Bruno

Tanker hits Destoyer, how is this possible?

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, savoir said:

The collision was at point 2.

If it were at point 2, the USN report is in error because it says the Fitzgerald was on a course of 230 and was hit by the freighter going in the same direction.  There is a diagram in the report.

Edited by AlienBowman
. . . roughly the same direction . . . the course from point 5 to 6 would more closely approximate the bearing of the frieghter if the Fitzgerald were on 230. Hence my bewilderment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, AlienBowman said:

Story is rather different now.  USN report says course of the Fitzgerald was 230 at the time of the collision and the diagram in the report shows the collision at an oblique angle with the freighter coming from astern.  This would be closer to point 5 in the diagram above, after the "crazy Ivan" maneuver (points 1 to 4).  Hmmm.

The collision was at position 2, we know this because of the times listed.  1630 UTC is 0130 local.

What's interesting is that the Fitz was steering 230.....making this very likely a head-on situation and not a crossing situation.  Reciprocal of 230 is 050, very close to the 068 Crystal was steering.  The next question is how do the ships go from a nearly head-on aspect to the collision aspect described.  Perhaps the Crystal turned hard starboard (as its captain described) and the Fitz turned even harder to port at the same time.  Perhaps the two ships interpreted the situation differently - one as a crossing and the other as a head-on.  Different nav light aspects could cause that.

Share this post


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

The collision was at position 2, we know this because of the times listed.  1630 UTC is 0130 local.

What's interesting is that the Fitz was steering 230.....making this very likely a head-on situation and not a crossing situation.  Reciprocal of 230 is 050, very close to the 068 Crystal was steering.  The next question is how do the ships go from a nearly head-on aspect to the collision aspect described.  Perhaps the Crystal turned hard starboard (as its captain described) and the Fitz turned even harder to port at the same time.  Perhaps the two ships interpreted the situation differently - one as a crossing and the other as a head-on.  Different nav light aspects could cause that.

Look at the Navy's diagram in the report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crystal on a course of 112d, Fitz on a course of 230d.  Fitz throws a port rudder to come up closer to 112d and gets nailed on the starboard.  Suggests Fitz saw something and made the wrong move. 

Share this post


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

If it were at point 2, the USN report is in error because it says the Fitzgerald was on a course of 230 and was hit by the freighter going in the same direction.  There is a diagram in the report.

The report says that Fitzgerald was on a course of 230T at midnight. My guess is that's directly out of the midnight deck log entry (Quartermaster of the Watch starts each day's log entry with a summary of the condition of the ship at midnight). By 0130 they may have been on a different course consistent with ACX being on a northeasterly heading and striking Fitzgerald at point 2 with the geometry shown in the Navy report diagram. All changes of course and speed after midnight would also be recorded in the deck log.

Being as this report is focused on the DC aspects I suspect the geometry of the contact between the two ships is accurate and the detail is lacking as to how they came to be in that position. That will be in another report. And apparently that investigation has already discovered enough fuck-uppery in Fitzgerald to relieve the senior leadership for cause.

Share this post


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

If it were at point 2, the USN report is in error because it says the Fitzgerald was on a course of 230 and was hit by the freighter going in the same direction.  There is a diagram in the report.

 

Not at all. The freighter turned to starboard directly before impact as required by COLREGS. That was never a secret. At the time of impact the freighter's course would have been around 160.

Share this post


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

If it were at point 2, the USN report is in error because it says the Fitzgerald was on a course of 230 and was hit by the freighter going in the same direction.  There is a diagram in the report.

The collision was at point #2.  This was cleared up later in my post #98.  Where I said:

"The [Japanese] coast guard initially said the collision occurred at 2:20 a.m. because the Philippine ship had reported it at 2:25 a.m. and said it just happened. After interviewing Filipino crewmembers, the coast guard has changed the collision time to 1:30 a.m.

In my post above I speculated that the hit was at about point #7.  Then, after RKoch’s confirmation of  +9 UTC, I agreed that the hit could have been at about point #5 and because of the reported U-turn BEFORE the hit.

Now the news of a 1 hour delay indicates the hit was at point #2.  This would mean ACX Crystal made the U-turn AFTER the hit while on a constant heading of 68 degrees and going 18.5 kts.  That would make for a significant strike."

The illustration referenced was BEFORE the one hour time difference when it was initially thought the collision occured at 2:20 AM, instead of 1:30.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Navy report says collision at "approximately 1:30" collision alarm at 1:32.  The Crystal AIS course at 1:30 is 112d with radical course changes over the next 6 minutes.  Is it possible that Crystal could have steered that course?...or was she driven through that change of course by the impact with Fitz.   I've never seen a freighter make a 100d course change in what would be about 4 minutes.

Share this post


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

Navy report says collision at "approximately 1:30" collision alarm at 1:32.  The Crystal AIS course at 1:30 is 112d with radical course changes over the next 6 minutes.  Is it possible that Crystal could have steered that course?...or was she driven through that change of course by the impact with Fitz.   I've never seen a freighter make a 100d course change in what would be about 4 minutes.

I just pulled this at random, but i recalled most large ships at full speed, can turn 90 degrees from base course in about 3 minutes at half ahead, and about 2 minutes at full ahead, as typically recorded during sea trials and later posted on the bridge as tactical-circles in the Maneuvering Characteristics.  They won't do it like being on rails, there will be a lot of sliding advance along with the course-changing transfer.

Seems so:

https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A0LEViwaYpdZe6gAZS0nnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMjB0aG5zBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--?p=Tactical+Circles+For+700-foot+Container+Ship&fr=yhs-mozilla-002&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-002#id=1&iurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shipsbusiness.com%2Fturning-circle-containership4.jpg&action=click

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From: SUPPLEMENTAL TIMELINE OF EVENTS ABOARD USS FITZGERALD FOLLOWING COLLISION AT SEA ON OR ABOUT 17 JUN 17 

The following abbreviations are used: 
FTZ – USS FITZGERALD (DDG 62) 
CDS 15 – Commander, Destroyer Squadron FIFTEEN 
CFAY – Commander, Fleet Activities Yokosuka 
JMSDF – Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force 

 

All times are approximate 

[2345 watch change, via someone playing expert on twitter]
0130 approximate time of collision
0132 FTZ sounds collision alarm for two seconds.
[...]
0200 FTZ makes initial report of collision at sea to CDS 15 via personal cell phone at approximately 0220.
[...]
0218 Japanese Coast Guard en route to FTZ location.
[...]
0417 Large merchant identified as “HCX Crystal.” 
0437 Japan Coast Guard vessel KANO arrives to render assistance.
[...]

 

 

 

Not a good picture if you condense the timeline a bit.

Share this post


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

Crystal on a course of 112d, Fitz on a course of 230d.  Fitz throws a port rudder to come up closer to 112d and gets nailed on the starboard.  Suggests Fitz saw something and made the wrong move. 

 

      agreed this action came too late...way too late....but what would have been better given the untenable situation ?    ALL BACK FULL !!  ??  (with a healthy dose of right full rudder)

 

Share this post


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

Look at the Navy's diagram in the report.

Yes, I'm well aware, I read the whole report from top to bottom.  The collision happened at 0130 local, this is perfectly well established, and the Crystal was at position 2 at 1630 UTC, which is 0130 local.  Period.

They changed course before the collision.  Obviously.  They didn't just slam into each other without some kind of course change first.  The fact is that in every Navy collision not involving a submarine, and I was required to study basically all of them, course changes happen before the collision.  Ships don't blunder blindly into each other, and as fun as it has been to wonder why a team of trained Navy officers and watchstanders with radar up the wazoo couldn't see a massive container ship, I think it's time to understand the truth here: they are absolutely guaranteed to have seen the Crystal, probably from a very long way away, and made a very large mistake in judgment as to what the Crystal was doing.  Common threads in all collision case studies have been these: the ships involved definitely saw each other, and failed to recognize the other as a threat to collide until it was too late, at which point they made a large rudder change to fruitlessly try to avoid the inevitable.  One way or the other, that's what will come out in the wash here.

But the collision was still at point 2 on the Crystal's track.

Share this post


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

0130 approximate time of collision

0132 FTZ sounds collision alarm for two seconds.
[...]
0200 FTZ makes initial report of collision at sea to CDS 15 via personal cell phone at approximately 0220.
[...]
0218 Japanese Coast Guard en route to FTZ location.
[...]
0417 Large merchant identified as “HCX Crystal.” 

So it took the same about 50 minutes for the Fitz to report the collision. Despite the big watch team. And obviously they weren't watching the AIS data send by the ACX, since they didn't identify the ship. Why wouldn't they watch AIS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coyote; I too have read the entire report, soup to nuts.  See nothing that would support Fitzgerald acknowledged their collision course.  No note of course change.  No ship to ship comms.   No alarm.  No call to the CO.  I see ACX Crystal taking the appropriate course change to starboard prior to collision confirming recogition of their status, but there is no indication that Fitzgerald had situational awareness either from a head-on approach or a crossing approach.  There is nothing in the AIS track or behavior of the ACX that would indicate they were steering a 'confusing' course.  This doesn't even rise to the level of the Porter incompetence where the bridge babble was cut short soon enough to sound a colliision alarm.  Porter attempted a squirrel-run across the bow of a freighter in contravention of COLREG and had a similar outcome to Fitzgerald.  We can assume that Fitzgerald saw Crystal because Aegis but by the same capability they don't get off the hook for 'confusion' about what Crystal was doing, Crystal was doing exactly what you would expect them to be doing, starboard course change.  We see again a lack of compliance with COLREG navigation rules by a Navy warship.  Fitzgerald could have demonstrated navigational proficiency well off by observing the standard of COLREG performance - make your course change known early and sufficient to show intent.   There is zero evidence for that. 

Share this post


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

Coyote; I too have read the entire report, soup to nuts.  See nothing that would support Fitzgerald acknowledged their collision course.  No note of course change.  No ship to ship comms.   No alarm.  No call to the CO.  I see ACX Crystal taking the appropriate course change to starboard prior to collision confirming recogition of their status, but there is no indication that Fitzgerald had situational awareness either from a head-on approach or a crossing approach.  There is nothing in the AIS track or behavior of the ACX that would indicate they were steering a 'confusing' course.  This doesn't even rise to the level of the Porter incompetence where the bridge babble was cut short soon enough to sound a colliision alarm.  Porter attempted a squirrel-run across the bow of a freighter in contravention of COLREG and had a similar outcome to Fitzgerald.  We can assume that Fitzgerald saw Crystal because Aegis but by the same capability they don't get off the hook for 'confusion' about what Crystal was doing, Crystal was doing exactly what you would expect them to be doing, starboard course change.  We see again a lack of compliance with COLREG navigation rules by a Navy warship.  Fitzgerald could have demonstrated navigational proficiency well off by observing the standard of COLREG performance - make your course change known early and sufficient to show intent.   There is zero evidence for that. 

Yeah, that's because the report was a report specifically on the damage control efforts, not the causes of collision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still too soon to know of course, but I suspect that the Fitz missed that the shipping lanes / VTS required a course change.  When likely first spotted, the ACX was on a different, non threatening heading.  But once she changed course (while following the vts) the CPA was changed.  Had the fitz also followed the vts route she would have come to stbd and that would be what the act ship would have reasonably expected.  By not making the turn, the last half mile of closure would have come quite quickly and suddenly, resulting in a last minute, in extremis, attempt to turn to stbd.

 

(just my theory, as I don't have the charts to confirm positions relative to the vts)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, coyotepup said:

Yeah, that's because the report was a report specifically on the damage control efforts, not the causes of collision.

With the Fitzgerald's course, speed; the ACX Crystal's course, maneuvers, timeline, position, speed and the angle of impact we now have the cause of collision - failure to comply with COLREG Rules of Navigation.  The only question is why.  And perhaps why this has happened twice in recent years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I understand this diagram correctly the eastern leg of the VTS extended for between 2 and 5 nm on bearing 060 from the line due south of Mikomoto Shima

TSS.jpg

 

Seems collision occurred at about position 2 on this diagram:  possibly just before, possibly just after hard starboard manoeuvre by ACX Crystal.

ACX Crystal Track.JPG

This diagram shows slight port helm manoeuvre by ACX Crystal at say 10 minutes (3nm) before Point 2, which we might presume to be the course change corresponding to the change in axis of the VTS from 090 to 060.

USN report puts USS Fitzgerald course 230 at 0000hr local, 90 minutes before impact, which at 20kt was about 30nm before reaching the area of impact

We have, as yet, no idea of any subsequent course or speed changes by Fitzgerald but it seems unlikely that Fitzgerald would have held that exact course and speed for 90 minutes through quite dense merchant traffic.

 

 

Share this post


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

With the Fitzgerald's course, speed; the ACX Crystal's course, maneuvers, timeline, position, speed and the angle of impact we now have the cause of collision - failure to comply with COLREG Rules of Navigation.  The only question is why.  And perhaps why this has happened twice in recent years. 

I suggest you inform the Navy that you have the answer to the questions they're asking, they'll be glad to know they can put down their pencils and issue a report to that effect.  I can't imagine why neither them nor any of us have come to such an obvious conclusion based on the partial evidence we have in front of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Joakim said:

So it took the same about 50 minutes for the Fitz to report the collision. Despite the big watch team. And obviously they weren't watching the AIS data send by the ACX, since they didn't identify the ship. Why wouldn't they watch AIS?

Their radio gear was taken out in the collision. They finally were able to report the collision by phone. IDK if it was cell phone or satellite.

Share this post


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

If I understand this diagram correctly the eastern leg of the VTS extended for between 2 and 5 nm on bearing 060 from the line due south of Mikomoto Shima

TSS.jpg

 

Seems collision occurred at about position 2 on this diagram:  possibly just before, possibly just after hard starboard manoeuvre by ACX Crystal.

ACX Crystal Track.JPG

This diagram shows slight port helm manoeuvre by ACX Crystal at say 10 minutes (3nm) before Point 2, which we might presume to be the course change corresponding to the change in axis of the VTS from 090 to 060.

USN report puts USS Fitzgerald course 230 at 0000hr local, 90 minutes before impact, which at 20kt was about 30nm before reaching the area of impact

We have, as yet, no idea of any subsequent course or speed changes by Fitzgerald but it seems unlikely that Fitzgerald would have held that exact course and speed for 90 minutes through quite dense merchant traffic.

 

 

ACX Crystal was following a traffic zone. The course change corresponds to staying in their lane. Not sure what the Fitz was doing, as they don't appear to have been staying in their lane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't mean to be glib, as this was a tragic event, but I learnt at an early age that going down a traffic lane the wrong way, with a small crossing angle, is a really bad idea.

Please excuse the long sentence, as I have had a spot of rum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, RKoch said:

Their radio gear was taken out in the collision. They finally were able to report the collision by phone. IDK if it was cell phone or satellite.

The timeline says cell phone. No emergency VHF? Shouldn't take 50 minutes to find a cell phone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Joakim said:

The timeline says cell phone. No emergency VHF? Shouldn't take 50 minutes to find a cell phone.

You'll have to ask the Navy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would imagine in the early minutes, trying to assess damage, save lives, save the ship, and a few other details, that calling dad wouldn't be the first priority

Share this post


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

I would imagine in the early minutes, trying to assess damage, save lives, save the ship, and a few other details, that calling dad wouldn't be the first priority

We heard that comms were disrupted.  So no hand-held VHF on the bridge?  I was always told the immediate channel 16 mandatory call was:

"Pan-pan, pan-pan, US warship bla bla, position bla bla, in collision with unidentified vessel, assessing damage, will report more details or request assistance if needed, 320 people aboard, Pan-pan US warship bla bla, over."

Cellphone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep its a thing, maybe we will now have a "war on merchant ships" since we have a war on virtually every fucking thing these days that gets Americans scared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Keith said:

You guys are getting good at this. :o

Hopefully damage control is good on this ship as well.   Clearly the Navy has some institutional failures they are blaming their captains for.  Maybe they need to fire the admiral too (no pension). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF another crash with a merchant ship! There's some serious failure of command on US Naval vessels this year.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like the John McCain was hit up the rear.  What was the name of the tanker? - the Donald Trump?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It reminds me of this quote from the Battle of Jutland, after the second ship sunk:

Quote

"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today" (Vice-Admiral Sir David Beatty)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 sailors missing, 5 injuries. Holy fucking crap. Whether or not they had the right of way, I'd like to have confidence our ships aren't continually running in to shit. Did fucking Brent Swain make these boats?

Share this post


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

Seems like the John McCain was hit up the rear.  What was the name of the tanker? - the Donald Trump?

I had not heard that there were missing sailors, so I retract this comment as inappropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Bruno said:

WTF! Standdown?

There does seem to be a training problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That should be the 4th incident in 2017 for Yokosuka Fleet Command.
USS John S. McCain (DDG-56), collsion with tanker on 21 August 2017, 5 injured 10 missing in initial reports
USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62), collision with container ship on 17 June 2017, 7 dead several injured
USS Lake Champlain (CG-57), collision with fishing vessel on May 9, 2017, no injuries
USS Antietam (CG-54), grounding on 31 January 2017, no injuries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some admirals in Washington need to resign. The problem extends far beyond the confused egotistical officers of the ships.

Or better, close the navy. We do not need portable runways, or whatever dubious product they provide, for our 380 BILLION dollars.

I sail out there. I don't feel safe with the U.S. Navy on the same water. They should retire to safe ports for a few years. Figure out the radar and rudder thing. What if there was a real war?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Mirror16 said:

If only our cash-strapped Navy could afford radar. 

You mean afford people to stand outside on the wings and watch for danger with handset phones they csn pickup and talk to the IMportant people with. Maybe give them some steiners and a thermos of coffee. Shit, for 30 bucks an hour and room and board I would be happy to do two 4 hour watches a day for a few weeks a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, WTF?

Situational awareness seems to have gone bubbling down the head.

Nothing to say, until more facts emerge, but the pattern is a bit broken, innit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to kick em when theyre down, 

But theres a reason the Army didnt take em

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Chasm said:

Image of the damage, via twiter

USS John McCain collision damage DHuFAOHVoAAFJ3d.jpg

At least, it's on port. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, P_Wop said:

Seriously, WTF?

Situational awareness seems to have gone bubbling down the head.

Nothing to say, until more facts emerge, but the pattern is a bit broken, innit?

Yes. There's definately something wrong with our sailors.

Share this post


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

Image of the damage, via twiter

USS John McCain collision damage DHuFAOHVoAAFJ3d.jpg

I don't know for a fact, but read a story that said the damage is at an aft berthing compartment. Could be déjà Vu. Keeping fingers crossed for the missing sailors, but expecting the worst.

another report said the destroyer had a steering failure earlier, but it was repaired before the collision.

Share this post


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

Yes. There's definately something wrong with our sailors.

Noooo, not all sailors, just the ones responsible for safely operating the floating weapons system In a public seaway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Chris in Santa Cruz, CA said:

Noooo, not all sailors, just the ones responsible for safely operating the floating weapons system In a public seaway. 

The off watch received the same training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two balls up on the starboard yardarm, two balls up to port.

"Not under command" and "Not under command" - in case you didn't get the signal the first time.

I believe that was the original British derivation of the phrase "balls up" which may be appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, soak_ed said:

I would imagine in the early minutes, trying to assess damage, save lives, save the ship, and a few other details, that calling dad wouldn't be the first priority

There are a lot of people on the watch. Surely you could take one of them to contact for help. What if the missing sailors would have been thrown to water or the destroyer would have sunk? Then it would have been very essential to have outside help on site as soon as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Joakim said:

There are a lot of people on the watch. Surely you could take one of them to contact for help. What if the missing sailors would have been thrown to water or the destroyer would have sunk? Then it would have been very essential to have outside help on site as soon as possible.

I assume there's not a cell phone or handheld vhf normally on the bridge. Communications room was destroyed. Don't know where portable communications gear would be stored, but with sailors evacuating the flooded compartments and damage control teams trying to prevent the ship from sinking, Ed is probably right. It was a chaotic scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RKoch said:

I assume there's not a cell phone or handheld vhf normally on the bridge. Communications room was destroyed. Don't know where portable communications gear would be stored, but with sailors evacuating the flooded compartments and damage control teams trying to prevent the ship from sinking, Ed is probably right. It was a chaotic scene.

Sure it was chaotic, but still Navy ships should be prepared to operate in chaotic scenes and communication should not depend on one room being flooded, or slighly flooded as I think it was in the recent report.

Share this post


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

I assume there's not a cell phone or handheld vhf normally on the bridge. 

Well, why not?  It's SOP on every vessel I've ever been on, small and large sailboats, motoryachts, commercial ships, and some big grey things too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do we need 350 ships? To replace all the crashed ones? Instead of getting steamed up about catapaults.maybe just work on drivers ed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2017 at 0:15 AM, sailronin said:

From photos of damage to Destroyer it appears the tanker was the stand on vessel. Hard to believe with ARPA, ECDIS and a full watch on each vessel that something like this could happen.  Sometimes "ya can't fix stupid" as each thought the other would give way.

That Navy Captain will be lucky to drive a desk after this, his career is finished.

Maybe both captain's were texting or looking at there I phone's

Share this post


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

Maybe both captain's were texting or looking at there I phone's

I suspect both merchant crews were relying on AIS due to clutter, and manpower may be reduced dangerously low from automation.   http://spectrum.ieee.org/transportation/marine/forget-autonomous-cars-autonomous-ships-are-almost-here    

There is a lot of industry pressure likely to make this worse (a big concern for us small boat guys who need to dodge them but may someday need their help).   

I'm not excusing the Navy, which has plenty of manpower (eyes), more speed, more maneuverability, and sensors expensive enough to pay for a moon landing on these ships, and appears to have been give way for at least one of these collisions.  I don't know about the fishing boat, but they were also give way against the land for the grounding.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 weeks ago the Marines took a 24 hour operational pause for aircraft since theirs kept crashing.   Now the Navy is taking a 'pause'.  What is done during these 'snow days'? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the AIS track the incident happened at the entry of the TSS zone.
If the vesselfinder.com map video as linked above is correct inside the TSS. The incident happened at 05h24 local which should be at 0:50 and after in the video.

Crossing a TSS, what could possibly go wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like North Korea just needs to rent a few merchant ships and take out a navy ship every couple of months. Seems easy done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Swabbie said:

There is no way to conclude that. In fact maybe the opposite.  

It is quite hard to be hit on port like this while being give way especially if he boats were going in a straight line. In an overtaking situation the impact wouldn't have been so local. 

Share this post


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

It is quite hard to be hit on port like this while being give way especially if he boats were going in a straight line. In an overtaking situation the impact wouldn't have been so local. 

  Looks like the McCain was running NW to SE across the TSS, probably dark or minimal lights and obviously not on AIS.

  impact looked to be a T-bone,  tanker probably had no idea they were there...

 

  What's also interesting is there is a chance that the Alnic was flanked by a ship (team Oslo) that passed her on the starboard side.  may have disoriented the bridge on McCain in shooting across the tss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you all don't realize is that the McCain was tasked with BMD, if you don't know what that is walk down the hall to Department Head School.  There are 7 ships tasked with that, and now 2 of the 7 are a POS...sigh..as a Surface Warfare Qualified Officer and 9 years of sea time I am shaking my head.  As to some of the other people, we USED to rotate the lookouts, plus encouraged to let them "chatter" to keep them alert on the circuit.  Also it was a sure thing the Navigation detail was already set.

Even back in DH99 - we knew a collision at sea could ruin your entire day...and on my 2nd to last ship my CO had been on ships that had 3 collisions, including an CVA and an oiler (ranger? and sacramento??).

And as for your IPAD jokes - The CO of the Eisenhower (CVN-69) lost his command in the 90s after a HUGELY successful deployment in which NOT A SAILOR on the carrier died (a big deal considering air crews/liberty incidents/motor vehicle accidents), and they turned late coming back into Hampton Roads, and hit an ANCHORED merchant ship.  The reason? at the time there was a YEARLY exercise to reload an Ohio Class with (figure the odds of Norfolk still being here for an Ohio to be reloaded), and was leaving port.  The bridge team lost focus and was looking to see who was more senior - the CO of Ike, or the CO of the Boomer (both O-6 commands).  Normally, everyone in the home port knows who is who, but no boomers were homeported in Norfolk. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok... so two Arleigh Burke-class destroyers had something go seriously wrong...

If I were a thriller writer, I would have exactly the above two scenarios in my opening chapter... and then we see.. 

It was the Chinese/Russians/North Koreans (Take your pick.. although I think that NK would not have the electronics needed)

and they had hacked the software on board.. and possibly made fake AIS, or overwhelmed the electronics... from a sub......

and viola.. a sinking that is completely deniable.... and if not a sinking.. slowly causing all the Arleigh Burke-class vessels to be taken off active duty.

I just find it hard to believe that TWICE in such a short span, in waters in ASIA  this thing happened.. to THE SAME Arleigh Burke-class vessels.

Again... if I was a thriller writer.....

 

 

 

 

** I am NOT a thriller writer.... (yet)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Chasm said:

According to the AIS track the incident happened at the entry of the TSS zone.
If the vesselfinder.com map video as linked above is correct inside the TSS. The incident happened at 05h24 local which should be at 0:50 and after in the video.

Crossing a TSS, what could possibly go wrong?

 

The wording which created that TSS would make an interesting read. It will place restrictions and obligations on vessels within its boundaries. Vessels crossing the TSS might be required to keep clear or only cross at certain angles, probably 90 degrees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, h20man said:

ok... so two Arleigh Burke-class destroyers had something go seriously wrong...

If I were a thriller writer, I would have exactly the above two scenarios in my opening chapter... and then we see.. 

It was the Chinese/Russians/North Koreans (Take your pick.. although I think that NK would not have the electronics needed)

and they had hacked the software on board.. and possibly made fake AIS, or overwhelmed the electronics... from a sub......

and viola.. a sinking that is completely deniable.... and if not a sinking.. slowly causing all the Arleigh Burke-class vessels to be taken off active duty.

I just find it hard to believe that TWICE in such a short span, in waters in ASIA  this thing happened.. to THE SAME Arleigh Burke-class vessels.

Again... if I was a thriller writer.....

 

 

 

 

** I am NOT a thriller writer.... (yet)

I was speculating to myself about the same scenario this afternoon.  I am not a thriller writer either.  I did read some Tom Clancy many years ago.

I am sure the USN has been looking into that from the beginning, and will look even harder after this second incident.  They aren't stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These things happen because the US Navy thinks they are above the law.  Recently while retuning to France after the Fastnet Race we passed a US navy ship with no lights and no AIS, performing circles in front of the TSS.  We hailed them on VHF to ask if they where in distress and they replied that we need to stay a minimum of .5 nm clear of there unknown position.  

Share this post


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

I was speculating to myself about the same scenario this afternoon.  I am not a thriller writer either.  I did read some Tom Clancy many years ago.

I am sure the USN has been looking into that from the beginning, and will look even harder after this second incident.  They aren't stupid.

What electronics????

GPS?

If so, then how were the several score other ships in both areas where these collisions occurred -NOT- affected.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

What electronics????

GPS?

If so, then how were the several score other ships in both areas where these collisions occurred -NOT- affected.

 

 

 

 

IIRC the Navy uses their own satnav, not commercial GPS. If it's not secure or has accuracy problems, then im sure the Navy will look in to it. There doesn't seem to have been that indication in the Fitz collision. Regardless, surface radar and visual lookout would have prevented the collisions. IMO its a simple case of poor training and sloppy seamanship.

A few years back there was a GPS spoofing in the eastern Black Sea that did affect about 20 ships. The signal was thought to have come from Russia.

Share this post


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

IIRC the Navy uses their own satnav, not commercial GPS. If it's not secure or has accuracy problems, then im sure the Navy will look in to it. There doesn't seem to have been that indication in the Fitz collision. Regardless, surface radar and visual lookout would have prevented the collisions. IMO its a simple case of poor training and sloppy seamanship.

A few years back there was a GPS spoofing in the eastern Black Sea that did affect about 20 ships. The signal was thought to have come from Russia.

GPS is owned by DoD and administered by the Air Force. You may be thinking of the old Transit system perhaps.

The military systems have been "hardened" against countermeasures as well.

If GPS were being spoofed we would have heard about it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The unclassified source for the below quote comes from: ( http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/burke/ )

Quote

The latest Aegis upgrade, baseline 7.1, was certified by the USN in September 2005 on-board USS Pinkney (DDG 91). The upgrade includes a new radar, AN / SPY-1D (V), which has enhanced electronic countermeasures and more effective capability in littoral environments. Baseline 7.1 is based on COTS (commercial-off-the-shelf) computer architecture. Trials of the upgrade in March 2003 included live firings of the ESSM.

COTS... certified in 2005... well, it is not apple.. so (Windows XP).  Of course.. Windows XP is KNOWN for its security and inability to be hacked.*

And the Navy is incorruptible and NO ONE can be bribed... not even a lowly seaman...* who would somehow get an infected 'thumb drive' and plug it in an inappropriate place...*

 

so.. there is NO way to compromise an Aegis class Destroyer...*   none........*

 

right?

hmm.. and how long did it take the Democratic National Committee to figure out they were hacked?

or SONY?

 

riiiight... because all the smart people want to join the group starting with F or G.... (not FBI or GE... but Facebook and Google)

As to faking AIS transmissions... TRIVIAL.. because security was an AFTERTHOUGHT...

so we can make all sorts of stuff appear in the water....  with just a low power VHF and a raspberry pi..   and some fat kid sitting in a basement... (or below decks on a submarine)

 

*SARCASM... 

Share this post


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

GPS is owned by DoD and administered by the Air Force. You may be thinking of the old Transit system perhaps.

The military systems have been "hardened" against countermeasures as well.

If GPS were being spoofed we would have heard about it.

 

 

let me help you hear about it:

 

quote below from:

http://maritime-executive.com/editorials/mass-gps-spoofing-attack-in-black-sea

Quote

An apparent mass and blatant, GPS spoofing attack involving over 20 vessels in the Black Sea last month has navigation experts and maritime executives scratching their heads. 

The event first came to public notice via a relatively innocuous safety alert from the U.S. Maritime Administration:

A maritime incident has been reported in the Black Sea in the vicinity of position 44-15.7N, 037-32.9E on June 22, 2017 at 0710 GMT. This incident has not been confirmed. The nature of the incident is reported as GPS interference. Exercise caution when transiting this area.

But the backstory is way more interesting and disturbing. On June 22 a vessel reported to the U.S. Coast Guard Navigation Center:

GPS equipment unable to obtain GPS signal intermittently since nearing coast of Novorossiysk, Russia. Now displays HDOP 0.8 accuracy within 100m, but given location is actually 25 nautical miles off; GPS display…

After confirming that there were no anomalies with GPS signals, space weather or tests on-going, the Coast Guard advised the master that GPS accuracy in his area should be three meters and advised him to check his software updates.

The master replied:

Thank you for your below answer, nevertheless I confirm my GPS equipment is fine.

We run self test few times and all is working good.

I confirm all ships in the area (more than 20 ships) have the same problem. 

I personally contacted three of them via VHF, they confirmed the same.

Sometimes, position is correct, sometimes is not.

GPS sometimes looses position or displays inaccurate position (high HDOP).

For few days, GPS gave a position inland (near Gelendyhik aiport) but vessel was actually drifting more than 25 NM from it.

Important: at that time, GPS system considered the position as "Safe within 100m".

See attached.

Then last night, position was correct despite several "lost GPS fixing position" alarm that raised couples seconds only; then signal was back to normal.

Now position is totally wrong again.

See attached pictures that I took on 24 June at 05h45 UTC (30 min ago).

Note: you can also check websites like MarineTraffic and you will probably notice that once in a while all ships in the area are shifting inland next to each other.

I hope this can help.

To back up his report, the master sent photos of his navigation displays, a paper chart showing his actual position and GPS-reported position, and his radar display that showed numerous AIS contacts without corresponding radar returns (below).

One of the photos was of the navigation receiver’s “GPS Information Screen.” This has allowed navigation experts to conclude this was a fairly clear, if not subtle, case of “spoofing” or sending false signals to cause a receiver to provide false information. They point to the receiver saying its antenna is 39 meters underwater, that all the GPS satellites it is using have the same high signal strength, and that the WER, or Word Error Rate, is 97 percent (normal is less than 10 percent).
    
The RNT Foundation has received numerous anecdotal reports of maritime problems with AIS and GPS in Russian waters, though this is the first publicly available, well-document account, of which we are aware.

Russia has very advanced capabilities to disrupt GPS. Over 250,000 cell towers in Russia have been equipped with GPS jamming devices as a defense against attack by U.S. missiles. And there have been press reports of Russian GPS jamming in both Moscow and the Ukraine. In fact Russia has boasted that its capabilities “make aircraft carriers useless,” and the U.S. Director of National Intelligence recently issued a report that stated that Russia and others were focusing on improving their capability to jam U.S. satellite systems.

Assuming Russia is behind this, why would they do such a thing?

Maybe it was to encourage use of the Russian GLONASS satellite navigation system or their terrestrial Loran system, called Chayka, instead of GPS.
Perhaps it was for some security reason known only to them.

Whatever the reason, we are reminded of a maritime GPS disruption incident last year and the U.S. Coast Guard’s subsequent advice about GPS and all satnav - “Trust But Verify.”

quote below from:

https://www.marad.dot.gov/msci/alert/2017/2017-005a-gps-interference-black-sea/

Quote

2017-005A-GPS Interference-Black Sea

A maritime incident has been reported in the Black Sea in the vicinity of position 44-15.7N, 037-32.9E on June 22, 2017 at 0710 GMT. This incident has not been confirmed. The nature of the incident is reported as GPS interference. Exercise caution when transiting this area. Further updates may follow. This alert will automatically expire on July 4, 2017.  Reports of GPS degradations, disruptions, and other incidents or anomalies can be made via the U.S. Coast Guard Navigation Center website at: https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=gpsUserInput.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, to bad these BMDs don't have radar, and personnel to stand a visual watch!

Share this post


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

Wow, to bad these BMDs don't have radar, and personnel to stand a visual watch!

I'm surprised they haven't thought of that.