US Navy Destroyer Collision Again!!!

[davefromoregon]

Here is another take on the incident: https://www.cfr.org/blog/cyber-norms...ain-was-hacked

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

Hi Ping, this vid and the one after suggest Navy ship passing too close could be the cause.

Doubt that this senario would actually catch a.destroyerman off guard .
Has anyone ever seen a ddg getting unrep fuelling from a carrier.
Look at the size difference here

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Doubt that this senario would actually catch a.destroyerman off guard .
Has anyone ever seen a ddg getting unrep fuelling from a carrier.
Look at the size difference here

Refuelling is going at the same speed! No effect.

The close passing manouvre at a 'reasonable speed' would produce something similar to the squat effect of a vessel going over shallow water. Enormous forces involved which could explain the loss of steerage claim.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

Refuelling is going at the same speed! No effect.

The close passing manouvre at a 'reasonable speed' would produce something similar to the squat effect of a vessel going over shallow water. Enormous forces involved which could explain the loss of steerage claim.

They continued into port under emergency steerage . I doubt the loss of steering was just apparent. Evidence suggests that it was actual.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by newhaul

They continued into port under emergency steerage . I doubt the loss of steering was just apparent. Evidence suggests that it was actual.

A loss of steering is not an excuse for this collision... but possibly a reason.

We practice 'loss of steering' drills often and I would expect the military to do even more so.

In reality it is extremely rare as two separate sets of steering pumps are usually available

The pumps and tiller feedback alarms are immediate and loud

It takes a duty crew about 30 seconds to man the emergency steering and accept a gyro heading to steer by via a dedicated intercom.

For that 30 seconds the WK officer is steering by twin propellers at reduced speed on the Bridge and definiteley should be able to avoid other ships.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

Refuelling is going at the same speed! No effect.

When alongside, they're going the same speed, and there is an effect, but effectively balanced between both vessels' bow and stern pressure zones. To get into the alongside position, they speed in from astern.

[El Pinguino]

Lets take another look at where the ships were at the time of the collision....

The lane at that point is 1.1 miles wide ( the red line ), the Alnic MC is 180 metres ie 1 cable long , the Guang Zhou Wan is the same length, The Oslo Bulk is possibly a bit shorter but that is neither here nor there. The ship astern, Long Hu San , is about 2 cables in length being over 300,000 dwt. ( you can actually see the 'ship shapes' for the larger ships )

Now just by inspection without printing stuff out it would appear that the stern of Team Oslo is 3 cables clear ahead of Alnic MC and there is maybe the same amount of water between the Alnic MC and the Guang Zhou Wan.....

So along comes the McCain... overtakes the Alnic MC with less than a cable clearance both to port and to starboard.... and thats after the Guang Zhou Wan has decided to give herself a bit more room by going to starboard.

She then has to come to port and slide between OsloBulk and the Alnic MC with about a cable clear ahead and the same astern...... the outcome should not come as all that much of a surprise.

Given that 3 of the 5 ships within a mile of her were tankers she is very lucky there wasn't a 'Royston Grange' outcome.

Heads should roll for this one... a courts martial for causing death by reckless navigation.

Re the 'hacking' post just above ^^^ I wonder if the poster actually read it to the end...

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

The reports she was carrying 15000 tons or so of HFO cargo is rollocks not borne out by the pix of her in Singapore or the fact that she is a product/chemical and that HFO to Singapore would be coals to Newcastle.... 15000 bbls of hfo bunkers maybe ... that report has been passed through the same CNN fact scrambler that had soldiers on the Fitzgerald.

I'll just go and put my interaction hat back on....

So there are reports that she was carrying 15000 tonnes (about half-load) but you don't buy it? If accurate that would be 26-27000 T all up, so about 3-times the mass of the destroyer. You can keep tooting the interaction theory, but I don't believe it.

As to steering failure, while unlikely is still possible. I've had one actual steering failure in my career - in a destroyer. A valve failed, and caused the rudder to go hard over to starboard. I know about a number of 'human error' steering failures, including this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2vW7B5JLmY

That's a 3000 tonne Leander against the 25000 tonne Protecteur - notice it didn't go to a T-bone.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

So there are reports that she was carrying 15000 tonnes (about half-load) but you don't buy it? If accurate that would be 26-27000 T all up, so about 3-times the mass of the destroyer. You can keep tooting the interaction theory, but I don't believe it.

As to steering failure, while unlikely is still possible. I've had one actual steering failure in my career - in a destroyer. A valve failed, and caused the rudder to go hard over to starboard. I know about a number of 'human error' steering failures, including this one:

That's a 3000 tonne Leander against the 25000 tonne Protecteur - notice it didn't go to a T-bone.

No I don't buy it... she is a products/chemical tanker.... they don't do 'black oils'... also check photos of her after arrival in Singapore... light ship... and her bulb thankfully was very close to.. in fact 'at' ... the water line... hence the hole in the McCain is above water. Last but not least fuel oil to Singapore would be 'coals to Newcastle'.... and also on arrival Singapore her draught was listed as 9 metres ....

Moving right along she was not T-boned.... look at that photo posted very early in the thread.... McCain's 'skin' is folded in in such a manner that an angle of 'attack' maybe 30 degrees from right aft was involved.... consistent with her altering to port to clear the Oslo Bulk.

If she had been T-boned it would have been like the Curacao/Evans/Voyager.... very ugly.....

Maybe the OOW didn't allow for the decrease in her rate of forward advance when he altered.....

[El Pinguino]

Just watched the Vid.... ouch.... I must say that looked a bit T-bonish around the 3.00 mark....

[justwaiting]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

No I don't buy it... she is a products/chemical tanker.... they don't do 'black oils'... also check photos of her after arrival in Singapore... light ship... and her bulb thankfully was very close to.. in fact 'at' ... the water line... hence the hole in the McCain is above water. Last but not least fuel oil to Singapore would be 'coals to Newcastle'.... and also on arrival Singapore her draught was listed as 9 metres ....

Moving right along she was not T-boned.... look at that photo posted very early in the thread.... McCain's 'skin' is folded in in such a manner that an angle of 'attack' maybe 30 degrees from right aft was involved.... consistent with her altering to port to clear the Oslo Bulk.

If she had been T-boned it would have been like the Curacao/Evans/Voyager.... very ugly.....

Maybe the OOW didn't allow for the decrease in her rate of forward advance when he altered.....

Looking at videos of the damage to the tanker show that even more clearly that is was not anything like a T-Bone.

[El Pinguino]

Posted without comment.... ok just one comment... this does not inspire confidence..

7th Fleet’s sloppy seamanship manifested in Antietam’s January grounding

[estarzinger]

^^ "does not inspire confidence"

It's a shame it took 17 deaths and 5 years for Navy to take this seriously.

If it had been looked at more seriously and systematically, the Porter incident 5 years ago probably would have revealed much of the root problems.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Posted without comment.... ok just one comment... this does not inspire confidence..

7th Fleet’s sloppy seamanship manifested in Antietam’s January grounding

The word "symptomatic" comes to mind

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by newhaul

They continued into port under emergency steerage . I doubt the loss of steering was just apparent. Evidence suggests that it was actual.

They did? Got a link to that report. I'd be interested in what else it has to say.