Bruno

Tanker hits Destoyer, how is this possible?

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

Nope. Satnav has been off the air for ages and was not very good when it worked. The Navy does 100% use GPS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, h20man said:

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

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... 

So who hacked all their eyeballs?

Look a ship - lets avoid it!

https://www.amazon.com/Avoid-Huge-Ships-John-Trimmer/dp/0870334336/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1503359167&sr=8-1&keywords=how+to+avoid+big+ships

Share this post


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

Nope. Satnav has been off the air for ages and was not very good when it worked. The Navy does 100% use GPS.

By satnav I meant satellite-based navigation, not the SatNav system. Does the Navy use commercial GPS or do they have their own? That's where I wasn't sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Navy was not running into commercial shipping long before anyone heard of GPS.  

Share this post


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

I suggested spoofing on first incident, was rejected.

Probably because GPS spoofing alone doesn't explain loss of situational awareness with several radar systems onboard. Even if they didn't know where exactly they were at least they should have know what is around them.

Share this post


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

I suggested spoofing on first incident, was rejected.

(Not by ME!...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Marty6 said:

Probably because GPS spoofing alone doesn't explain loss of situational awareness with several radar systems onboard. Even if they didn't know where exactly they were at least they should have know what is around them.

if not just GPS spoofing.... but also a hack of the MOST SECURE windows XP... system.... then...  they can make things go nuts.. and then all traces vanish.. 

 

Again... not saying I have proof... but.. wow.. the coincidence of all this is just starting to be odd..  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And they also hacked the humans with their binos [Edit] and how did all the other boats in the same area escape this major spoofing attack [/Edit]?

Sorry, that all sound just like the current Tumpish BS common in the US. Next thing is many sides were causing the collision.

Sure some hacking might be possible but is so far fetched and when taking into account the actions in the Fitz case the more plain explanation is probable the right one => Total cluster fuck of the crew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Marty6 said:

And they also hacked the humans with their binos [Edit] and how did all the other boats in the same area escape this major spoofing attack [/Edit]?

Sorry, that all sound just like the current Tumpish BS common in the US. Next thing is many sides were causing the collision.

Sure some hacking might be possible but is so far fetched and when taking into account the actions in the Fitz case the more plain explanation is probable the right one => Total cluster fuck of the crew.

I am no Trumpist or conspiracy theory nut but the timing and location of the incidents certainly raises some eyebrows.  Is the Navy really that incompetent?  Occam's Razor would demand a positive answer to that question.  I eagerly await more information and remain somewhat suspicious.

Share this post


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

I am no Trumpist or conspiracy theory nut but the timing and location of the incidents certainly raises some eyebrows.  Is the Navy really that incompetent?  Occam's Razor would demand a positive answer to that question.  I eagerly await more information and remain somewhat suspicious.

The razor's edge is getting a little fuzzy.  I'm up to my ears in WTF??  I'll break it out for another shave or two, but damn!  Is the USN REALLY that incompetent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are incidents of spoofing (referenced in one of the two threads), but they affected all boats in the area. Since only Fitz and McCain appear to have difficulty avoiding hitting lit up ships transmitting on AIS, I'd say the most likely scenerio is poor training and supervision. That problem might be spread through many more ships.

Share this post


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

There are incidents of spoofing (referenced in one of the two threads), but they affected all boats in the area. Since only Fitz and McCain appear to have difficulty avoiding hitting lit up ships transmitting on AIS, I'd say the most likely scenerio is poor training and supervision. That problem might be spread through many more ships.

Then I gotta ask:  What ARE they training them for?  It's inconceivable to me that the guy who scrubs the head cannot miss a floating island.

Share this post


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

Then I gotta ask:  What ARE they training them for?  It's inconceivable to me that the guy who scrubs the head cannot miss a floating island.

Beats me. But we're talking about a generation (if you'll excuse the broad brush) that grew up on video games and thinks it's ok to text and drive. My guess is their faces are buried in a screen and they ain't looking out the windshield.

Share this post


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

I am no Trumpist or conspiracy theory nut but the timing and location of the incidents certainly raises some eyebrows.  Is the Navy really that incompetent?  Occam's Razor would demand a positive answer to that question.  I eagerly await more information and remain somewhat suspicious.

I think O's R is slicing with precision but in James Bond's world at least: "Once is an accident. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is enemy action."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Rule69 said:

I think O's R is slicing with precision but in James Bond's world at least: "Once is an accident. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is enemy action."

It wasn't enemy action that grounded the Brent Swan fleet.   It's bad design and novice sailors.    The navy may be guilty of bad seamanship, bad watchkeeping, poor visibility with no AIS and nav lights only on a dark ship.   Imagine when the new LCS with the engine failures deploy.   They will be a BS boat running on ethanol.   Putin didn't have to cause this.  Of course  maybe all these ships are just relying on Chinese electronics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, h20man said:

h20...

 

How far away from the Black Sea are the approaches to Tokyo Bay?

How far away from the Black Sea are the Straits of Malacca? 

Bottom line is not one report of GPS interruption has been brought forth in those two places.

Military exercises involving GPS deception efforts happen  ALL.The.Time.

Let me help you  see that:

GPS 08/082 ZOA NAV (FACSFACSD GPS 17-03) GPS (INCLUDING WAAS, GBAS, AND ADS-B) MAY NOT BE AVBL WI A 464NM RADIUS CENTERED AT 320000N1184500W (MZB 227090) FL400-UNL, 409NM RADIUS AT FL250, 340NM RADIUS AT 10,000FT, 317M RADIUS AT 4000FT AGL, 249NM RADIUS AT 50FT AGL. 1708220700-1708221300

The Russians are horrible about telling people when they are doing it by issuing a NOTAM like the one above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly sounds like operator error. How can that many people fuck up all at once? I'd like to blame cabbage farts, but that's way too simplistic.

Share this post


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

By satnav I meant satellite-based navigation, not the SatNav system. Does the Navy use commercial GPS or do they have their own? That's where I wasn't sure.

GPS is a product of the US military.

If you recall it used to have nerfed accuracy for everyone without a special receiver (which obviously only the us military and friends had). During the Iraq war in the early 90s they ran out of their own receivers, so supplemented with regular commercial ones and removed the error they usually broadcast.

Since it was easy and common to get around the error anyway (differential GPS) they never put the error back in.

Share this post


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

h20...

 

How far away from the Black Sea are the approaches to Tokyo Bay>

How far away from the Black Sea are the Straits of Malacca? 

Bottom line is not one report of GPS interruption has been brought forth in those two places.

Military exercises involving GPS deception efforts happen  ALL.The.Time.

Let me help you  see that:

GPS 08/082 ZOA NAV (FACSFACSD GPS 17-03) GPS (INCLUDING WAAS, GBAS, AND ADS-B) MAY NOT BE AVBL WI A 464NM RADIUS CENTERED AT 320000N1184500W (MZB 227090) FL400-UNL, 409NM RADIUS AT FL250, 340NM RADIUS AT 10,000FT, 317M RADIUS AT 4000FT AGL, 249NM RADIUS AT 50FT AGL. 1708220700-1708221300

 

 

thanks so much.. ;) Actually.. I started this by saying.. If I were a thriller writer......  and as to my quote about GPS being susceptible to 'deception'  that was in a reply to someone who claimed never to have heard of such a thing in the black sea..

I ABSOLUTELY agree that eyes should be aware of what is going on...

But.. I can 'imagine' a scenario (definitely in a thriller novel) where this is all caused by North Korean HACKING the windows XP based weapons and nav systems.... coupled with some low power sub based radio transmissions jamming/spoofing AIS.. and ... screwing with the radar....

I just am stunned at the coincidence of TWO of the same class vessels doing something so stupid...

and.... just thought.. .if I were a thriller writer..... as I can imagine that causing something like this is absolutely feasible.

 

I am NOT saying that my position is some conspiracy theory that this is all hacking and jamming and ....

 

but I am saying... that this is just perfect to make into a thriller....... if I could write.... ;)

The loss of life is tragic.  The loss of critical vessels is tragic.

and... just ... thinking... imagining... out loud......

I am (supposedly) technically competent (there ARE some that would disagree...) and am VERY dismayed how security is an afterthought in the technology design process.  Much like putting in a steel door in a wood frame house... with stained glass side windows....

In fact I am also dismayed by the lack of thought in User Interfaces...  How can a chartplotter be zoomed out.. and make reefs or islands vanish...? without a warning..? The chartplotter should be smart enough to scream that you are about to run into an invisible chartplotter spot that will make a problem in the real world.  Technology should augment and make our life better, not confuse us....  but enough of a digression.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lark said:
1 hour ago, Rule69 said:

I think O's R is slicing with precision but in James Bond's world at least: "Once is an accident. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is enemy action."

It wasn't enemy action...  

To be clear I was quoting Ian Flemming because writing a fictional thriller was mentioned. Shudda put a :) on it. I agree, enemy action seems wildly improbable in these cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Navy just made the sad announcement that divers found some remains in the flooded compartments of the McCain.   The Malaysian navy may have found other remains.   No doubt the blue gray camouflage uniforms are proving their utility.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rule69 said:

To be clear I was quoting Ian Flemming because writing a fictional thriller was mentioned. Shudda put a :) on it. I agree, enemy action seems wildly improbable in these cases.

Internet fail to convey subtlety.    Clancy would have liked it as a plot device to begin a novel as well.

The thread title can feed the conspiracy, since it predates the accident and had to make do with the MV Crystal for a while.    How did Bruno know a tanker accident was planned?   ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GPS spoofing would cause a ship to run aground, not affect relative motion or radar plotting.  Radar interference would just show up that.  I have been out for awhile, but SPY-1 is normally used for AAW Threats (Anti Air Warfare), to get highly accurate surface they would use the Gun System radar.  Looking at the wiki page they have an SPS-67, SPS-73 radars which are feeding the link 16 (18?) system.  The basic problem is:

1. The Swiss cheese model is lining up all the vulnerabilities in a row so they error happens. (for the want of a nail, etc)..

2. The Navy SHOULD be using AIS - They were already going to a port visit (planned in advance for a foreign country, give it 30 days or so - I used to do this), so there is not a lot of OPSEC considerations.  If the boats in the Down the Bay race can turn off their AIS, so can the Navy (I kept mine one - sorta like the safety aspect).

3. Something I found out earlier, the ships over there have the XO relieve the Commanding Officer after his tour is over - this is a good thing for continuity, but bad in that the same "environment" may persist - that is why the Command Master Chief went on the Fitzgerald.

4. McCain should have been at Sea and Anchor detail or at a minimum, Nav detail for entering port (0530 local) so extra people on watch in combat if they were ISE and using the surface search radars tuned up to provide sea clutter removal etc...

5. Given the location to the TSS, the XO or at least CO should have been up.  The ships don't normally used to steam with an assigned TAO (Tactical Action Officer) on watch (senior officer such as the OPS Boss, Weaps Boss, CHENG who have weapons release authority for the CO and can maneuver the ship)

6. My information may be outdated, but geez...those are the basics..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Captain, Exec, staff officers and more, need courts martial, and if guilty, prison, no pay no retirement nada...

Share this post


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

Then I gotta ask:  What ARE they training them for?  It's inconceivable to me that the guy who scrubs the head cannot miss a floating island.

Listen again to the bridge comms from Porter.  You have capable and situationally aware crew being badgered and bullied by a know-nothing CO who insists on stupid navigational maneuvers.  They attempt to correct and fix the stupid...But hey, he's in charge.  Too much dickswingin drama for no good reason.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who was on the bridge?  How much bridge watch time did each of them have with any level of responsibility.  When it comes to actual standing watches on the bridge at sea the navy is well below the merchant guys in time on the bridge making decisions.  Add newly politically  imposed females and gays to the mix and level of distraction....  The Navy and sea duty is no place for outside political social agendas.  Nothing can replace "time in the boat"....  or in this case time on the bridge making decisions.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my (repeat) Occam's razor theory..

  If you watch the ais vid closely from 49-51 sec's,  Imagine McCain sailing across the tss @ approx. due East.

 They pick up the radar of Team oslo and possibly Guang Zhou, both steaming approx. 2kts faster than Alnic. (who now is eclipsed by T oslo.)

  McCain sets course and speed to take Oslo's transom and cross ahead of Guang, this may have required additional speed and/or course change.

  As they take Olso's transom and still monitoring Guang they Don't pick up Alnic at all or too late.  Maybe they pick up Alnic and decide to go to flank on current course to shoot infront of her bow.

  Clearly a miscalculation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Raked Aft\\ said:

Here's my (repeat) Occam's razor theory..

  If you watch the ais vid closely from 49-51 sec's,  Imagine McCain sailing across the tss @ approx. due East.

 They pick up the radar of Team oslo and possibly Guang Zhou, both steaming approx. 2kts faster than Alnic. (who now is eclipsed by T oslo.)

  McCain sets course and speed to take Oslo's transom and cross ahead of Guang, this may have required additional speed and/or course change.

  As they take Olso's transom and still monitoring Guang they Don't pick up Alnic at all or too late.  Maybe they pick up Alnic and decide to go to flank on current course to shoot infront of her bow.

  Clearly a miscalculation...

This is the thread for conspiracy theories surrounding the Fitzgerald collision.

Imaginary scenarios and unsupported but absolutely certain conclusions about the McCain collision should be posted here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, you can see the Guang Zhou turn to starboard just prior to the collision with Alnic - like they were maneuvering around a crossing ship (McCain)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All bullshit. They screwed up and people died...imagine a combat scenario...they are lucky the military does not hang those responsible. Not fargin rocket science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some observations

All four incidents have happened in PACFLT, none in LANTFLT...Used to be significant differences in East and West Coast Navies...wonder if that has crept back in?

While not directly the cause, Navy (and all military services) have been through a down budget cycle, with no let up in Ops Tempo.  Funds for training and maintenance have been squeezed for years now to provide funds to operate.  In the past when that has gone on for a long period of time, it has always resulted in a decrease in proficiency and skills, and an increase in mishaps.

Unless you've "been there, done that" in some kind of professional manner, it's way too easy to armchair quarterback this with the added advantage of perfect 20/20 hindsight.  While there is no excuse for what's been happening, I guarantee they were all trying to do their jobs.  No one woke up one morning and said to themselves, "I think I'll let some big Merchant hit me today."

Of course, I suppose it's possible that some of us have never made a error in judgement, or made a mistake while sailing our boats...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what was the visibility like?

i know it was ~5:30am or so, but were there an other issues - rain.., or anything else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Crash said:

... Of course, I suppose it's possible that some of us have never made a error in judgement, or made a mistake while sailing our boats...

Not how "it" works...you have people you are responsible for, ever, higher or lower in rank!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being responsible doesn't make one immune to the possibility of making a mistake.  It makes the stakes that much higher...which should make you consider that while making your decisions.  

My point was most of us make mistakes, but because they are not visible on the world stage, or because they didn't result in a major catastrophe, believe we could never make a mistake that does, and can't understand how it could have possibly happened...

Most professional mariners or aviators for that matter can think back to a time they dodged a bullet, and think "there but by the grace of god go I."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crash, I do not dispute what you say, but if it happens...it hits the fan or should -big time!

Truth is stranger than fiction We all are only what we "do," not what we say we do, IMHO. Heads roll for reasons.

Share this post


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

Being responsible doesn't make one immune to the possibility of making a mistake.  It makes the stakes that much higher...which should make you consider that while making your decisions.  

My point was most of us make mistakes, but because they are not visible on the world stage, or because they didn't result in a major catastrophe, believe we could never make a mistake that does, and can't understand how it could have possibly happened...

Most professional mariners or aviators for that matter can think back to a time they dodged a bullet, and think "there but by the grace of god go I."

True, we've all made mistakes. That we're here posting indicates we survived them, and chances are we didn't kill some of our crew in the process.

However, if any of us managed to run aground, hit a fishing trawler, and collide with two large merchant ships broadcasting an AIS signal, in a matter of half a year, then I think most of us would temporarily 'retire' and reflect on our lack of good judgement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concur with both of you.  I can't imagine the CO on McCain doesn't also get relieved.  You have to wonder if someone else higher up the chain doesn't also get relieved at some point..or at least should be relieved of Command.  

BobBill...sorry for the misinterpretation on my part!

Share this post


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

Concur with both of you.  I can't imagine the CO on McCain doesn't also get relieved.  You have to wonder if someone else higher up the chain doesn't also get relieved at some point..or at least should be relieved of Command.  

BobBill...sorry for the misinterpretation on my part!

I suspect the Admiral of the 7th Fleet will be replaced. Not that any of the accidents are specifically his fault, but they did happen on his watch. 

What we probably won't hear about is changes in training and rate of advancement. That will be just an institutional change that hopefully will occur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the DESRON Commander should be going if both ships were under his command.  Seen people fired before, sat in on courts martials, and non-judicial punishment.  As for distractions, that is all BS.  To be OOD was a 1 hour oral board by all the DHs after being recommended, SWO board was a 2 hour oral exam by all the Dept Heads, with the last question a kubashayu maru question, still remember it:  steaming parallel to shore, merchant ship coming at you CBDR on your port side..what do you do????  I recited the litany of "proper canned responses" radio, flashing light, we are the standon vessel etc..I knew I was screwing up and stopped.  The CO thanked me and sent me outside while they deliberated.  When I came back in the congratulated me, asked if I had any questions - I knew I screwed up last question and asked..the CO said "I was looking for you to say, call the Captain to the Bridge"  when the shit hits the fan, the CO better be on the bridge, otherwise the OOD failed and in turn the CO has failed....never forgot that..I use the same methodology here at the nuke plant.  If I think I need to tell the boss I do, just by asking the question I default to the pass the info up the chain.

Hope the pic comes thru, I am on the bridge wing as the tactical communicator directing flag signals to the Russians...and we didn't even hit them!

 

websized 969 and Victor III.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Bruce T. Shark said:

Actually, the DESRON Commander should be going if both ships were under his command.  Seen people fired before, sat in on courts martials, and non-judicial punishment.  As for distractions, that is all BS.  To be OOD was a 1 hour oral board by all the DHs after being recommended, SWO board was a 2 hour oral exam by all the Dept Heads, with the last question a kubashayu maru question, still remember it:  steaming parallel to shore, merchant ship coming at you CBDR on your port side..what do you do????  I recited the litany of "proper canned responses" radio, flashing light, we are the standon vessel etc..I knew I was screwing up and stopped.  The CO thanked me and sent me outside while they deliberated.  When I came back in the congratulated me, asked if I had any questions - I knew I screwed up last question and asked..the CO said "I was looking for you to say, call the Captain to the Bridge"  when the shit hits the fan, the CO better be on the bridge, otherwise the OOD failed and in turn the CO has failed....never forgot that..I use the same methodology here at the nuke plant.  If I think I need to tell the boss I do, just by asking the question I default to the pass the info up the chain.

Hope the pic comes thru, I am on the bridge wing as the tactical communicator directing flag signals to the Russians...and we didn't even hit them!

 

websized 969 and Victor III.jpg

story time.... why did a nuke surface close to you guys? did they need assistance or something? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL...that is a Victor III and at the time we didn't know what the pod did on the back.  He peeled the towed array sonar off a Knox Class frigate who was 200 miles off the coast of Charleston.  The V III was assigned to protect the Russian ballistic missile submarine that was in the area.  The sub has counter rotating 7 bladed props with a bundle of conductors the size of your thigh wrapped in the screws.  When we got there, he was ballasted down by the nose and some poor seaman ivanski was trying to chop the conductors off.  There were about 10-12 ft swells so ever other wave he got washed off and had to be hauled back on the sub again.  After 24 hours an AGI started trying to shoulder us away from the sub (we were reallllly close, like closer to the sub than the Russian Sub rescue ship in this this picture).  The sub got towed off to Cuba for repairs, we got lots of good pictures..plus our reserve unit was on board.

Ohh BTW, the invasion of Grenada was going on at the same time, so I guess it was sorta important to nail down where the Russian boomers were - and btw there is a US Sub in that picture if you look hard enough....this was back in the days before the internet was on the ships, so our families didn't know where we were until this pic showed up on the front page of the NY Times...grin...look mommy that's daddys ship!

 

 

Victor  III pic 1.jpg

victor  III pic 2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bruce T. Shark said:

LOL...that is a Victor III and at the time we didn't know what the pod did on the back.  He peeled the towed array sonar off a Knox Class frigate who was 200 miles off the coast of Charleston.  The V III was assigned to protect the Russian ballistic missile submarine that was in the area.  The sub has counter rotating 7 bladed props with a bundle of conductors the size of your thigh wrapped in the screws.  When we got there, he was ballasted down by the nose and some poor seaman ivanski was trying to chop the conductors off.  There were about 10-12 ft swells so ever other wave he got washed off and had to be hauled back on the sub again.  After 24 hours an AGI started trying to shoulder us away from the sub (we were reallllly close, like closer to the sub than the Russian Sub rescue ship in this this picture).  The sub got towed off to Cuba for repairs, we got lots of good pictures..plus our reserve unit was on board.

Ohh BTW, the invasion of Grenada was going on at the same time, so I guess it was sorta important to nail down where the Russian boomers were - and btw there is a US Sub in that picture if you look hard enough....this was back in the days before the internet was on the ships, so our families didn't know where we were until this pic showed up on the front page of the NY Times...grin...look mommy that's daddys ship!

 

 

Victor  III pic 1.jpg

victor  III pic 2.jpg

Cool story.    Thanks,

Share this post


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

 

While not directly the cause, Navy (and all military services) have been through a down budget cycle, with no let up in Ops Tempo.  Funds for training and maintenance have been squeezed for years now to provide funds to operate.  In the past when that has gone on for a long period of time, it has always resulted in a decrease in proficiency and skills, and an increase in mishaps.  Please explain your math.   Thanks to Congress government spending has been flat.   Except defense budgets are the only budget adjusted for inflation.    Everybody else actually takes a relative budget cut.   https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/sequestration-and-its-impact-on-non-defense-appropriations

The inability to win a war or leave a country we occupy surely causes the military to spend a lot of their flat budget blowing things up instead of on maintenance.    The misappropriation of large amounts of budget for white elephants means less money for weapons that work,    But spending even more then we do is not the answer.    If we spend as much as the next 5-7 countries, how many more countries of spending should we add to prevent and compensate for ships that go bump in the night?    It would be even worse if we were using the new expensive LCS that are also stealthy but need a stealth tug to operate.    

Unless you've "been there, done that" in some kind of professional manner, it's way too easy to armchair quarterback this with the added advantage of perfect 20/20 hindsight.  While there is no excuse for what's been happening, I guarantee they were all trying to do their jobs.   No argument there.    But trying hard only counts for partial credit in school.   In the big boy world it is called failure.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The money spent on the Zumwalt abortions would have gone a long way in maintainence and training funding on the Burkes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not meaning to hijack the conversation, but these events are certainly raising the profile of the US navy, for better or for worse.  It was a topic on local morning radio in Hobart, Tasmania, with a well informed host interviewing an expert from the nearby maritime college.

Share this post


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

 

Lark,

Never tried to say it wasn't a failure...or that the string of 4 this year isn't a colossal failure.  I'm only trying to counter those that have speculated that the crews were somehow not trying to do their jobs.  There is no argument from me about how poorly that job got done.

Not sure you understand the US Budget process.  They call it "baseline" budgeting.  It automatically includes a percentage for inflation.  For all government budget items.  You can actually "cut" the budget of some agency, and they can still get more money then they did the year before....its crazy, but it's not just DoD.  Its the entire Federal Budget.

The Navy doesn't actually determine its own Ops Tempo.  That's decided by National Command Authority, down thru the Sec Def, and the CINCs of each Theater.  The Navy just fills those requirements.  That said, I'll agree the Navy has done a poor job of saying "no, we can't meet that commitment" because we need to spend that money on training and maintenance.  So yes, there is enough money...but you have to stand up and say, "I can't do that (operational commitment) without more funding.  The Air Force is better at it.  The Navy, not as good.

LCS is not stealthy...I think you are thinking of the Zumwalt class destroyers.  

RKoch, how do you develop and test new technology without building a couple of them, and actually trying to operate them in the Fleet?  You don't know what you don't know until you actually have some sailing around.  That's true operationally, as well as logistically, from a training perspective, and from a maintenance perspective.  People felt the same way about the first warships without sail power...

Crash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Budget, lack of budget, east coast, west coast, blah blah blah...when you cut through all that noise in the end you have a large vessel with a fuck ton of people on it with twice as many eyes than mouths and in crowded seaways they hit shit. Disregarding what offensive capabilities these vessels may have, short of ensuring they can aim and operate the hopefully properly maintained weapons they have on board, their only other mission critical task is to REMAIN ON THE SURFACE OF THE OCEAN. 

Share this post


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

 

RKoch, how do you develop and test new technology without building a couple of them, and actually trying to operate them in the Fleet?  You don't know what you don't know until you actually have some sailing around.  That's true operationally, as well as logistically, from a training perspective, and from a maintenance perspective.  People felt the same way about the first warships without sail power...

Crash

The Navy doesn't seem capable of operating their existing technology safely.

Perhaps when they display some competence in avoiding lumbering freighters and shallow water, we can discuss new toys. As of now, they should probably be equipped with Brent boats....

Share this post


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

The Navy doesn't seem capable of operating their existing technology safely.

Perhaps when they display some competence in avoiding lumbering freighters and shallow water, we can discuss new toys. As of now, they should probably be equipped with Brent boats....

:D

Share this post


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

The Navy doesn't seem capable of operating their existing technology safely.

Perhaps when they display some competence in avoiding lumbering freighters and shallow water, we can discuss new toys. As of now, they should probably be equipped with Brent boats....

Kocher, if you're suggesting that the Navy buy one less Zumwalt and use the money to establish a Seamanship and Navigation school for new SWOs to learn how to drive and navigate a vessel before going off to their first warship (a la Flight School for Military Aviators), I'm all for it.  To expect a kid fresh of college and sent directly to his first ship to "learn on the job" sure doesn't seem to be working all that well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bottom line is there is no f cking excuse for this to have happened. I'm a 6 year navy vet QM spent many of night on watch in that body of water and long before GPS and all the toys they have today. The OOD, JOOD need to go back to kindergarden with out there toys. CIC should of tracked that ship several miles out and knew he wasnt  going to change course and the Lookouts need Keel Hauled. These guys cant drive across town with out there IPhone. I recently helped a young guy fix his steering on his Gulfstar 50. I fixed the steering then he asked me to help him calibrate his auto pilot. I looked down at his wheel and there was no compass. I said where is your compass? He replied I use my I phone. Needless to say I went off on the Kid and tore him a new asshole. Did your mom drop all you young guys on your head when you where little? Ok guys there's a  long distance race and its outlawed GPS and Electronic navigation of any kind. Think you have a chance to stay alive? Have you ever seen a paper chart?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ventilo +1. Courts Marshall, send all these jacks to jail, watch it change fast. And we think we can do DPRK or Talis in Afghan? Please! Not the Navy I once loved!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Crash, not just because I lead the design team for all 4 of the prop shafts lube oil coolers (which are working great!), but as a taxpayer.  As a shipyard worker I had to justify my time to the tenth of an hour..grin full disclosure, I am not under that restriction anymore.

BTW as a graduate of SWOS basic - even though I graduated from the oldest Maritime College in the country, SWOS required us to use a week to go on Yard Patrol Craft (YPs) to learn about driving ships.  Newport also has a bridge simulation center that we had to go thru.  Once you get to the ship there is a LONG actual training and practical process as a Junior Officer of the deck and members of the navigation team so they can learn.  The real power positions are the Officer of the Deck, the CIC Watch Officer (who is under the OOD when no TAO assigned).   IF a TAO is assigned, then the OOD works for him as he can fire weapons for the CO.

 

As an aside, it looks like there may be some hydronamic forces involved that may have contributed to her "loss of steering".  While it is not in, you conspiracy theorists need to look at:

playing chicken in the Houston ship channel (the ships actually aim towards each other to use the bow wave to push them off) and when an aircraft carrier does a full power run, while I forget the actual number, we do it in water deep enough to negate a pressure wave building up on the ocean floor to ensure we don't skid out an object the size of the Empire state building at 30 kts.  Any Naval Archs here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ride2live said:

I thought the merchant ship turned around long after the collision.

Correct.

Only people desperately fumbling around to get the navy off the hook ever thought that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A two-year tour on a Royal Navy destroyer showed one young surface warfare officer how much he didn't know.

 

A very sobering read for friends of the US Navy:

It didn't take me long to discover that I was not the seasoned and accomplished bridge watchkeeper I had once thought. I was now being held to a much higher standard, serving alongside Royal Navy officers …My new peers could recite rules 1 through 19 of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, … navigate the ship in close proximity to land with little or no supervision, …They could also operate the ship in some of the busiest waterways in the world with little oversight from senior leadership.

Frankly, I was embarrassed at my lack of maritime knowledge and skills for the first few months of my exchange. …During one of my under-instruction bridge watches I made a shipping report to the captain …I followed by saying I was going to hail the other vessel on bridge - to - bridge radio to confirm her intentions, which is common procedure on U.S. ships.

Within 30 seconds the captain was on the bridge,   "In the Royal Navy we abide by the Rules [of the Road] and we assume other vessels will do the same. If you truly understand the Rules and abide by them you should only have to use the radio in an emergency situation." … it was becoming evident that my computer-based training had not been as good as I thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KC 375 +1...As we have noted or implied a number of times...jail for all concerned. Never shoulda happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, KC375 said:

A two-year tour on a Royal Navy destroyer showed one young surface warfare officer how much he didn't know.

 

 

 

A very sobering read for friends of the US Navy:

 

It didn't take me long to discover that I was not the seasoned and accomplished bridge watchkeeper I had once thought. I was now being held to a much higher standard, serving alongside Royal Navy officers …My new peers could recite rules 1 through 19 of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, … navigate the ship in close proximity to land with little or no supervision, …They could also operate the ship in some of the busiest waterways in the world with little oversight from senior leadership.

 

Frankly, I was embarrassed at my lack of maritime knowledge and skills for the first few months of my exchange. …During one of my under-instruction bridge watches I made a shipping report to the captain …I followed by saying I was going to hail the other vessel on bridge - to - bridge radio to confirm her intentions, which is common procedure on U.S. ships.

 

Within 30 seconds the captain was on the bridge,   "In the Royal Navy we abide by the Rules [of the Road] and we assume other vessels will do the same. If you truly understand the Rules and abide by them you should only have to use the radio in an emergency situation." … it was becoming evident that my computer-based training had not been as good as I thought.

 

That's an excellent report, although 8 years old it's absolutely relevant today, and well worth a read.

A couple more quotes, if I may:

~~~

"When a Royal Navy warfare officer reports on board a ship to begin his first complementary job, the commanding officer knows that the newest member of the wardroom is a competent mariner. An officer will arrive with a standardized IMO-recognized Navigational Watch Certificate (NWC), meaning that he has completed 600 hours of under-instruction bridge time, passed a series of maritime competency exams, and been assessed by specialized navigators before ever reporting on board."

And

"Empower the Junior Officer. One of the most rewarding aspects about my time with the Royal Navy was the amount of trust and responsibility placed in me as an officer. Bridge watchkeepers in the Royal Navy are allowed to operate ships in close proximity to land and in busy shipping lanes with little supervision. In the U.S. Navy a bridge will be filled with personnel when a ship enters within five miles of land. In the Royal Navy such a situation is seen as a good training opportunity, exposing junior bridge watchkeepers to increased amounts of shipping and allowing for more visual fixing opportunities.

Additionally, it is normal practice on U.S. ships to have three officers on the bridge supported by a team of up to seven personnel during normal underway steaming, while in the Royal Navy one officer and a support team of two are left with the responsibilities of chartwork, running the ship's routine, steering the vessel, and monitoring the radar picture. This increased responsibility in the Royal Navy translates into increased stress, but this is outweighed by strong feelings of professional accomplishment."

~~~

As an expat Brit in the US, and as an ex-RN Reserve officer, I'm glad that the system that was built up over the years is being appreciated.  Now if it can only be duplicated here.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites