How does this happen II?

Another Arleigh Burke, another collision.

This time it is the USS John S. McCain(DDG-56), and the tanker Alnic MC. At least 10 sailors missing and 5 wounded with SAR ongoing. Damage to the McCain is, at the moment, unknown, but point-of-impact is said to be on the port side, aft.

Looks like the Navy just "didn't get it" after the Fitzgerald...Hopefully, they will now "get it."

I wounder if OpanaPointer will soon be getting a job offer from Annapolis to teach a new course...Remedial Seamanship 100,

 

Was the Indianappolis actually torpedoed? Im wondering now...
And after the Melbourne incident I know WE cant talk..!

 

Photos now coming in.

 

SMH

 

If it is proved to be some form of dereliction of duty, and ten deaths are the result, then serious brig time should be in order.

 

I don't understand it either. 2, huge, 600ft long ships...and you can't see each other coming? If its that easy for a freighter to sneak up on a top-of-the-line Navy ship, all hope is lost!

 

Perhaps someone confused "port" and "Starboard". Or "turn to port" vs "turn to the port". To some degree both ships have to be at fault. Any explanations yet?

 

Two very similar incidents in under a year points to some underlying flaw in procedure or training. At least it isn't another Honda Point FUBAR.

 

I know extremely little about how modern warships detect each other's presence than what I read in defence forums and discussions with my daughter's friend who works for Boeing on a contract to India for naval radar. . Perhaps our detection devices do not recognise lumbering clumsy tankers or container ships and are tuned to fast agile warships ? . This may be a coincidence but something seems more inherently wrong. Our Navy has said more than a few times that no enemy can get within a 200 mile radius of a carrier battle group without detection. Maybe a 200,000 ton box shaped ship moving at say 11-18 knots is not expected to cause damage.. I really should not make light of this as in both cases young viable lives have been lost for no yet apparent reason. Heart breaking for their families and troubling for those as detached as we are..

Has any credible source offered any explanation as to how the Fitzgerald accident might have happened ? Armor does not seem to be the main deterrent to damage on modern warships , electronics tied to weapon systems does. that. Can a few Phalanx, the reload time on one is scary, systems and anti-missile missiles stop a multiple missile attack on a destroyer, let alone a carrier, I certainly hope so.

These two vessels can no doubt punch but do they have glass jaws? How much war damage can they take. ? I do not know but we have a lot riding on it. . If you add the Cole to this list it is more daunting., admittedly it was an entirely different scenario but we could not get it back to Pascagoula for repair. A Dutch heavy lift ship brought it home. Destroyers have always been fast and thin, I guess they still are. Do not mean to sound negative just musing out loud.....would love to see the Navy score a big win.

Gaines

 

The new driverless technology has the ability to scan its surrounds (thousands of times a second) and avoid obstacles that are not only in the way but look like they will be by their speed and direction...when will this tech be installed in ALL water craft?

 

When it works as advertised...Tesla's "Autopilot" isn't - you still have to have your hands on the steering wheel and be paying attention to the road. Same same with the Google self-driving vehicles...
Google reports self-driving car mistakes: 272 failures and 13 near misses

Besides, collision avoidance systems in ships have been around for sometime, for example, AIS, the catch is that you have to have it turned on. Most naval warships have it turned off, because they do not want their presence advertised to all comers.

Further, giving a competent watch and officers( lately, a stretch it seems) , the technology of the time has proven fairly sufficient in collision avoidance.

I would also add that the automobile systems are only good for 60-200 meters...at this range, it is too close to avoid a collision between ships. Ships take time to answer to helm orders, so the danger zone is a lot wider than it is with automobiles.

 

Some news stories are floating the idea of possible GPS spoofing attacks or manipulation of AIS signals. Still, with radar and human lookouts, there should be multiple layers of information adequate to avoid a tanker.

 

Assuming the tanker elects to be visible as well.

Enough yachts collide with darkened vessels crossing the seas away from the shipping lanes to make you wonder.

 

With the Fitzgerald the Commander, Exec and Senior Chief were relieved of duty. A number of watchstanders will also be disciplined.

7th Fleet Announces USS Fitzgerald Accountability Determinations

Too early to tell about the McCain but, it does appear to be similar poor seamanship.

Mattis has ordered a Fleetwide stand down and review of procedures. The military has for a long time spent an inordinate amount of training time on social/non-military issue training that should have been spent on training in the essential tasks of you military job. Mattis issued a policy change on that a while back as well.

Mattis targets mandatory training in effort to become more lethal

 

Looks like heads are starting to roll.

U.S. Navy to relieve Seventh Fleet commander after collisions in Asia

 

The catch though he was slated to depart in a matter of weeks any way. 4 collisions in a matter of months, some 5-8 percent of the 7th Fleet points to a deeper problem to be addressed.

 

Shouldn't the Captains of the ships be held responsible and be courtmartialed/demoted/resigned? They are more responsible for the actual incident than the commander of the fleet IMHO. Also looks like the Navy needs to review its training and operating guidelines and not rely so heavily on technology (which can always fail).

 

They are holding a number of those involved in the USS Fitzgerald incident accountable as noted in the link I provided above:

YOKOSUKA, Japan (NNS) -- The commanding officer, executive officer and command master chief of the guided-missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62) were relieved of their duties by Vice Adm. Joseph Aucoin, Commander, 7th Fleet Aug, 18.

Additionally, a number of officer and enlisted watch standers were held accountable.

The determinations were made following a thorough review of the facts and circumstances leading up to the June 17 collision between Fitzgerald and the merchant vessel ACX Crystal.

The collision was avoidable and both ships demonstrated poor seamanship. Within Fitzgerald, flawed watch stander teamwork and inadequate leadership contributed to the collision that claimed the lives of seven Fitzgerald Sailors, injured three more and damaged both ships.

With absolute accountability for the safe navigation of Fitzgerald, Cmdr. Bryce Benson was relieved due to a loss of confidence in his ability to lead. He had previously been temporarily relieved of his duties due to medical reasons from injuries sustained during the collision. Benson is being reassigned to Naval District Washington at the Washington Navy Yard, where he will have access to medical facilities in the area.

Inadequate leadership by the executive officer, Cmdr. Sean Babbitt, and command master chief, Master Chief Petty Officer Brice Baldwin, contributed to the lack of watch stander preparedness and readiness that was evident in the events leading up to the collision.

Several junior officers were relieved of their duties due to poor seamanship and flawed teamwork as bridge and combat information center watch standers. Additional administrative actions were taken against members of both watch teams.

Cmdr. Garret Miller will assume command from Fitzgerald's acting commanding officer, Cmdr. John "Jack" Fay sometime mid-to-late-August.

It was also evident from this review that the entire Fitzgerald crew demonstrated real toughness that night. Following the collision these Sailors responded with urgency, determination and creativity to save their ship. Their rigorous damage control efforts and dauntless fighting in the immediate wake of the accident prevented further loss of life.

It should also be noted the loss of two of the 12 destroyers in the fleet is a fairly high loss percentage and could significantly decrease our capabilities in a region that is heating up rather rapidly.