I Don't Mean to Sound Uncharitable, But...

[alaskaflyfish]

Originally Posted by foggysail

Huge ship, little ship. Which has the greatest maneuverability?

Yes, thanks for making my point. The more maneuverable,more powerful (nation) ships were put into a position of weakness (egg on face) by blinding/confusing their actual positions thru cyber attack. Three times coincidence? The other position is that Navy military personnel are incompetent. I will take the higher ground and say no and analyze the trend. Sun Tzu tactic.

[JPA Cate]

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/ar...collisions-wsj

Apparently the Navy is assigning some responsibility.

It would be really difficult to target only one vessel's GPSs, with heaps of other vessels around: I question it is possible.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/ar...collisions-wsj

Apparently the Navy is assigning some responsibility.

It would be really difficult to target only one vessel's GPSs, with heaps of other vessels around: I question it is possible.

The link is dead says page no longer exists.

[alaskaflyfish]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/ar...collisions-wsj

Apparently the Navy is assigning some responsibility.

It would be really difficult to target only one vessel's GPSs, with heaps of other vessels around: I question it is possible.

The navy will never admit their systems are hackable. There must be a fall guy, scape goat to cover this and deny outside manipulation. To say that nobody else was affected has not been made known yet. The tankers and fishing vessels that hit the navy ships were affected somehow. Please explain how it would be difficult to target only one vessels gps system. Apparently the Iranians were able to pull it off two times.

[dgz3]

How abut this? "Hey Cap'n, lookit that 600 foot long ship over there! You want we should mebbe slow down a little an' let it go past? Or should we just pull right out in front of it an' stop cuz we got the right of way an' we're the US NAVY!?"

So did these nefarious super hackers with their super secret hacker ray gun that only you seem to know about hack their binoculars and eyeballs too?

My personal opinion, also based on nothing at all, is that it was pure arrogance compounded by a lack of understanding of the simple physics involving a 600 foot long tanker under way in a straight line. And tending to continue doing so no matter who tells them to do what.
The radio transmissions would be interesting. Not that we'll ever hear them.

From the pictures it would appear that the tanker struck the navy ship on the port side at almost exactly 90 degrees, indicating that the McCain was directly in it's path.
The fact that the impact was on the port side might suggest that the McCain's officer may have been refusing to give way since he had the right of way.
The fact that the McCain wasn't cut right in half and sunk on the spot indicates that the freighter was moving slowly by the time of the actual impact. Maybe in full reverse?
The lack of lateral scrapes on the McCain shows that it must have been practically motionless at time of impact.
Hard to picture that as anything but a monumental misjudgment.

The Navy's investigation of the Fitzgerald collision chalked it up to poor leadership, general incompetence, and a loss of situational awareness. Several officers were relieved of command and others disciplined.

All in all, a stupid way for sailors in service to their country to loose their lives. Speaking of which, are we attributing the training fatalities due to aircraft crashes lately to the hacker ray guns, too? What is it, 20 or 30 killed in the last few months?

[SailingFan]

Originally Posted by boatman61

A popular Royal Navy song.. to the tune of 'Halls of Montezuma...' we sang it in the 60's and 70's.. seems nothings changed much.
"There's a buzz going round the harbour that the Yanks are going to sea..
With a crate of Cokeee Cola and a f#*@ing great tub of ice cream..
When you see their ships a coming..
Be sure to stand well clear..
Coz their bludi good kids in harbour..
But Oh My Gawd at sea.."

As a former US Navy man, I have to say, sir, I truly laughed my arse off at this one, and appreciate the humor immensely! Good one, sir, good one!! Kinda catchy tune too !

Save

[alaskaflyfish]

Originally Posted by dgz3

How abut this? "Hey Cap'n, lookit that 600 foot long ship over there! You want we should mebbe slow down a little an' let it go past? Or should we just pull right out in front of it an' stop cuz we got the right of way an' we're the US NAVY!?"

So did these nefarious super hackers with their super secret hacker ray gun that only you seem to know about hack their binoculars and eyeballs too?

My personal opinion, also based on nothing at all, is that it was pure arrogance compounded by a lack of understanding of the simple physics involving a 600 foot long tanker under way in a straight line. And tending to continue doing so no matter who tells them to do what.
The radio transmissions would be interesting. Not that we'll ever hear them.

From the pictures it would appear that the tanker struck the navy ship on the port side at almost exactly 90 degrees, indicating that the McCain was directly in it's path.
The fact that the impact was on the port side might suggest that the McCain's officer may have been refusing to give way since he had the right of way.
The fact that the McCain wasn't cut right in half and sunk on the spot indicates that the freighter was moving slowly by the time of the actual impact. Maybe in full reverse?
The lack of lateral scrapes on the McCain shows that it must have been practically motionless at time of impact.
Hard to picture that as anything but a monumental misjudgment.

The Navy's investigation of the Fitzgerald collision chalked it up to poor leadership, general incompetence, and a loss of situational awareness. Several officers were relieved of command and others disciplined.

All in all, a stupid way for sailors in service to their country to loose their lives. Speaking of which, are we attributing the training fatalities due to aircraft crashes lately to the hacker ray guns, too? What is it, 20 or 30 killed in the last few months?

Yes your opinion indeed. 3 ships in 3 months with same 3 scenarios with 3 arrogant skippers. Yup, sounds logical. Move along now, nothing to see here.

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by alaskaflyfish

... with 3 arrogant skippers. ...

Now that sure rings so true!
You've heard the one about the US Admiral of the Fleet telling the Nantucket lightship to move out of the way of his carrier squadron? Too close to the truth to be funny.

[alaskaflyfish]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

Now that sure rings so true!
You've heard the one about the US Admiral of the Fleet telling the Nantucket lightship to move out of the way of his carrier squadron? Too close to the truth to be funny.

You know that joke/story isn't actually true right? There are several different versions of the same joke/story depending on where in the world you are. What would be really funny is if you thought that joke was true.

[justwaiting]

Originally Posted by dgz3

How abut this? "Hey Cap'n, lookit that 600 foot long ship over there! You want we should mebbe slow down a little an' let it go past? Or should we just pull right out in front of it an' stop cuz we got the right of way an' we're the US NAVY!?"

So did these nefarious super hackers with their super secret hacker ray gun that only you seem to know about hack their binoculars and eyeballs too?

My personal opinion, also based on nothing at all, is that it was pure arrogance compounded by a lack of understanding of the simple physics involving a 600 foot long tanker under way in a straight line. And tending to continue doing so no matter who tells them to do what.
The radio transmissions would be interesting. Not that we'll ever hear them.

From the pictures it would appear that the tanker struck the navy ship on the port side at almost exactly 90 degrees, indicating that the McCain was directly in it's path.
The fact that the impact was on the port side might suggest that the McCain's officer may have been refusing to give way since he had the right of way.
The fact that the McCain wasn't cut right in half and sunk on the spot indicates that the freighter was moving slowly by the time of the actual impact. Maybe in full reverse?
The lack of lateral scrapes on the McCain shows that it must have been practically motionless at time of impact.
Hard to picture that as anything but a monumental misjudgment.

The Navy's investigation of the Fitzgerald collision chalked it up to poor leadership, general incompetence, and a loss of situational awareness. Several officers were relieved of command and others disciplined.

All in all, a stupid way for sailors in service to their country to loose their lives. Speaking of which, are we attributing the training fatalities due to aircraft crashes lately to the hacker ray guns, too? What is it, 20 or 30 killed in the last few months?

I keep looking at the photo of the damage and i am not at all sure that we are looking at a 90 degree impact. Remember that the tanker was in ballast and the damage to the tanker was about 7 meters above the water line.

Making the call that the Navy ship was the stand on vessel when in fact it could have been an over taking vessel may be being very considerate to the Navy vessel.

The rest i would agree with.

RIP to the dead sailors and condolences to their families.

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by justwaiting

I keep looking at the photo of the damage and i am not at all sure that we are looking at a 90 degree impact. ...

I agree, not 90 degree collision; looks like tanker had, too late, initiated avoiding action (is it wrong to alter course to port in this situation?) or else navy ship was overtaking vessel.

[buzzstar]

Too early to know much. First, I am unclear if all of the missing sailors have been found or recovered. Hope they are very soon. Second, right now all we seem to know is the warship was rammed. Was the tanker unseen or was navigation data incorrect? The latter would fit with the hacking stories that have sprung up. Another possible is was our warship intentionally cutting in front of the tanker (reportedly not an uncommon tactic). Were steering problems reported, as an excuse?
If so, what went wrong? Was nav data misread, inaccurate, or ignored? Did the Liberian registered, apparently Greek owned, unknown (to me) officers and crew) know what was happening and did it do or fail to do anything that it should have? Lots of questions, few answers yet, and as civilian sailors we are unlikely to learn many of the facts that will produce the next outcome resulting from the event.

[buzzstar]

Originally Posted by SailingFan

As a former US Navy man, I have to say, sir, I truly laughed my arse off at this one, and appreciate the humor immensely! Good one, sir, good one!! Kinda catchy tune too !

Save

Good tune and word, so I will not top it with ones the US Navy had (and probably still has) about the naval forces of other nations, including the RN and the Ausies. I think it is a common element of the naval services.

[justwaiting]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

I agree, not 90 degree collision; looks like tanker had, too late, initiated avoiding action (is it wrong to alter course to port in this situation?) or else navy ship was overtaking vessel.

We know that there were other vessels close by and to what extent that may have cause either the NV or the tanker to maneuver remains to be seen.

Changing course to port is a risky move - if that is what happened her and it resulted in a collision then it is wrong. What i interesting for a couple of reasons is the low relative speed at point of impact. With a tanker in ballast (as far as remember) the ability to slow down improves but the ROT deteriorates. Given that there may not have been a lot of sea room available or that there was a late maneuver by one of the other vessels slowing the tanker may have been the best option and displayed "good seamanship"

The navy has made statement that the NV had steering difficulties before the collision. That raises a coupe of questions - are we looking at mechanical failure (possibly associated with maintenance, or the lake there of) or did the 2 vessels come "that" close that the hulls interacted which could also give the impression of steering failue.

Of course we would all like to see a track for the NV - funny thing is that if the NV had been relying on AIS data it could have a contributing factor - tanker if 600 ft long and Bridge aft. The rooky mistake would be to forget about all of the ship in front of the bridge.

[McKenna]

The average enlisted person on an Arleigh Burke class destroyer is in their mid twenties. They are expected to get by on 3 or 4 hours of sleep per 24 hour day, which is obviously not enough. Sleep deprivation has a terrible price.