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

[AJ_n_Audrey]

What is the deal with Navy ships running into massive containers ships? One of the reports said that Navy ships do not routinely turn on AIS, and I can understand that, in a tactical situation where you are trying to mask your position, but why, WHY, when you are coming in to Singapore in one of the busiest seaways in the world would you not have the AIS on, and at least one guy tasked to watch it? Same goes for the Fitzgerald off Japan.

I was not in the Navy, so I'm asking any of you who were. I was in the Army in Korea on the DMZ and a couple of other similarly tense assignments, and I do understand that we ask very young officers and NCO's to do very hard jobs, but if you are Officer of the Deck, and you have 5 to 10 people under your direction on the bridge, would not at least one of them be watching AIS and/or radar? And wouldn't there be one or more look-outs with binoculars (granted, both collisions were at night). Not to be snarky, but most of us small boat sailors go in and out of busy ports all by ourselves, or with maybe one extra hand to help with nav. It sounds to me like the basics of seamanship are being neglected in a big way.

Incidentally, we have a USCG station next door, and I have frequently seen Coast Guard ships running without AIS on, though maybe they are operating in receive-only mode.

[IdoraKeeper]

A thorough review of Navy procedures is in order. Additionally an exhaustive investigation of the crew of the tanker it's in order. It might have been Navy hubris or there may be something afoot in the nature of terrorism. This is starting to look like a pattern. A deadly one at that.

[JPA Cate]

AJ & Audrey,

Hi, guys, yes, it is a worry. Most of the discussion is taking place on the Fitzgerald collision thread, and Delancey's thread about the John McCain. (Use the CF Google Custom Search function).

The present hypothesis that rings true for me is that there is something very wrong with the training programs or their implementation.

I do not think the answer is leaving stealth mode in traffic lanes: against Navy security.

The outer manifestation of the problem seems to be a problem with watch keeping and navigation, but what causes that problem is more difficult to infer.

Based on all the info in the Fitgerald thread, I personally reject the conspiracy hypothesis.

Ann

[Time2Go]

Originally Posted by IdoraKeeper

A thorough review of Navy procedures is in order. Additionally an exhaustive investigation of the crew of the tanker it's in order. It might have been Navy hubris or there may be something afoot in the nature of terrorism. This is starting to look like a pattern. A deadly one at that.

I kind of had similar thoughts
I'd like to see the bank accounts of the
tankers crew. There is also the possibility
of a cyber attack on ships software
That being said I just don't see how it's possible
for human eyes on watch or radar not to see these things coming.
i'm betting on catastrophic seamanship failure.
I know when i'm on watch not getting run over
is always foremost on my mind.
Just no excuse
Cheers
Neil

[StuM]

If they are a naval vessel and want to run in 'stealth mode", that's fine.

But if they are going to do so in busy sea lanes, it is incumbent on them to take every precaution to avoid anything else in the area.

[TommmD]

Isn't priority one not getting tagged"it"? If tankers& container ships can tag you, what chance do you have against a real enemy? These are not high speed vessels, & a destroyer is supposed to be, & nimble at that.
It hurts to see this happen to an otherwise top- notch Navy.

[Comix Bay]

We lost a very experienced pilot (Commanding Officer) in an aircraft accident years ago. End finding was what the Board of Inquiry (BOI) called "Task Saturated" in other words "to much work placed on an individual". Could these two accidents be the same scenario?? I guess the BOIs will determine that.

[rmesfo]

It all starts at the top. The last two CNO's have been submariners and the investigation needs to start there as well as a thorough bottom-up review of training, leadership, and philosophy. As a retired Naval Aviator who served in the Pentagon in the 90's I also have to comment about how these folks are selected. It has become apparent, especially in the last 8 years that it is more important to be PC than to be competent. Obama fired Mattis because he wouldn't bend the knee to PC and told it like it was. My opinion is these folks who have been selected aren't the best choices but will go along to add the next star and provide for a cushy K street or corporate position on their retirement.
Sorry for adding politics to the discussion but I truly believe this is what has happened, not only to the Navy but to every other service. There is hope with the appointment of Mattis and the other admirals and generals to senior posts.

[boatman1]

I've no specific insight as to whether these collisions are serendipity or indications of intention on the part of an "enemy". If the latter, one still wonders how a ship with beaucoupe watchkeepers and all the manueverabty that can be designed into a ship can be vulnerable to collision. It is difficult not to conclude that there is a serious systemic problem with the US navys' personnel. We're hearing the talking heads bloviate about the need for more $'s to fix the problem: excuse me, but this situation won't be resolved by throwing money at it. Perhaps the problem lies in the navy ( and other branches of the armed forces ) being used as a laboratory for societal engineering rather than ensuring that they are an effective combat ready force that deters the breakdown into armed conflict. If I were a leader of a nation state that has visions of establishing a dominate position in the western Pacific, I don't believe that I'd be detered by a navy that can't avoid being run down by unarmed merchant ships.

[Cadence]

It is unfortunate. All of second guessing won't prove a thing.

[Flyingriki]

Originally Posted by rmesfo

It all starts at the top. The last two CNO's have been submariners and the investigation needs to start there as well as a thorough bottom-up review of training, leadership, and philosophy. As a retired Naval Aviator who served in the Pentagon in the 90's I also have to comment about how these folks are selected. It has become apparent, especially in the last 8 years that it is more important to be PC than to be competent. Obama fired Mattis because he wouldn't bend the knee to PC and told it like it was. My opinion is these folks who have been selected aren't the best choices but will go along to add the next star and provide for a cushy K street or corporate position on their retirement.
Sorry for adding politics to the discussion but I truly believe this is what has happened, not only to the Navy but to every other service. There is hope with the appointment of Mattis and the other admirals and generals to senior posts.

Absolutely correct! Over the last 8 years they fired or ran off on bogus charges just about every good Commander and Chief to either leave the slots empty or filled with PC yes men.

This is the result. Oh yes, and an Air Force with too few planes to maintain training, and an Army with vehicles that can be taken out with cheap IEDs etc. etc...... All run by more PC yes men instead of the top leaders we had 10 years ago. Not politics, just facts.

[roland stockham]

Heard a comment on CNN that there may be a steering issue and that they are planning checks on all navy vessels. Could be the explanation? And if I ran the navy and realized a significant number of ships had a steering issue I would NOT tell anyone until it was fixed!

[Bulawayo]

I agree, Ann.
A number of years ago, having exited the Suez Canal, bound for Cyprus, we were called up as unidentifed sailing vessel and ordered to move out of the way of small US task force comprising a helicopter carrier and its escorts. When I pointed out that we were a sailing vessel, as the radio operator had already identified, the extremely young sounding radio operator kept his cool and kept demanding we move - time after time - and always super polite. Only when I asked him if we should levitate did he finally desist with his demands. We also reminded him about ColRegs and passing. The small fleet passed several miles to the north of us. It was a ridiculous situation and clearly demonstrated that training was not up to standard even then - we have only experienced this with US vessels despite meeting Indian, Brit, Chinese and Russian naval vessels.
Not withstanding, we have never experienced anything but professionalism from all naval vessels.

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

AJ & Audrey,

Hi, guys, yes, it is a worry. Most of the discussion is taking place on the Fitzgerald collision thread, and Delancey's thread about the John McCain. (Use the CF Google Custom Search function).

The present hypothesis that rings true for me is that there is something very wrong with the training programs or their implementation.

I do not think the answer is leaving stealth mode in traffic lanes: against Navy security.

The outer manifestation of the problem seems to be a problem with watch keeping and navigation, but what causes that problem is more difficult to infer.

Based on all the info in the Fitgerald thread, I personally reject the conspiracy hypothesis.

Ann

[alaskaflyfish]

U.S. drone landing in Iran(gps hack), sailors drifting into Iran waters and being taken hostage (gps hack). Heavily cyber dependent, ultra sophisticated modern electronic warships being rammed by tankers? D.O.D electronics made in China. Guess what I'm thinking.

[AJ_n_Audrey]

Originally Posted by Bulawayo

I agree, Ann.
A number of years ago, having exited the Suez Canal, bound for Cyprus, we were called up as unidentifed sailing vessel and ordered to move out of the way of small US task force comprising a helicopter carrier and its escorts. When I pointed out that we were a sailing vessel, as the radio operator had already identified, the extremely young sounding radio operator kept his cool and kept demanding we move - time after time - and always super polite. Only when I asked him if we should levitate did he finally desist with his demands. We also reminded him about ColRegs and passing. The small fleet passed several miles to the north of us. It was a ridiculous situation and clearly demonstrated that training was not up to standard even then - we have only experienced this with US vessels despite meeting Indian, Brit, Chinese and Russian naval vessels.
Not withstanding, we have never experienced anything but professionalism from all naval vessels.

Yes, I agree about the level of professionalism, and I agree they are trying to do the right thing. But good intentions are not adequate; good training reinforced by the chain of command is what is important. There are about 17,000 bulk carriers in the world, and in 2016, based on a rough count from Wikipedia data, there were eleven collisions. So for two Navy destroyers out of the roughly 400 Navy ships to collide with container ships in 2017 means the Navy's accident rate is about ten times as high as merchant shipping's. The number is probably worse, because many of the Navy ships are very small vessels compared to a destroyer, and shouldn't be in the denominator. Anyhow, we'll see what the BOI says.