I don't know where to post this

[Hawkmoon]

Were any of you aware of the recent U.S. Navy photo showing the captain of a destroyer taking target practice at sea -- with the scope mounted backwards and the lens cap on?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/how-a-photo-of-a-gun-with-a-backward-scope-became-a-navy-embarrassment/vi-BB1ltf5e#details

That officer has now been relieved of command.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/commander-of-navy-warship-relieved-of-duty-months-after-backward-rifle-scope-photo-flap/ar-AA1pVZVR?cvid=6b12d09ca76f437d8d7810970ca56e32&ei=67

WTF?

[Perd Hapley]

I bet he was firing on fully-semi-automatic.

[BobR]

One does not necessarily equal the other. As is the Navy way, unless someone talks, which is unlikely the reason for his being relieved will always publicly be  “due to a loss of confidence in his ability to command the guided-missile destroyer” . The hammer falls on Navy COs quite often, it doesn't take much.

bob

[Hawkmoon]

One does not necessarily equal the other. As is the Navy way, unless someone talks, which is unlikely the reason for his being relieved will always publicly be  “due to a loss of confidence in his ability to command the guided-missile destroyer” . The hammer falls on Navy COs quite often, it doesn't take much.

I don't think I suggested that his being relieved of command was a result of the photo fiasco.

When I saw the photo my first reaction was that it was a static, posed photo op. However, there appear to be two cases in the sir, so apparently he was actually pulling the trigger. It all makes me curious as to the back story behind the photo. I wasn't in the Navy, but it strikes me as unlikely that a destroyer commanding officer would make a practice of taking target practice with a small-bore combat carbine. And even a Navy Commander must know that you can't see through a scope with the lens caps on, so he obviously wasn't trying to actually hit anything.

So it had to be a staged event. The question is: who staged it? Why?

[BobR]

I don't think I suggested that his being relieved of command was a result of the photo fiasco.

When I saw the photo my first reaction was that it was a static, posed photo op. However, there appear to be two cases in the sir, so apparently he was actually pulling the trigger. It all makes me curious as to the back story behind the photo. I wasn't in the Navy, but it strikes me as unlikely that a destroyer commanding officer would make a practice of taking target practice with a small-bore combat carbine. And even a Navy Commander must know that you can't see through a scope with the lens caps on, so he obviously wasn't trying to actually hit anything.

So it had to be a staged event. The question is: who staged it? Why?

I really don't think it was staged but for the life of me I can't figure out how a Gunner's Mate could mount the scope backwards. It could have been a familiarization fire for the whole crew, but then, again someone would have had to notice how far away the target was, unless they were shooting at the horizon.

bob

[Hawkmoon]

If it wasn't staged as some sort of photo op, why/how could anyone start cranking off live rounds with the lens caps still on the scope? He obviously wasn't trying to hit anything.

[Hawkmoon]

I bet he was firing on fully-semi-automatic.

Apparently that's the way our military trains field-grade officers to fire.

For those who don't know what we're talking about:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xVQXCL2JGA

The dude in the video is a retired U.S. Army general

Longer version:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYjjWPvL9j0

[JTHunter]

Apparently that's the way our military trains field-grade officers to fire.

For those who don't know what we're talking about:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xVQXCL2JGA

What's with the guy and the potato at the end?

[MechAg94]

Apparently that's the way our military trains field-grade officers to fire.

For those who don't know what we're talking about:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xVQXCL2JGA

The dude in the video is a retired U.S. Army general

Longer version:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYjjWPvL9j0

Seeing what I guess is the reporter shoot the rifle with the stock just loose in front of him was just odd.

Most people could shoot those 5 rounds and be on target beyond 50 yards. 

I guess full semi-auto must be horrible with the M1 Garand. 

[dogmush]

Apparently that's the way our military trains field-grade officers to fire.

HEY!!!!!

Some of us shoot just fine!  Still instruct the NCOs on small arms even.

[BobR]

That officer has now been relieved of command.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/commander-of-navy-warship-relieved-of-duty-months-after-backward-rifle-scope-photo-flap/ar-AA1pVZVR?cvid=6b12d09ca76f437d8d7810970ca56e32&ei=67

WTF?

If this can be believed, which I have no idea why not, it makes sense.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-navy-sacked-destroyer-captain-205450987.html

It wasn't so much he lost steering during an underway refueling and nearly banged into another boat. That happens but in this case the boat had/has an ongoing issue with losing steering. As always, the skipper is the one ultimately held responsible.


bob

[Hawkmoon]

If this can be believed, which I have no idea why not, it makes sense.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-navy-sacked-destroyer-captain-205450987.html

It wasn't so much he lost steering during an underway refueling and nearly banged into another boat. That happens but in this case the boat had/has an ongoing issue with losing steering. As always, the skipper is the one ultimately held responsible.

Hmmm . . .

The Navy released a brief statement on August 30 revealing that Yaste had been relieved of his duties as the commanding officer of the McCain "due to a loss of confidence in his ability to command the guided-missile destroyer." The sea service said that "there is no impact to the ship's mission or schedule due to the relief," without offering further details.

So the Navy sacked the captain (who had no way of fixing the steering issue) and sent the UNREPAIRED and UNDIAGNOSED ship back to sea with malfunctioning steering. I'd say Commander Yaste wasn't thrown under the bus, he was dragged under the keel (i.e. keelhauled).

[BobR]

^^^^  It does seem that way doesn't it?

From talking with other Chiefs that were and are familiar with the McCain it has been a broken ship (many minor a few major issues) since nearly day one. If you could do lemon law replacements on Naval vessels this one would probably qualify. But that doesn't happen so they continue to plug along until they get retired.

bob

[K Frame]

If it wasn't staged as some sort of photo op, why/how could anyone start cranking off live rounds with the lens caps still on the scope? He obviously wasn't trying to hit anything.

Was he a firearms advisor on The Walking Dead or something? That might explain that.

[RocketMan]

It seems the Navy was subscribing to the, "We must first fix the blame before we can fix the problem", routine in this case.

[K Frame]

From reading the article it sounds almost as if the Navy shares a large part of the blame for not being able to correct a known, potentially severe, issue with its ship, and then blaming the commander when the issue caused real problems.

Yeah... we can't fix your problem. We know it's bad, and it could cause really bad things to happen... but we're going to hold you responsible if anything happens.