Bruno

Tanker hits Destoyer, how is this possible?

Recommended Posts

Boo freaking hoo!!  Merchant sailors stand watch and work as well.  The main difference is that Merchant disciplines are separate, engine and deck.  US Navy feels their officer corps can be jacks of all trades (and masters of none).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/08/2017 at 8:30 PM, P_Wop said:

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.

 

 

Reminds me of a delivery trip through the Strait of Gibraltar between Christmas and New year, the radio absolutely full of chatter, including VHF ch16 in the middle of the night (Christmas carols, abuse, etc, etc) including a long conversation between 2 boats trying to work out which way to pass each other. 

Over the radio comes a voice from a German bound ship.

"if you fucking arseholes knew the rules, you wouldn't need to use the fucking VHF!!"

Cue more torrents of abuse over the VHF, all night. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/08/2017 at 9:39 PM, Jkdubz808 said:

I know exactly what happened. Destroyer tried to cut in front of a big merchant ship. Misjudged the distances and didn't do the vectors in his/her head right. Swung the ship, then realized with horrors the errors in both judgment and vectors that they made as the tanker bore down on their starboard bow. 

 

It happened to me this morning coming into port on my ship. Coastie cutter cut right in front of me instead of waiting 10 minutes to take my stern. Luckily my ship isn't as big as that tanker and I could slow down a bit for the the bastards to clear.....

 

It boils down to lack of proper training. We merchant mariners are held to such high standards by IMO and local governments but the Navy not so much. None of their bridge personnel hold any kind of licenses whatsoever like we do. 

Do you radio them in a case like that? I'm guessing asking them WTF they were doing over the radio wouldn't be a good idea. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All bullroar, unless something bad comes their way...screw all who closet this!

Share this post


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

Do you radio them in a case like that? I'm guessing asking them WTF they were doing over the radio wouldn't be a good idea. :lol:

You can try, they usually don't answer though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These ships have commercial radars too, like the Raytheon Pathfinders, which automatically creates a target list of the closest 10 ships (boats) with closest point of approach (or collision), time of same, and automatically alarms (audio) when any ship gets within programmed detection radiuses.This is simple stuff. The radar is built with Risk Assessment in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

Too soon.  

That damned military and their damned sense of humor

Share this post


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

I suspecting that the destroyer had the same radar used to track MH370.  It was invisible too.

Shortly after separating from the Navy I took a Cessna 152 up for an orientation flight. For non-pilots, that was about the most basic trainer being offered to general aviation at that time. I was shocked at how user friendly and reliable the little VHF comm radio was, coming from MILSPEC ARC 51's which didn't work half the time and were unintelligible half of the other half of the time. In the context of this post, don't automatically assume the military electronic equipment is as good as commonly available civilian counterparts just because:

a. It costs a gazillion times more,

b. It's installed in a vessel that costs a gazillion times more,

c. It's build to MILSPEC which is supposed to far exceed consumer grade ,

d. Is four times the size and weighs six times as much, or

e. Our country's security depends on it and our Navy deserves nothing but the best. 

Sad, isn't it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many years ago (35?) after a race to Mexico we were docked next to the escorting USCG Cutter. Meeting one of the guys in a bar one night, he said he was OOD the next day and invited me for a tour. It was pretty interesting. The boat was pretty much a piece of shit. Up on the bridge, the electronics were all ancient. I reciprocated the tour, and showed him around the 2-tonner I raced on. He was particularly impressed with the 2 Lorans  we had. I explained the the expensive Northstar was very accurate, but lacked long range and was a power hog. The cheap Sitex wasn't very accurate, but didn't use much power and had good long-range reception. 2 regular retail units, either was better than what they had. BTW, during the race as we approached the finish we hailed the RC on vhf to notify them of our arrival soon. The CG came on the radio and engaged us in idle chit-chat.  The OOD admitted that was simply so they could get a direction bearing on us, as they were a bit unsure of their position.

Share this post


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

Shortly after separating from the Navy I took a Cessna 152 up for an orientation flight. For non-pilots, that was about the most basic trainer being offered to general aviation at that time. I was shocked at how user friendly and reliable the little VHF comm radio was, coming from MILSPEC ARC 51's which didn't work half the time and were unintelligible half of the other half of the time. In the context of this post, don't automatically assume the military electronic equipment is as good as commonly available civilian counterparts just because:

a. It costs a gazillion times more,

b. It's installed in a vessel that costs a gazillion times more,

c. It's build to MILSPEC which is supposed to far exceed consumer grade ,

d. Is four times the size and weighs six times as much, or

e. Our country's security depends on it and our Navy deserves nothing but the best. 

Sad, isn't it? 

Design-by-committee always gets the best results.

Share this post


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

Design-by-committee always gets the best results.

I felt exactly how you would feel if you were getting ready to launch and knew you were sitting on top of 2 million parts — all built by the lowest bidder on a government contract.’

- John Glenn

Glenn's thoughts when he was sitting atop the Atlas rocket (several of which had blown up) for the first orbital flight in 1962 (which I saw from my back yard in Sanford Fl. btw...)

Problem today is that there is no meaningful competition left in Defense Procurement...but I digress.

Quote

These ships have commercial radars too, like the Raytheon Pathfinders, which automatically creates a target list of the closest 10 ships (boats) with closest point of approach (or collision), time of same, and automatically alarms (audio) when any ship gets within programmed detection radiuses.This is simple stuff. The radar is built with Risk Assessment in mind.

The Fitz and McCain both have the standard SPS 67/SPS 73 Burke class surface search radar suite.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To that end, Richardson said, warships will increase their use of the AIS anti-collision system, required of commercial ships but rarely used by cautious U.S. Navy skippers. "We had, I think, a distorted perception of operational security that we kept that system secure – off – on our warships," Richardson said, according to USNI News. "One of the immediate actions following these incidents – particularly in heavily trafficked areas we're just going to turn it on."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to see them finally looking at bigger picture and trends and not just the individual event, as well as holding those accountable up the chain, but why is this a Pacific fleet thing?

The problems are not isolated to that fleet, nor are the root causes they are finally talking about.

Come on Navy; fix the whole problem!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KC375 said:

To that end, Richardson said, warships will increase their use of lookouts, required of commercial ships but rarely used by cautious U.S. Navy skippers. "We had, I think, a distorted perception of operational security that we kept our lookouts safely down below," Richardson said, according to USNI News. "One of the immediate actions following these incidents – particularly in heavily trafficked areas we're just going to look outside."
 

Fixed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give it a rest would you daddle?  We get that you think every Officer of the US Navy is an idiot, that you are a highly competent mariner and that the answer to the problem is simple..and nothing anyone says on this forum is going to change that opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh. I have the same low opinion of Naval ship driver's as Admiral Richardson: Because our navy ships are unable to detect or avoid lumbering cargo traffic let's broadcast AIS so the much more competent cargo ship crews have a better chance of avoiding us. He is throwing the watchstanders under the bus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually daddle, that's an interesting perspective...I think he is responding to lots of criticism of why wasn't the AIS on.  There sure has been plenty of that on this thread.  I also think there is some recognition of, had it been on, one of the Merchants might have been able to slow or do something to avoid the collision and save some lives.  But in a way, he is throwing the watchstanders under the bus.  While I'm not sure of why (nor is anyone else yet either, as none of the investigations into the causes have been released), the watch teams did obviously fail...and in both cases, got hit by the bus...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

‘I now hate my ship’: Surveys reveal disastrous morale on cruiser Shiloh

“It’s only a matter of time before something horrible happens,” one shipmate warned.

“Our sailors do not trust the CO,” another noted.

“I just pray we never have to shoot down a missile from North Korea,” a distraught sailor lamented, “because then our ineffectiveness will really show.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re the Shiloh article, typically Aegis cruisers are at least a second command tour. Wonder what the environment was like on his first CO tour?

Share this post


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

Re the Shiloh article, typically Aegis cruisers are at least a second command tour. Wonder what the environment was like on his first CO tour?

Article says he previously commanded the destroyer Mahan. I wonder what the reports from that ship said?  It's a pretty frightening article....I feel really bad for those sailors on the Shiloh. 

Share this post


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

Article says he previously commanded the destroyer Mahan. I wonder what the reports from that ship said?  It's a pretty frightening article....I feel really bad for those sailors on the Shiloh. 

In the civilian world it sucks if your boss abuses you. You can follow internal company or external legal processes to gain relief. Those are usually painful and often have negative career consequences but at least they are available. At the worst you can simply choose to go work elsewhere.

In the navy you can’t walk away from an abusive command. That makes it all the more important that the Admirals pay attention.

Where the hell was Navy senior leadership. Two months into Aycock’s command the first dismal survey was taken. Yet the sailors where left to suffer for two more years. Apart from the injustice to the sailors there is real impact on effectiveness that the Admirals left festering for years after the information was available.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love this thread, it shows that hypocrisy knows no limits.

The first several 100 posts were about getting back to the navy of old, unwinding attention to good working conditions and maintaining an equitable environment - to hell with being nice, focus on the fucking job at hand.

Now the winds have shifted and suddenly it's all about how miserable working conditions and hostile work place should have us all choked up.

When you fuckers make up your minds, let us know. Until then, turn on the AIS transmitter and keep the telegraph between stop and dead slow.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, KC375 said:

In the civilian world it sucks if your boss abuses you. You can follow internal company or external legal processes to gain relief. Those are usually painful and often have negative career consequences but at least they are available. At the worst you can simply choose to go work elsewhere.

 

In the navy you can’t walk away from an abusive command. That makes it all the more important that the Admirals pay attention.

 

Where the hell was Navy senior leadership. Two months into Aycock’s command the first dismal survey was taken. Yet the sailors where left to suffer for two more years. Apart from the injustice to the sailors there is real impact on effectiveness that the Admirals left festering for years after the information was available.

 

 

 

Bread and water in the brig in the 21st century? WTF:o

Share this post


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

I thought the Navy was in the business of sinking ships?

Yeah, but not their OWN!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Article on gCaptain "The “Navy Way” is the Wrong Course" written by someone who seems to know their stuff - retired Lieutenant-Commander in the US Naval Reserve, and a San Francisco bar pilot with over 31 years’ experience.

... During one of my reserve tours, the ship’s captain couldn’t believe I knew ALL the rules by heart. Apparently, none of the other Officers of the Deck did...

Navy (should) look to commercial fleets for ways to improve seagoing operations in the future. Less redundancy in terms of personnel, a greater emphasis on basic seamanship, and a willingness to streamline operations in terms of crew numbers

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, KC375 said:

Article on gCaptain "The “Navy Way” is the Wrong Course" written by someone who seems to know their stuff - retired Lieutenant-Commander in the US Naval Reserve, and a San Francisco bar pilot with over 31 years’ experience.

... During one of my reserve tours, the ship’s captain couldn’t believe I knew ALL the rules by heart. Apparently, none of the other Officers of the Deck did...

Navy (should) look to commercial fleets for ways to improve seagoing operations in the future. Less redundancy in terms of personnel, a greater emphasis on basic seamanship, and a willingness to streamline operations in terms of crew numbers

 

Interesting that GCaptain puts his editorial alongside Links to stories about a bulk ship loss, a collision between two merchant ships, a cargo fire and a drunk pilot who died when he fell while boarding a merchant. 

Many of his comments are right on the money.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/politics/navy-collisions-avoidable.html

In the case of the Fitzgerald, the Navy determined in its latest reports that the crew and leadership on board failed to plan for safety, to adhere to sound navigation practices, to carry out basic watch practices, to properly use available navigation tools, and to respond effectively in a crisis.

In the case of the John S. McCain, the investigation concluded that the collision resulted from “a loss of situational awareness” while responding to mistakes in the operation of the ship’s steering and propulsion system while in highly trafficked waters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a big surprise, I think thatmost of us here thought that it was human errors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After all our well-meaning guesses over the past five months as to what happened, these two reports have a LOT of information, none of which causes any joy at all:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/01/us/politics/document-fitzgerald-john-s-mccain-collisions-reports.html

Both Navy ships were give-way, and neither did so.  No mechanical faults on either (though lots of misunderstanding and flatfootedness about how to use steering stations on McCAIN).   

We don't have the merchant ships' accounts (nor would we, in a Navy investigation) but they would have in both instances expected the Navy ships to have taken avoiding action first, so their own delay has to be seen in that light.

The sketch on page 34 of the FITZGERALD report, is horrifying.  Those poor poor guys.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sad, the conclusion that both of these fatal collisions were the result of incompetence,  avoidable, must be bitter for the families.

Might be better to have 300 well run ships than 400 poorly run ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The full Navy report on the collisions is well worth a read.

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=103130

Very sobering.

Too much technology (multiple helm and throttle control stations???), not enough training, conflicting orders, lack of order confirmations, situational awareness failures, you name it.

At the risk of being parochial, the old RN doesn't operate this way.  One watchkeeping officer and a middy on the bridge, two lookouts watching their arcs, a coxswain on the helm, a bosun's mate for piping orders, a signalman on standby, a single telegraph controlling both screws, and all backed up by voice pipes.  And the Captain is continually informed when at close quarters with anything.

Re-vamp of procedures should be a priority.  And basic seakeeping ability training.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the FITZ report, the Findings (Section 8 in the link) are, frankly, frightening--take a quick look at Sections 8.1 and 8.2 (pages 21-22), including:

--Officers possessed an unsatisfactory level of knowledge of the International Rules of the Road

--Watch team members were not familiar with basic radar fundamentals...

--approved navigation track did not account for, nor follow, the Traffic Separation Schemes....were unaware of existing TSS's and traffic flows

--Did not use AIS themselves, nor observe it from other ships

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/01/us/politics/document-fitzgerald-john-s-mccain-collisions-reports.html

 

Share this post


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

In the FITZ report, the Findings (Section 8 in the link) are, frankly, frightening--take a quick look at Sections 8.1 and 8.2 (pages 21-22), including:

--Officers possessed an unsatisfactory level of knowledge of the International Rules of the Road

--Watch team members were not familiar with basic radar fundamentals...

--approved navigation track did not account for, nor follow, the Traffic Separation Schemes....were unaware of existing TSS's and traffic flows

--Did not use AIS themselves, nor observe it from other ships

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/01/us/politics/document-fitzgerald-john-s-mccain-collisions-reports.html

 

WTF???  Incredible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No shit. Big surprise. Im shocked that the reason the state of the art highly electronically assisted vessel in the largest navy in the world hit another vessel was deemed to be because no one was paying attention and their bosses werent paying attention and basic rules and processes were not being followed and generally everyone had their heads up their asses. Shocking. Who would have guessed. Its like a hearing that a blind guy died riding his motorcycle and the accident report concludes he died because he rode a motorcycle while being blind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical navy. The press release is quite long and detailed yet it tells us . . . . . . . . nothing.

The report will need a little time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also quite telling that the Fitz, according to the Navy report, had a near collision incident in mid-May without any root cause analysis or corrective actions afterwards.

Share this post


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

No shit. Big surprise. Im shocked that the reason the state of the art highly electronically assisted vessel in the largest navy in the world hit another vessel was deemed to be because no one was paying attention and their bosses werent paying attention and basic rules and processes were not being followed and generally everyone had their heads up their asses. Shocking. Who would have guessed. Its like a hearing that a blind guy died riding his motorcycle and the accident report concludes he died because he rode a motorcycle while being blind. 

I think this sums it up eloquently

Share this post


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

Here she is in Subic on the to Yokosuka waiting out the weather.

1889118F-5EBD-4798-B3B0-00E351A372EC.jpeg

Did they run into that ship too or are they supposed to be on top of the other one?

(ducks and runs)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree blaming these incidents on failures of seamanship is like Chris's blind motorcyclist analogy. The real questions are why? Placing the blame on pace of operations in 7th Fleet might be accurate but I think getting to the root cause involves looking at funding. 300 ship navy  vs 400 ship navy? Well, the real question is can the US continue to expect to exert seapower in a two ocean conflict (which has been the mission statement since at least the Second World War) with a 300 ship navy or even a 400 ship navy? If that standard is sacred, what is the cost and what gets reduced elsewhere in the budgeting process to allow that to happen? And will those in positions of leadership stand up and say "No, we can't do this with our current level of funding, assets and manpower"? Or will they continue to cave? What's the ratio of US GNP to defense budget today vs 30 years ago when a lot of the decisions that shape our current fleet were made? I'm guessing it's half or less. 

Share this post


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

I agree blaming these incidents on failures of seamanship is like Chris's blind motorcyclist analogy. The real questions are why? Placing the blame on pace of operations in 7th Fleet might be accurate but I think getting to the root cause involves looking at funding. 300 ship navy  vs 400 ship navy? Well, the real question is can the US continue to expect to exert seapower in a two ocean conflict (which has been the mission statement since at least the Second World War) with a 300 ship navy or even a 400 ship navy? If that standard is sacred, what is the cost and what gets reduced elsewhere in the budgeting process to allow that to happen? And will those in positions of leadership stand up and say "No, we can't do this with our current level of funding, assets and manpower"? Or will they continue to cave? What's the ratio of US GNP to defense budget today vs 30 years ago when a lot of the decisions that shape our current fleet were made? I'm guessing it's half or less. 

Image result for us defense budget percent of gdp by yearPersonally I think we need to reevaluate the missions instead of adding to the charge card by returning to a 1960 level.   

Share this post


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

Did they run into that ship too or are they supposed to be on top of the other one?

(ducks and runs)

That is how she is being transported to Yokosuka. Expand the photo and you just make out multiple supports welded to,the bottom of the navy ship. 

Share this post


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

I think getting to the root cause involves looking at funding.

I don't disagree with that. However, the Navy (and DOD in general) is still unable to provide documentation to complete basic audits. Who knows where the money goes? Maybe it's being spent on things that aren't critical to readiness? What we know from the public record is that the fleet is not being maintained, that the sailors are not getting trained and that there is a recent history of criminal corruption. A lack of money may be the root problem but from the outside it looks like there are institutional failings that could make it hard to apply additional funds effectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funding? Who the fuck would take command of a ship like this and not be totally on top of what it took to put in place the processes and trained people in the key positions so he/she could hit the rack at night and sleep well knowing the ship would not end up on land or hit another vessel? I'm sorry, trying to assign some half assed systemic excuse for why the captain failed at the main reason for existence on the ship is infuriating. If the fucker who commanded this clown show graduated from annapolis they should just shut that place down. 

Share this post


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

Who the fuck would take command of a ship like this and not be totally on top of what it took to put in place the processes and trained people in the key positions

Apparently 8 out of 11 destroyer commanders* in the 7th fleet who haven't been able to maintain certifications while "training on the margins".  The problem is not just one or two bad commanders.

*Just the first google hit for a story that's widely reported: http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/06/training-certificates-for-numerous-seventh-fleet-ships-expired-before-deadly-collisions/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are as incompetent in actual warfare as they are at basic ship navigation and watch standing, our enemies or potential enemies have very little to fear.  Obviously any other mariner around the world apparently should be very afraid when a US Navy ship is in the vicinity.

The report outlines ineptitude and training deficiencies far beyond my worst imagination....  pathetic and beyond unacceptable.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In WWII the navy had the biggest ships so everyone got out of the way.

oops, now its different.

Looks like they will need a $10 billion 10 year investigation to find out why the merchant fleet doesnt crash that often

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Apparently 8 out of 11 destroyer commanders* in the 7th fleet who haven't been able to maintain certifications while "training on the margins".  The problem is not just one or two bad commanders.

*Just the first google hit for a story that's widely reported: http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/06/training-certificates-for-numerous-seventh-fleet-ships-expired-before-deadly-collisions/

http://index.heritage.org/military/2017/assessments/us-military-power/u-s-navy/

this appears to be a solid report.   It suggests our Inability to design new ships that can be launched on time, on budget, and capable of operating contributed to the increased operational pace of existing ships.   The resulting necessity of operating worn out but functional equipment increases maintenance pressure and slowdowns in the yard result in deferred preventative work.  

http://fatigueconference2017.com/materials/wednesday-pm/scheduling/Shattuck.pdf

.This points out that Navy defeats its own training efforts and increases errors by ignoring basic biology.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/1/2017 at 10:25 PM, George Hackett said:

Here she is in Subic on the to Yokosuka waiting out the weather.

1889118F-5EBD-4798-B3B0-00E351A372EC.jpeg

God I loved Subic, and Cubi.

Share this post


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

Funding? Who the fuck would take command of a ship like this and not be totally on top of what it took to put in place the processes and trained people in the key positions so he/she could hit the rack at night and sleep well knowing the ship would not end up on land or hit another vessel? I'm sorry, trying to assign some half assed systemic excuse for why the captain failed at the main reason for existence on the ship is infuriating. If the fucker who commanded this clown show graduated from annapolis they should just shut that place down. 

You miss my point. If the burden of maintaining at least the appearance of being able to fight a war on two oceans means resources are stretched so thin that training is poached to maintain operational tempo, then the Navy has to look at whether to give ground on those commitments and shelve the two ocean mission or the US has to fund more ships and sailors to man them and meet that mission. My personal experience dates back to the sixties and early seventies. I was an aviator but prior to that, every midshipman I trained with spent watches in After Steering learning how the ship's emergency steering system worked. We also conned on the bridge while shifting steering and practiced loss of steering emergencies while maintaining station in a formation. But I bet the average ship's complement was twice what it is today and not all of the reductions have come about as a result of system automation. And we had enough ships, presumably, to confront multiple threats which aren't given a lot of play today: 1: Confronting an aggressive Soviet surface navy, 2: Confronting an even more aggressive and sizable Soviet submarine force with both land and carrier based air power support, and: 3: Keeping four carriers in the Gulf of Tonkin continuously conducting air power projection against a sophisticated and well coordinated air defense network. While doing all of this the Navy maintained a fairly consistent operational tempo; six months deployments followed by nine to twelve months at homeport refurbishing, refitting and retraining. That was mantra back in the day. Today we are unable to do that. We don't have the ships in sufficient numbers, the people to man them and the budget to train the people we have. So, yes, funding is the issue. 

I fear our armed forces have become one trick ponies with too much emphasis on counterinsurgency warfare against two bit opponents like the Taliban and Isis and not enough on the basics needed to operate world wide in potentially contested environments. Some of this coincided with trying to cope with reduced funding. There was probably a general belief that we can get our mojo back if regional or global powerhouses begin to look like adversaries but we may have to reexamine that. 

Share this post


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

God I loved Subic, and Cubi.

So I take it you served here? The place has changed quite a lot. It has become an export processing zone and a retirement place. We actually have moved into East Kalayaan. Clean air and no traffic! 

Share this post


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

Funding? 

What the Pentagon wants to avoid discussing is #1 report they are wasting (vs effective operations benchmarks)  $25b/year in 'back office' operations (eg like property and inventory management), and #2 wasted like $22b on the Zumwalt class with hideously poor project management, etc (those are only the tip of the inefficiency iceberg) . . . . . they do NOT want congress and the tax payers to realize they could do vastly more/better with their current funding and don't need 'more' - in fact could do vastly better even with a cut if they shaped up.

Share this post


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

What the Pentagon wants to avoid discussing is #1 report they are wasting (vs effective operations benchmarks)  $25b/year in 'back office' operations (eg like property and inventory management), and #2 wasted like $22b on the Zumwalt class with hideously poor project management, etc (those are only the tip of the inefficiency iceberg) . . . . . they do NOT want congress and the tax payers to realize they could do vastly more/better with their current funding and don't need 'more' - in fact could do vastly better even with a cut if they shaped up.

I agree with this. At current training, the Navy can't even safely operate the boats they have. Zumwalt was a complete waste of money, that should have been spent on teaching rules of the road, how to read a radar screen and follow AIS tracks, and how to maintain a visual lookout. Until the basics are covered, handing over a Zumwalt is like giving Rimas a TP52.

Share this post


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

I agree with this. At current training, the Navy can't even safely operate the boats they have. Zumwalt was a complete waste of money, that should have been spent on teaching rules of the road, how to read a radar screen and follow AIS tracks, and how to maintain a visual lookout. Until the basics are covered, handing over a Zumwalt is like giving Rimas a TP52.

+1 

What I can't understand here is why they can't train the crews to actually do more than 1-2 things each. Just reading the two accident reports (both very interesting), it's astounding how many people they had on bridge at the same time...  Fitzgerald had 6 people on bridge (including 2 officers: OOD, JOOD), while McCain had 11 people including what looks like 5 officers (CO, XO, OOD, JOOD, Shipping Officer).  Not to mention the unspecified number of people in the Combat Information Center (looking at radar, etc).  See images of bridge staffing from the reports below. 

Meanwhile the helm on McCain apparently (in the CO's view at least) had a hard time maintaining course in a current while also maintaining speed, so the CO decided to split up helm and throttle (triggering the chain of events that led to the collision).  These make me think of those movies of big WW2 bombers with a pilot, co-pilot, Nav, Radio guy, etc.  Meanwhile planes have moved on to just pilot/co-pilot (and they move a hell of a lot faster than a ship).  So the Navy should just run the ships with just 4 people: OOD, JOOD, 1 Nav/Comms, 1 Helm...? (I imagine that's closer to what commercial ships run) -- spend the extra money training those folks and giving them more rest... (after all you only need 16 bridge crew total if you stand 6h watch/day with 4x 4 crew).  And perhaps, while we're at it, quit having these absurdly long chains of command where the OOD tells the Conn to tell the Helm to do X...?

To be clear I have no Navy experience, so this is all peanut gallery comments... (but hell, that's par for the course on SA!)

 

 

Screen Shot 2017-11-04 at 11.09.30 AM.png

Screen Shot 2017-11-04 at 11.08.51 AM.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, George Hackett said:

So I take it you served here? The place has changed quite a lot. It has become an export processing zone and a retirement place. We actually have moved into East Kalayaan. Clean air and no traffic! 

Yes, 87-90. Took advantage of it to surf and fly all over the PI and the Orient. Good times. Enjoy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On November 4, 2017 at 2:23 PM, galacticair said:

+1 

What I can't understand here is why they can't train the crews to actually do more than 1-2 things each. Just reading the two accident reports (both very interesting), it's astounding how many people they had on bridge at the same time...  Fitzgerald had 6 people on bridge (including 2 officers: OOD, JOOD), while McCain had 11 people including what looks like 5 officers (CO, XO, OOD, JOOD, Shipping Officer).  Not to mention the unspecified number of people in the Combat Information Center (looking at radar, etc).  See images of bridge staffing from the reports below. 

Meanwhile the helm on McCain apparently (in the CO's view at least) had a hard time maintaining course in a current while also maintaining speed, so the CO decided to split up helm and throttle (triggering the chain of events that led to the collision).  These make me think of those movies of big WW2 bombers with a pilot, co-pilot, Nav, Radio guy, etc.  Meanwhile planes have moved on to just pilot/co-pilot (and they move a hell of a lot faster than a ship).  So the Navy should just run the ships with just 4 people: OOD, JOOD, 1 Nav/Comms, 1 Helm...? (I imagine that's closer to what commercial ships run) -- spend the extra money training those folks and giving them more rest... (after all you only need 16 bridge crew total if you stand 6h watch/day with 4x 4 crew).  And perhaps, while we're at it, quit having these absurdly long chains of command where the OOD tells the Conn to tell the Helm to do X...?

To be clear I have no Navy experience, so this is all peanut gallery comments... (but hell, that's par for the course on SA!)

 

 

Screen Shot 2017-11-04 at 11.09.30 AM.png

Screen Shot 2017-11-04 at 11.08.51 AM.png

Interesting that only one lookout (to port) was posted on the McCain, and no lookouts on the Fitzgerald. No bearing takers on either ship (who would have provided data indicating a collision course). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2017 at 8:44 AM, mookiesurfs said:

God I loved Subic, and Cubi.

I still remember two quotes, from a QM and an EW who worked for me (this was circa 1985 or so):

QM said that Subic Bay was the only experience in the Navy that met his expectations.

EW suggested that every American boy, when he hits puberty, should be given $50 and sent to Subic for a weekend...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing came out of this. I bought an AIS. The Navy will likely not know what the funny symbols are, but the merchants might not be as prone to run me over after I program it with the name "Huge Nitroglycerine Tanker" ;)

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 1:48 PM, P_Wop said:

The full Navy report on the collisions is well worth a read.

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=103130

Very sobering.

Too much technology (multiple helm and throttle control stations???), not enough training, conflicting orders, lack of order confirmations, situational awareness failures, you name it.

At the risk of being parochial, the old RN doesn't operate this way.  One watchkeeping officer and a middy on the bridge, two lookouts watching their arcs, a coxswain on the helm, a bosun's mate for piping orders, a signalman on standby, a single telegraph controlling both screws, and all backed up by voice pipes.  And the Captain is continually informed when at close quarters with anything.

Re-vamp of procedures should be a priority.  And basic seakeeping ability training.

True, the Royal Navy doesn't operate this way. 

But in the wake of the Fat Leonard procurement scandal, the US Navy doesn't have cash on hand - and it would take cash, no checks permitted - to pull of Royal Navy-style morale boosting activities.

 

Share this post


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

One thing came out of this. I bought an AIS. The Navy will likely not know what the funny symbols are, but the merchants might not be as prone to run me over after I program it with the name "Huge Nitroglycerine Tanker" ;)

I did a couple delivery trips on a boat equipped with an AIS receiver. IIRC a transmitter uses a lot more electrons. But at least the receiver pinged a warning, and we could call the ship on VHF and make sure they saw us on their radar. Made me a believer in AIS. I'd def have a receiver, and a transmitter if I had enough battery power. 

Share this post


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

True, the Royal Navy doesn't operate this way. 

But in the wake of the Fat Leonard procurement scandal, the US Navy doesn't have cash on hand - and it would take cash, no checks permitted - to pull of Royal Navy-style morale boosting activities.

 

The Telegraph reported that one man had sex with a prostitute in a swimming pool.

Well they're sailors! Are they supposed to be doing it on dry land :lol: At least they didn't run anyone over on the way to the pool!

":Sailors go wild on shore leave, details in the evening engraved stone tablets" says the news at any seaport in 500 BC :rolleyes:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sex in a pool is great. Unless it's at South Seas Plantation. And they just did a chlorine shock treatment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2017 at 4:55 PM, kent_island_sailor said:

The Telegraph reported that one man had sex with a prostitute in a swimming pool.

Well they're sailors! Are they supposed to be doing it on dry land :lol: At least they didn't run anyone over on the way to the pool!

":Sailors go wild on shore leave, details in the evening engraved stone tablets" says the news at any seaport in 500 BC :rolleyes:

 

You're selling our friends and their embarrassingly good partying abilities short
How short? 
Real shortReal, awful short

Admittedly, when the media is discussing a Royal Navy officer having a big bump, it seems to involve only cocaine, and not hitting Asian cargo vessels.  But still. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fundamental problem with all the Navy's nonsense it that the things they are fixing have fuck all to do with the root problem. 

When a military pilot gets out and starts looking for work there is a laundry list of companies begging them to come fly planes for them. From FedEx to airlines there is a bidding war for every military trained pilot as they leave the service. Do you know who bids for former CO's to come captain their ships? No one, because they don't have the sea time, the command experience, or the knowledge to even be licenses as a watch stander in the civilian world.

You want to know the root of the problem... The average USN Captain has SIX MONTHS on the job. Thats it, six months is the average length of duty assignment, and no one has more than a year. Because the entire Navy has moved to a 12 month billet for Captains in order to rotate them thru fast enough to punch everyones command ticket so they can be promoted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2017 at 1:45 PM, RKoch said:

I did a couple delivery trips on a boat equipped with an AIS receiver. IIRC a transmitter uses a lot more electrons. But at least the receiver pinged a warning, and we could call the ship on VHF and make sure they saw us on their radar. Made me a believer in AIS. I'd def have a receiver, and a transmitter if I had enough battery power. 

It was comforting on the last Vic-Maui to have the calculated closest point of approach and you can get that with just a receiver and GPS.  Eyeballing this stuff at night in a big sea is difficult.  We saw a lot more traffic this time than last time. Without it, the temptation is to delay manoeuvreing until you really have to, especially if it is windy, and then it could become an all hands situation that could have been avoided.  It is nice to keep the off watch asleep if possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, StumbleNola said:

The fundamental problem with all the Navy's nonsense it that the things they are fixing have fuck all to do with the root problem. 

When a military pilot gets out and starts looking for work there is a laundry list of companies begging them to come fly planes for them. From FedEx to airlines there is a bidding war for every military trained pilot as they leave the service. Do you know who bids for former CO's to come captain their ships? No one, because they don't have the sea time, the command experience, or the knowledge to even be licenses as a watch stander in the civilian world.

You want to know the root of the problem... The average USN Captain has SIX MONTHS on the job. Thats it, six months is the average length of duty assignment, and no one has more than a year. Because the entire Navy has moved to a 12 month billet for Captains in order to rotate them thru fast enough to punch everyones command ticket so they can be promoted.

Did not know this and agree it could be the huge issue. I heard there was a similar problem with Army combat units in Viet Nam that was addressed in the aftermath. As a result, staff officers and REMFs were no longer rotated into combat units just to give good officers the combat credentials needed to pursue their careers. Bitter lessons I hope they haven't forgotten. Sounds as though the Navy didn't get that memo. 

Share this post


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

Did not know this and agree it could be the huge issue. I heard there was a similar problem with Army combat units in Viet Nam that was addressed in the aftermath. As a result, staff officers and REMFs were no longer rotated into combat units just to give good officers the combat credentials needed to pursue their careers. Bitter lessons I hope they haven't forgotten. Sounds as though the Navy didn't get that memo. 

This is seamanship, not combat.  Navy ships haven't been tested with real combat for generations.   We 'loaned' a couple patrol boats to the Iranians but the public still hasn't received explanation on why they wandered into Iranian waters.      The seventh fleet cannot operate midsize maneuverable ships safely.   Maybe there are to many people in the navy that are not qualified to actually be around the water, and it is a mistake to let them touch things painted gray.  At least we know navy damage control training works if nobody is shooting at us and there are friendly coast guards on standby.      

 

Share this post


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

Did not know this and agree it could be the huge issue. I heard there was a similar problem with Army combat units in Viet Nam that was addressed in the aftermath. As a result, staff officers and REMFs were no longer rotated into combat units just to give good officers the combat credentials needed to pursue their careers. Bitter lessons I hope they haven't forgotten. Sounds as though the Navy didn't get that memo. 

Thanks for that.  Agreed. The old RN (otherwise known as The Andrew, or the Grey Funnel Line) does this all a bit differently, as I posted before.

I also like it that you know the REMF acronym.  So appropriate.

Share this post


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

This is seamanship, not combat.  Navy ships haven't been tested with real combat for generations.   We 'loaned' a couple patrol boats to the Iranians but the public still hasn't received explanation on why they wandered into Iranian waters.      The seventh fleet cannot operate midsize maneuverable ships safely.   Maybe there are to many people in the navy that are not qualified to actually be around the water, and it is a mistake to let them touch things painted gray.  At least we know navy damage control training works if nobody is shooting at us and there are friendly coast guards on standby.      

 

Lark,

While I agree the Surface Navy hasn't been in true ship vs ship combat since WWII, and that they have obvious training and leadership issues in SWOdom, the fact remains that right now, and most everyday of the year, there are some 100 Navy ships underway, the vast majority operating in the 7th fleet.  

https://news.usni.org/2017/11/13/usni-news-cna-fleet-marine-tracker-nov-13-2017

And no one has hit anyone since Aug 21st...and while that's no record to be "proud of:, the Navy can and does routinely manage to operate its ships safely around the globe.  Much needs to be fixed.  It's a "big Navy Leadership failure" in my opinion.  But lets not blow it totally out of proportion either...

Crash

Share this post


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

Lark,

While I agree the Surface Navy hasn't been in true ship vs ship combat since WWII, and that they have obvious training and leadership issues in SWOdom, the fact remains that right now, and most everyday of the year, there are some 100 Navy ships underway, the vast majority operating in the 7th fleet.  

https://news.usni.org/2017/11/13/usni-news-cna-fleet-marine-tracker-nov-13-2017

And no one has hit anyone since Aug 21st...and while that's no record to be "proud of:, the Navy can and does routinely manage to operate its ships safely around the globe.  Much needs to be fixed.  It's a "big Navy Leadership failure" in my opinion.  But lets not blow it totally out of proportion either...

Crash

The patriotic civilian war movie guy in me wants to give them maximum benefit of the doubt.   I'm glad a third of the fleet is at sea, that shows something.     http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/30/politics/iran-navy-capture-investigation-report/index.html This is what I have been able to find about the patrol boat incident.  I'll be happy if you find a less depressing report.   There was nothing to suggest Iran spoofed their GPS, they just couldn't read it or set a way point.  They didn't know where they were, and one of the two boats broke down.  Apparently the explanation on why the functioning boat couldn't toss a tow line was redacted.    "The U.S. craft were also undermanned, and couldn't be operated at the same time the weapons were being manned."  ??!!     Irregardless, they correctly surrendered rather then starting a war when they were trespassing.  If they couldn't tow a boat, couldn't fix the engine and were lost that was the least bad decision.   Crying for mommy didn't show fighting ability though.    Then this year the 7th fleet had three collisions.   I would hate to be in a position where the welfare of the country depended on reliable equipment, precise navigation and fighting ability based on the available evidence.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites