Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: freakazoid on August 20, 2017, 09:04:29 PM
-
The USS John S. McCain and an oil tanker collided outside of Singapore at 0524 local. So far no word on any injuries.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/21/us-destroyer-uss-john-s-mccain-damaged-after-collision-with-oil-tanker
-
Seems like the U.S. Navy needs to spend less time on diversity and sensitivity training and more time on basic navigation.
-
Seems like the U.S. Navy needs to spend less time on diversity and sensitivity training and more time on basic navigation.
Plus looking out of the round glass things on the front and sides of the ship. The initial reports are damage port-side aft. Last I checked, tankers aren't very good at sneaking up on anybody....
At this rate, given all the folks that are going to be relieved and disciplined, Freak could have his own Destroyer by the end of the year.
-
WTF is going on in the CICs on these boats. They should be tracking everything that will come within x miles of them and then track them. I am confused.
bob
-
Makes me wonder what is going on at the Naval Academy also. Of course, I don't know where the blame goes for things like this or how long the people involved have been in the service.
-
WTF is going on in the CICs on these boats. They should be tracking everything that will come within x miles of them and then track them.
What an interesting idea; destroyers maybe being able to figure out what's around them in case they might want to, you know, destroy something.
-
Reports are saying 10 missing, 5 injured. DAMMIT. This *expletive deleted*it has got to stop. I bet there's a admiral or two that wants some ass nailed to masts.
And it sounds like the damage is pretty severe. We can't keep breaking ships on dumb *expletive deleted*it like this. There has to be a training problem here, because people aren't doing their damn jobs.
-
Reports are saying 10 missing, 5 injured. DAMMIT. This *expletive deleted*it has got to stop. I bet there's a admiral or two that wants some ass nailed to masts.
And it sounds like the damage is pretty severe. We can't keep breaking ships on dumb *expletive deleted*it like this. There has to be a training problem here, because people aren't doing their damn jobs.
Not sure (never being in the Navy, or any branch of the military) but I have to wonder if there isn't an over-reliance on technology. I know in aircraft there are systems warning of traffic that's on a collision course - or even anywhere nearby. Maybe there are instances where the people who are supposed to have their eyes on the scopes (and out on the horizon) are relying on the tech to warn them. Or heck, maybe even the opposite is true. The system is *too* good. so it's picking up false returns, etc.... And instead of waking up the captain for another whale fart, they're waiting until they're *really* sure they've got an inbound track. And by then it's too late to maneuver, etc..
-
Not sure (never being in the Navy, or any branch of the military) but I have to wonder if there isn't an over-reliance on technology. I know in aircraft there are systems warning of traffic that's on a collision course - or even anywhere nearby. Maybe there are instances where the people who are supposed to have their eyes on the scopes (and out on the horizon) are relying on the tech to warn them. Or heck, maybe even the opposite is true. The system is *too* good. so it's picking up false returns, etc.... And instead of waking up the captain for another whale fart, they're waiting until they're *really* sure they've got an inbound track. And by then it's too late to maneuver, etc..
If you think over reliance on tech for navigation is bad for ships at sea, JUST WAIT until there are millions of self-driving cars on the roads. :O
-
Maybe there are instances where the people who are supposed to have their eyes on the scopes (and out on the horizon) are relying on the tech to warn them. Or heck, maybe even the opposite is true. The system is *too* good. so it's picking up false returns, etc.... And instead of waking up the captain for another whale fart, they're waiting until they're *really* sure they've got an inbound track. And by then it's too late to maneuver, etc..
They have an electronic monitoring system that's probably the best in the world, but aren't they also still supposed to have "lookouts" on the bridge? Using good, old-fashioned M5 Mark IV Mod 6 eyeballs to scan the horizon around the ship? It just doesn't make sense that the watch would need permission from the Captain to avoid a collision.
One such collision is an accident, and an anecdote. At some point, multiple anecdotes start to equal "data." Two such incidents, in the same part of the world, within the span of a couple of months, seems to be indicative of a systemic problem.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/21/us-destroyer-uss-john-s-mccain-damaged-after-collision-with-oil-tanker
The US navy relieved the USS Fitzgerald’s captain of his command and other sailors were punished after the navy found poor seamanship and flaws in keeping watch contributed to the June collision. An investigation into how and why the Fitzgerald collided with the other ship was not finished, but enough details were known to take those actions, the navy said.
“Collisions like these are extremely rare and two in one summer, both from 7th Fleet based in Japan, is stunning,” said David Larter, a US navy veteran and naval warfare writer.
He added it was far too early to assess what caused the McCain to collide.
“The number of breakdowns that have to occur for something like this to happen make them a rare occurrence. Sailors monitor radars round the clock, they have multiple sailors standing watch on the bridge which also has a radar, and they have at least one lookout posted at the back end of the ship to watch for exactly these kinds of situations,” he said.
-
Navy has been going downhill for quite a while. Remember the sailors that allowed themselves to be captured by Iran without firing a single shot? And didn't toss all electronics and weapons into the water before capture? And the lieutenant involved made sniveling comments on tape? Hell, plenty of violations the code of conduct?
That should have sent the message there were massive deficiencies across the entire US Navy, both officer and enlisted.
I'm not shocked with these collisions, merely shocked that there haven't been more incidents.
-
Navy has been going downhill for quite a while. Remember the sailors that allowed themselves to be captured by Iran without firing a single shot? And didn't toss all electronics and weapons into the water before capture? And the lieutenant involved made sniveling comments on tape? Hell, plenty of violations the code of conduct?
That should have sent the message there were massive deficiencies across the entire US Navy, both officer and enlisted.
I'm not shocked with these collisions, merely shocked that there haven't been more incidents.
I suspect we all remember the Iran incident. It just seems the higher-ups are more concerned with getting the first female SEAL qualified than they are with properly training the fighting force.
-
Buy them all black berets to wear. That will fix it. I don't think the Navy got those.
-
Buy them all black berets to wear. That will fix it. I don't think the Navy got those.
Yep, that'll do it - headgear adapted from the French, the most formidable fighting force the world has seen in the last 100 years. ;/
-
This might be interesting.
hearing whispers about our state of the art ships getting cyber-hacked as a possible contributor to the recent collisions.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/national-security/article168470432.html (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/national-security/article168470432.html)
Did we learn nothing from Battlestar Gallactica?
-
"...said David Larter, a US navy veteran and naval warfare writer."
" '...and they have at least one lookout posted at the back end of the ship to watch for exactly these kinds of situations,' he said."
He must've been simplifying it for some audience, but I had to laugh at that. I know "stern" is German for "star," maybe that's why. "Sternmotor," for example, is "star engine," meaning a radial engine, in German.
Terry, 230RN
-
https://www.wsj.com/articles/navy-begins-broad-review-of-collisions-with-10-sailors-still-missing-1503329812
And the Navy has instituted a stand-down while they review training and procedures.
Good move. I think it's patently obvious they need to do just that.
Meanwhile, China says the U.S. Navy is a navigation hazard: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-navy-crash-china-idUSKCN1B20O2?il=0
Never mind that both destroyers were rammed amidships by the other vessels, and that the accident investigations are far from complete. Any excuse to divert attention to their (China's) militarization of artificial islands that most nations don't even agree are in Chinese waters.
-
The Chinese have a point. Most commercial traffic (tankers, freighters and the like) is traveling in nice straight lines, inside known shipping lanes. They are not cutting back and forth, making unexpected, and sometimes. radical turns.
Both accidents would appear to be US Navy ships trying to cut it too close when they have made turns.
-
The Chinese have a point. Most commercial traffic (tankers, freighters and the like) is traveling in nice straight lines, inside known shipping lanes. They are not cutting back and forth, making unexpected, and sometimes. radical turns.
Both accidents would appear to be US Navy ships trying to cut it too close when they have made turns.
Like people in sports cars trying to beat the train at the crossing? Good point.
-
China can be sneaky. Any chance these collisions were deliberate?
Maybe a hack, maybe bribing or coercing the relevant folks on the civilian ships....
I mean two damaged ships and now the entire Navy has to stand down. May they're calibrating just what it takes to cripple America's ability to maneuver in certain areas.
[tinfoil]
-
I'd like to give benefit of the doubt, but this is just too much. If anything, after the Fitzgerald, one would think there would be increased vigilance, including watchstander eyeballs.
I doesn't matter if the Chinese are sneaky - if we want to take the tinfoil road and say it was deliberate, it still should have never happened, at least to a US warship. If the Chinese can sneak tankers up on our warships, we've got bigger problems than we think.
Definitely time to look into training though. Maybe there is more to Mattis' order to cut diversity training and increase warfighter training than the original announcement let on. I'm curious if there has been a documented degradation of basic skillsets in the services because not enough time is allotted to reinforcing them due to all the non-essential training. Revdisk's example of the sailors that neglected to destroy classified material and cry like babies may very well be the kind of thing Mattis hopes to eliminate. I have to wonder what would happen to those sailors if that incident occurred now, with Mattis as SECDEF.
-
I'm curious if there has been a documented degradation of basic skillsets in the services because not enough time is allotted to reinforcing them due to all the non-essential training. Revdisk's example of the sailors that neglected to destroy classified material and cry like babies may very well be the kind of thing Mattis hopes to eliminate. I have to wonder what would happen to those sailors if that incident occurred now, with Mattis as SECDEF.
Yes.
Brass spends a lot of time arguing about why exactly the degradation has happened, but such has been documented. As well as issues with Sr. NCO and Officer retention.
-
Revdisk's example of the sailors that neglected to destroy classified material and cry like babies may very well be the kind of thing Mattis hopes to eliminate. I have to wonder what would happen to those sailors if that incident occurred now, with Mattis as SECDEF.
Going back to that incident -- didn't it occur because they didn't know where the [bleep] they were with respect to territorial waters?
-
I have to wonder what would happen to those sailors if that incident occurred now, with Mattis as SECDEF.
https://youtu.be/pWTh8inHgpQ?t=40
-
https://youtu.be/pWTh8inHgpQ?t=40
I was thinking more along the lines of bringing back keelhauling.
To be done on aircraft carriers, so smaller boat crews don't get an easier time of it.
-
I was thinking more along the lines of bringing back keelhauling.
To be done on aircraft carriers, so smaller boat crews don't get an easier time of it.
Submarine, at test depth.
-
On more serious note, some Naval folks I know pointed out quite a few things.
- American ships are driven 'by amateurs'. From what was explained to me by someone in a foreign military that had joint exercises with American ships, most of the ship captains do very little skippering. They have a fairly short interval as ship captain, and navigation is just one of a billion other details they have to handle. People move through jobs very quickly. Most shipping captains spend their entire careers actually working a ship. Navy captains work fifty bazillion other jobs/duties and do not stay long enough in their positions to really understand them. Same applies to other personnel as well.
- US Navy doesn't automate stuff the way the rest of the industry does. Those huge supermax ships have a tiny fraction of the crew, even granting even for the whole "lack of weapons or aircraft". They use far more low skilled, low ranking persons where the rest of the world uses automation. Allegedly, and I don't know if this is opinion or true, personnel are essentially overloaded with duties.
- US Navy regularly turns off AIS, which is sort of like air traffic control for the ocean. It is specifically designed for collision avoidance on ships. I can understand secret squirrel missions requiring AIS to be turned off, and subs would generally not want to use it. But for surface boats in shipping lanes? It should automatically be turned on.
-
- US Navy regularly turns off AIS, which is sort of like air traffic control for the ocean. It is specifically designed for collision avoidance on ships. I can understand secret squirrel missions requiring AIS to be turned off, and subs would generally not want to use it. But for surface boats in shipping lanes? It should automatically be turned on.
Yeah, unless I'm missing something, that's just stupid. Seems like there would be ZERO reason (dogmush, freak, dm1333, correct me if I'm wrong) that there would be an operational need to turn AIS off in a busy shipping lane during a normal transit.
I used to always see the local USCG cutters pop up on my AIS in the office when they were in a regular transit. They mostly just cut it off when they were patrolling for homeland stuff, druggies, illegal fishing, etc. Canadian military would often pass through the channel when they were doing some joint ops stuff, and they would transmit on AIS as well.
-
...
-
- American ships are driven 'by amateurs'. From what was explained to me by someone in a foreign military that had joint exercises with American ships, most of the ship captains do very little skippering. They have a fairly short interval as ship captain, and navigation is just one of a billion other details they have to handle. People move through jobs very quickly. Most shipping captains spend their entire careers actually working a ship. Navy captains work fifty bazillion other jobs/duties and do not stay long enough in their positions to really understand them. Same applies to other personnel as well.
[ahem] US Navy ships are driven by amateurs. There are plenty of US Military vessels that are skippered by officers that spend their entire career just doing that. That's why the Army uses Warrant Officers as Vessel Masters, so that they don't have officers with years of sea experience wasted on shore duty and stupid non vessel handling positions. The USCG, likewise, has their vessel captains predominantly be a vessel captain, even if they do stoop to using regular officers.
Yeah, unless I'm missing something, that's just stupid. Seems like there would be ZERO reason (dogmush, freak, dm1333, correct me if I'm wrong) that there would be an operational need to turn AIS off in a busy shipping lane during a normal transit.
There seems to be an ongoing cultural tug of war among the US Military services as to how much to interact with civilian vessels while underway. My experience has been that it's not just AIS. US Navy Warship commanders (at least if the ship is over 500' or so) don't like to communicate on non tactical radios, or talk to Vessel Traffic Systems, or work out passing arraignments, or much of anything. It seems to be cultural from the blue water Surface Warfare* Guys. The smaller coastal patrol boats, LCS's, and LCU/LSD's I've worked with don't have this issue. Nor does the Coast Guard.
As to AIS specifically, the US Navy does not transmit (at least I've never seen them do so). There are valid reasons for not transmitting warship location and track data, ever. And the military AIS systems can receive but not transmit, so you can still use the system to help stand watch. It's up to the Vessel Master to weigh the traffic, tactical situation, and mission to decide where the greater risk lies. That's why we get the big staterooms. As far as I know there isn't (yet) a blanket policy on AIS transmission. I know the Army doesn't have one.
FWIW, when I'm OCONUS, I only transmit AIS when I'm actually IN a controlled Vessel Traffic System. And only then while I'm actually talking to the controllers. So, I'll fire it up about 5 min before the fist call in, and kill it as soon as I check out. That's my SOP even on non-tactical OCONUS transits, so that no one can keep track of when I turn it off and figure out I'm doing something interesting on any particular trip. But other skippers do other things. My watchstanders and I understand though, that when I choose to do that, it puts even more responsibility on us to be vigilant and communicate with traffic, because we aren't automatically populating on their equipment.
*and subs on the surface. Those aholes never talk to ANYONE, and try to enforce stupid separation rules with no authority. "I know I'm in a channel that's 1000yds wide, and the water is 6 feet deep outside it, but you need to leave me 2 nautical miles to your port". F Off, ya big whale, we'll pass just fine.
ETA: It's also worth mentioning that every US Navy Chief Boatswain's Mate I've ever met or worked with has been a solid professional mariner. Perhaps the Officer's of the Watch aren't listening to the Chiefs, or the Navy is having SR NCO retention issues as well, I don't know.
-
There seems to be an ongoing cultural tug of war among the US Military services as to how much to interact with civilian vessels while underway. My experience has been that it's not just AIS. US Navy Warship commanders (at least if the ship is over 500' or so) don't like to communicate on non tactical radios, or talk to Vessel Traffic Systems, or work out passing arraignments, or much of anything. It seems to be cultural from the blue water Surface Warfare* Guys. The smaller coastal patrol boats, LCS's, and LCU/LSD's I've worked with don't have this issue. Nor does the Coast Guard.
As to AIS specifically, the US Navy does not transmit (at least I've never seen them do so). There are valid reasons for not transmitting warship location and track data, ever. And the military AIS systems can receive but not transmit, so you can still use the system to help stand watch. It's up to the Vessel Master to weigh the traffic, tactical situation, and mission to decide where the greater risk lies. That's why we get the big staterooms. As far as I know there isn't (yet) a blanket policy on AIS transmission. I know the Army doesn't have one.
FWIW, when I'm OCONUS, I only transmit AIS when I'm actually IN a controlled Vessel Traffic System. And only then while I'm actually talking to the controllers. So, I'll fire it up about 5 min before the fist call in, and kill it as soon as I check out. That's my SOP even on non-tactical OCONUS transits, so that no one can keep track of when I turn it off and figure out I'm doing something interesting on any particular trip. But other skippers do other things. My watchstanders and I understand though, that when I choose to do that, it puts even more responsibility on us to be vigilant and communicate with traffic, because we aren't automatically populating on their equipment.
*and subs on the surface. Those aholes never talk to ANYONE, and try to enforce stupid separation rules with no authority. "I know I'm in a channel that's 1000yds wide, and the water is 6 feet deep outside it, but you need to leave me 2 nautical miles to your port". F Off, ya big whale, we'll pass just fine.
ETA: It's also worth mentioning that every US Navy Chief Boatswain's Mate I've ever met or worked with has been a solid professional mariner. Perhaps the Officer's of the Watch aren't listening to the Chiefs, or the Navy is having SR NCO retention issues as well, I don't know.
Thank you dogmush. That was an excellent explanation. While I by no means would expect AIS use outside busy shipping lanes, I sometimes forget about the norks, Chinese, and french and Japanese and Canadians for that matter that like to see what we're up to. Especially when it's as easy as sitting at a computer with Internet access.
You give good reason for keeping it off, while also recognizing that extra vigilance is needed, whether electronic or eyeball, in those busy areas.
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/1umegr.jpg) (https://imgflip.com/i/1umegr) (https://imgflip.com/memegenerator)
-
From what I've been reading, across the board the military is entirely too focused on stupid *expletive deleted*it vs what they need to be focused on
That does not bode well for us at all.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
Definitely time to look into training though. Maybe there is more to Mattis' order to cut diversity training and increase warfighter training than the original announcement let on. I'm curious if there has been a documented degradation of basic skillsets in the services because not enough time is allotted to reinforcing them due to all the non-essential training. Revdisk's example of the sailors that neglected to destroy classified material and cry like babies may very well be the kind of thing Mattis hopes to eliminate. I have to wonder what would happen to those sailors if that incident occurred now, with Mattis as SECDEF.
And "Optimum manning" meaning less people to take care of maintenance, etc.
-
I also read that the Navy has relieved the fleets commander.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
I also read that the Navy has relieved the fleets commander.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
One sometimes misses the good old days:
The Battle of Minorca:
The British Admiralty, perhaps concerned to divert attention from its own lack of preparation for the disastrous venture, charged Admiral Byng for breaching the Articles of War by failing to do all he could to fulfill his orders and support the garrison. Byng was court-martialled, found guilty and sentenced to death. Byng was blindfolded and shot on the deck of his own ship on 14 March 1757 aboard HMS Monarch in Portsmouth harbour.
Byng's execution is referred to in Voltaire's novel Candide with the line Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres – "In this country, it is wise to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others.
-
ETA: It's also worth mentioning that every US Navy Chief Boatswain's Mate I've ever met or worked with has been a solid professional mariner. Perhaps the Officer's of the Watch aren't listening to the Chiefs, or the Navy is having SR NCO retention issues as well, I don't know.
Well, it was just a little while ago they tried to take away their traditional enlisted ranks.
-
I also read that the Navy has relieved the fleets commander.
I'm of two minds on that.
Part of me says, the guy is a freakin' FLYBOY, WTF is he doing in charge of a fleet of surface (and under-surface) ships?
And another part of me says, he wasn't driving the boats, and he probably wasn't in charge of training the guys who WERE driving the boats, so how -- exactly -- is it his fault?
And, regardless of whose fault it was (or wasn't) -- how do you fix that with a ONE DAY stand-down?
-
I wonder if this ships had 12-14 inches (or whatever such a sized ship could carry) of armor on their hulls would their have been any deaths? Injuries from an unexpected impact sure, but fatalities?
-
I'm of two minds on that.
Part of me says, the guy is a freakin' FLYBOY, WTF is he doing in charge of a fleet of surface (and under-surface) ships?
And another part of me says, he wasn't driving the boats, and he probably wasn't in charge of training the guys who WERE driving the boats, so how -- exactly -- is it his fault?
And, regardless of whose fault it was (or wasn't) -- how do you fix that with a ONE DAY stand-down?
1. Career advancement. It doesn't matter if that's your area of expertise, or even knowledge, you need that ticket punched.
2. The Joys of Command. You own every failure of those beneath you. Hopefully, you are doing a good job of coaching, training, leading and educating them, so the failures are minimal.
3. Remedial Watchstanding ??
-
Yeah, unless I'm missing something, that's just stupid. Seems like there would be ZERO reason (dogmush, freak, dm1333, correct me if I'm wrong) that there would be an operational need to turn AIS off in a busy shipping lane during a normal transit.
I used to always see the local USCG cutters pop up on my AIS in the office when they were in a regular transit. They mostly just cut it off when they were patrolling for homeland stuff, druggies, illegal fishing, etc. Canadian military would often pass through the channel when they were doing some joint ops stuff, and they would transmit on AIS as well.
Sorry for the delay. AIS is a useful tool in shipping lanes, I don't know why they would turn it off. It's not like people couldn't look out a bridge window and see the big gray warship.
-
Sorry for the delay. AIS is a useful tool in shipping lanes, I don't know why they would turn it off. It's not like people couldn't look out a bridge window and see the big gray warship.
Not if it has its Romulan cloaking device activated.
-
Not if it has its Romulan cloaking device activated.
Our AIS transponders do have a secure mode but it isn't as good as the Romulan cloaking device. :laugh:
-
you should get a Romneyulan Cloaking Device, one day you look like one type of ship the next you're an entirely different type of ship. It depends on who is looking at the ship on any given day.
It comes complete with the highly-advanced Finger-in-the-Wind antenna system and the two-setting Flip-or-Flop actuator module.
-
you should get a Romneyulan Cloaking Device, one day you look like one type of ship the next you're an entirely different type of ship. It depends on who is looking at the ship on any given day.
It comes complete with the highly-advanced Finger-in-the-Wind antenna system and the two-setting Flip-or-Flop actuator module.
Are you trying to get this thread moved to the polly-ticks discussion area?
-
you should get a Romneyulan Cloaking Device, one day you look like one type of ship the next you're an entirely different type of ship. It depends on who is looking at the ship on any given day.
It comes complete with the highly-advanced Finger-in-the-Wind antenna system and the two-setting Flip-or-Flop actuator module.
Requesting permission to quote and do you want to be anonnymouse or otherwise identified? I usually use "From a Forum Friend." Thanx!
-
Of course you can quote, and use my name if you like. Thank you.
-
Of course you can quote, and use my name if you like. Thank you.
No, Thank YOU! :P
-
News Update: The U.S. Navy has completed a study that shows there's a better chance of avoiding collisions if the people driving the boat watch where they're going.
Or something like that.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/27/us/politics/navy-orders-safety-operational-standards.html?mtrref=www.drudgereport.com&gwh=475C6A0C338E25898FD94FA63BEC4FA5&gwt=pay
-
News Update: The U.S. Navy has completed a study that shows there's a better chance of avoiding collisions if the people driving the boat watch where they're going.
Or something like that.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/27/us/politics/navy-orders-safety-operational-standards.html?mtrref=www.drudgereport.com&gwh=475C6A0C338E25898FD94FA63BEC4FA5&gwt=pay
I know on the ship I was on the OS's still used a compass and charts to plot their course and to see how close they would get to other ships and would compare it to what the QM's had on the bridge, and the TAO would be calling out every ship around. I wonder if other ships don't normally do that? ???
The Navy has allowed ships to rely on grueling watch schedules that leave captains and crews exhausted, even though the service ordered submarines to abandon similar schedules two years ago. A Government Accountability Office report from May said sailors were on duty up to 108 hours each week.
What did they expect was going to happen with "optimum" manning? :facepalm: