agree. But, if your complaint is the former serviceman gets the job that you or someone who didn't put in the time in uniform could have had, then I have no sympathy. Sorry, but the uniform goes to the head of the line in my book. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they would have better off with a cook in the crows nest with a gram of coke, binoculars and a walkie talkie than what they apparently were doing as far as collision avoidance in a busy piece of ocean

 

Here, take this shit up to highest point of vessel where you wont get cooked, stay awake and let us know if you see something you can read the name of or is flashing lights at us. We are very interested in objects getting closer to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, kinardly said:

I agree we'll leave it but I want to make one point: if your problem is that the job the newly minted civilian is taking isn't necessary or could be done more cost effectively by someone else, I agree. But, if your complaint is the former serviceman gets the job that you or someone who didn't put in the time in uniform could have had, then I have no sympathy. Sorry, but the uniform goes to the head of the line in my book. 

I served in the Army for 8 years total. I am not crying sour grapes.  I got into civil service as a result of my Army service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2017 at 11:31 AM, Wess said:

Sorry, I was not clear.  I get that close in targets can be lost on radar in various ways.  I thought there was protocol for tracking those closer in targets that radar could/would lose involving gun cameras, lookouts, and AIS, so just trying to understand how a target could be completely lost... not just lost to radar. They had to have known it was there at some earlier stage.

The same way a driver plows a pedestrian - looking at a screen, not the windshield.  It could have been as easy as logging a instrument target and sending a man out onto the deck with a pair of binocs.  That kind of watch standing protocol becomes even more important when you are moving fast and YOU are not participating in the AIS show'n'tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2017 at 3:47 PM, soak_ed said:

I served in the Army for 8 years total. I am not crying sour grapes.  I got into civil service as a result of my Army service.

Then we cool!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately this Supplemental Prelim Report seems to only describe damage control efforts and doesn't cover the circumstances leading up to the collision.  For understandable reasons I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last sailor pulled to safety from the flooded berthing had been in the bathroom at the time of impact and was knocked to the floor by the flood of water.

“Lockers were floating past him and he scrambled across them towards the main berthing area,” the report said. “At one point he was pinned between the lockers and the ceiling of Berthing 2, but was able to reach for a pipe in the ceiling to pull himself free.”

He made his way toward the port side watertight scuttle, which was “the only light he could see,” and was swimming toward it when he was pulled from the water, “red-faced and with bloodshot eyes,” according to the report.

“He reported that when taking his final breath before being saved, he was already submerged and breathed in water,” the report states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Navy Times

One sailor was able to escape Berthing 2 via the starboard side, right next to where the Crystal had struck.

“When he jumped out of his rack a few seconds later, the water nearly reached his top bunk, already chest high and rising,” the report states.

The sailor moved against the incoming flood of water and lounge furniture.

Soon, he was underwater, but managed to find a small air pocket.

“After a few breaths … he eventually took one final breath and swam,” the report states. “He lost consciousness at this time and does not remember how he escaped Berthing 2, but he ultimately emerged from the flooding into Berthing 1, where he could stand to his feet and breathe.”

The sailor climbed to the main deck and collapsed.

Gunner’s Mate Seaman Dakota Rigsby, 19; Yeoman 3rd Class Shingo Alexander Douglass, 25; Sonar Technician 3rd Class Ngoc T. Truong Huynh, 25; Gunner’s Mate 1st Class Noe Hernandez, 26; Fire Controlman 1st Class Victor Ganzon Sibayan, 23; Personnel Specialist 1st Class Xavier Alec Martin, 24; and Chief Fire Controlman Gary L. Rehm Jr., 37, did not escape Berthing 2.

Their racks were located closest to the starboard access trunk “and directly in the path of the onrushing water,” according to the report.

 

Three sailors were reported trapped in sonar control as the spaces above them flooded.

They radioed for help but rescue teams could not reach them because the passageway was completely blocked, according to the report.

A team was eventually able to reach sonar control via an escape hatch and those sailors were rescued about 45 minutes after the impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Respect.    No matter what mistakes were made by those in duty, those off duty have no cause for shame.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a bond between those who go to sea. Always has been and always will be. RIP those who don't make it back. Those who make it back will always remember....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BrickTopHarry said:

Unfortunately this Supplemental Prelim Report seems to only describe damage control efforts and doesn't cover the circumstances leading up to the collision.  For understandable reasons I suppose.

Well it does say the Fitz was on its way to Subic Bay in the Philippines and doing 20 knots to 230 thus quite close to bow to bow. So she was going to the opposite direction and not back to home port as suggested in many places. Somehow the collision happened with only about 30 deg difference in the courses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from page 11 of the USN report

39. The CO was in his cabin at the time of the collision. The CRYSTAL’s bow directly struck his cabin, located above the waterline. The impact severely damaged his cabin, trapping him inside. The CO called the bridge requesting assistance. 40. Five Sailors used a sledgehammer, kettlebell, and their bodies to break through the door into the CO’s cabin, remove the hinges, and then pry the door open enough to squeeze through. Even after the door was open, there was a large amount of debris and furniture against the door, preventing anyone from entering or exiting easily. 41. A junior officer and two chief petty officers removed debris from in front of the door and crawled into the cabin. The skin of the ship and outer bulkhead were gone and the night sky could be seen through the hanging wires and ripped steel. The rescue team tied themselves together with a belt in order to create a makeshift harness as they retrieved the CO, who was hanging from the side of the ship. 42. The team took the CO to the bridge, where a medical team assessed his condition. As he was being monitored by personnel on the bridge, his condition worsened. A team of stretcher bearers moved the CO from the bridge to the at-sea cabin at 0319, and shortly thereafter, due to the severity of his injuries, he was medically evacuated from the ship at 0710 to USNHY via helicopter. He was treated and released on 18 June 2017.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several points from that report stand out to me;  the fatalities were in starboard Berthing 2, the last survivors were recovered in a drowning state from starboard Berthing 2, including a man who had been in the starboard head at the time of collision and reported great difficulty escaping, Berthing 2 flooded in an astonishing 90 seconds.  FC1 Gary Rehm's body was recovered from the starboard Berthing 2 head.  FC1 Rehm was separately reported to have made multiple trips into Berthing 2 to recover shipmates.  The last of Rehm's rescue attempts would have been extremely dangerous, and he would have known his chances of return.  FC1 Gary Rehm deserves the highest recognition for his bravery, his service to shipmates and best ideals of the United States Navy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brutal descriptions of a brutal reality, predictable. Censuring of senior officers for failing to instill safe watchkeeping practice also predicted. What's still missing is specific details about the failure to avoid the 900' ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bruno said:

Brutal descriptions of a brutal reality, predictable. Censuring of senior officers for failing to instill safe watchkeeping practice also predicted. What's still missing is specific details about the failure to avoid the 900' ship.

This report is supplemental to a previous "Line of Duty Investigation" and not intended to address the cause of the collision. When someone in the service dies, there is a legal requirement to make a determination as to if the death occurred in the line of duty and if it was due to the individual's own misconduct. For example, someone dying while committing a criminal act and on unauthorized absence would likely be found to have died Not in the line of duty and due to his own misconduct. While it may seem pretty straightforward, it has an impact on survivor benefits so it is done formally with lots of deliberation.

Here, the previous report referenced found the sailors died both in the line of duty and not to their won misconduct. The Commander then the investigating officer to expand the report to include post collision damage control and life saving efforts. That's what this report is about so there should be no surprise that it does not address how the collision occurred.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The loss of the situational awareness also involves consideration of observation/instrumentation capabilities - not the sort of operational capability that should be detailed in a public report. Note the released report heavily redacted the layout of the crew berthing.  As well as details about the sonar station.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, savoir said:

 

As I read this I can't help but think of Kimmel and Short.

Fall guys all.

Not so in any way. CO is always ultimately responsible for his ship. He approved the OODs, he was in his cabin, his ship was hit, damaged, and people died.

 

Its also not hard to see how XO and CMC fall under the "lost confidence in their ability to lead" as they have a role in the training and qualification of sailors as well as advising the CO on the fitness and competence of individual watchstanders.  If they hadn't lodged concerns over the watch teams members, then their judgement gets questioned as well

Yes, it's a hard and demanding service...but they knew that going in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Port Wine said:

There is a bond between those who go to sea. Always has been and always will be. RIP those who don't make it back. Those who make it back will always remember....

There is a bond between all military members. It's a military thing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites