US Navy Destroyer Collision Again!!!

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Alan Mighty

You're correct, Wotname. The sovereignty matters not at all in the collision in the investigation of the collision.

I was just trying to explain some of additions to the chartlet, to put it in context.

And yes, both Malaysia and Singapore are assisting.

Singapore has more closely aligned itself with the US of late (there's a residential area of Singapore that if you wander into you quickly find yourself talking to Singaporean authority figures, because that residential area is home to several defence-related US families; and Singapore has caused a minor rift in its formerly close relationship with China by its leaning to the US, to the point that it recently made a Chinese-born US national working as an academic in Singapore an unwelcome alien and claimed that he, the alien, had sought to influence Singaporean decision makers).

Malaysia has recently increased its economic integration with China (big developments in Malaysia being constructed by Chinese companies and funded by debt to both Chinese companies and the Malaysian govt). And rumours that Malaysia is about to buy some missiles from China (the rumours have been denied). Malaysia however has a track record of military cooperation with US and other forces. As well, of course, of rumours and records of corruption (involving everything from buying submarines from France that cannot submerge in tropical water to private persons (and perhaps the prime minister) diverting money from a Malaysian govt investment fund to buy luxury property in NY City, fund a Leo de Caprio movie, and gift gems etc to female movie stars and the wife of the person the US Dept of Justice refers to as "Malaysian Official No. 1".

There, I fixed the first para. for you

Thanks for explanation of the chartlet and the additional analysis.

[Dod42]

Not sure if it's related but on our cruise north in Australia none of the American warships cruising the Australian coast post the joint exercises transmit AIS yet all the Australia warships did. Even when hailing us on VHS despite our AIS transmitting our name and position the Us warships hailed us a "blue sailing vessel" we are a white sailing vessel with at the time a blue spinnaker flying so some confusion as to who they where calling. Surely they have AIS, call us by name and there would have been no confusion.

[Andrew Grace]

Sad news for the mising crew and hope that more can be done to find them before dark, however I am not supprised by this at all.

Have sailed in this same region many times and Naval ships run dark at night and off Radar, and no AIS.

On one occasion have actually been 1/mile off the side of one Naval ship that showed ZERO radar footprint and NO AIS.

Frankly.... Navy Ships scare the crap out of me when sailing around this area

[Three Sisters]

No comment

[Alan Mighty]

Originally Posted by Wotname

There, I fixed the first para. for you

Ha!

Now Malaysia is insisting that it (and not Singapore) is leading the search & rescue operations.

Dems is Malaysian waters. Tain't nobody else's, especially not dat place wot divorced itself from what was a 4-party thing called Malaysia (originally made up of Malaya, Singapore, North Borneo, and Sarawak).

See: Malaysia insists leading SAR for missing US sailors - Nation | The Star Online

[sailormed]

The title of this thread looks very similar to the earlier thread because the word "again!!!" is truncated in the general recent threads overview. Seen the regular occurrence of these navy collisions I would suggest to put the date of the collision in the title to avoid confusion for the CF readers

[barnakiel]

I think the American phrase is UFB.

10 sailors missing.

So much for mil specs.

b.

[Cormorant]

From a Navy statement:

"“Significant damage to the hull resulted in flooding to nearby compartments, including crew berthing, machinery and communications rooms”

[Snowpetrel]

10 sailor missing. Another real tragedy for the USN. My thoughts go out to all the family's envolved.

Like the fitz it seems like the collision alarm wasn't sounded early enough, or at all?

Originally Posted by Viking Sailor

It is being reported that the McCain lost steering. (CNN)

I wouldn't be to quick to believe anything being reported. The USN propaganda department and the press made a pretty good job of obscuring the details of the Fitz collision to make the incident seem like the actions of a rogue container ship rather than their own incompetance. I don't expect this will be played any differently.

[SecondBase]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

What a load of bollocks!
Control and situational awareness are the key factors of security.
Blind speed is a cowboy's solution and should never be part of a normal transit thru dense waters in busy shipping lanes.

In COREGS it is called "Safe Speed"

Pelagic,

I suspect the order "torpedoes, flank speed" has been issued several times in the history of naval warfare to increase security.

I believe the WWII era USS Indianapolis set the still-standing speed record of 29 knots between SF and Hawaii. One reason for her speed that she was traveling without escorts. Speed was thought to increase her security against enemy submarines.

A final example is segregation of convoys by speed -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/w...last-time.html

Obviously those examples are a complete opposite mindset from Colregs and I'm in agreement with your ideas about safe seamanship. I'm not saying speed was a factor in this latest collision but was responding directly to Suijin's point.

Peace.

Back on the thread - if it was loss of steering we are about to go down the maintenance rabbit hole.

Of course thoughts and prayers go out for the missing and their families. Let's assume that sentiment is implied in some of the shorter posts. Part of true caring for those who serve is seeking a reduction in avoidable incidents. Too soon to say on this current serious incident. We'll see as additional information comes in.

[svHyLyte]

I have followed the discussion on the earlier collision without comment as I had nothing useful to add. While we may never know the full details of the events at the micro level, at the macro level it is painfully clear that the US Navy's level of training in basic ship handling is woefully deficient. I suspect that, in part, the situation is an over reliance on "technology" rather than under. Frankly, I see that often in recreational boats. People staring at screens rather than simply looking out a window or port. There is nothing to suggest that the same isn't true, or even more so, aboard a Navy ship.

[Tx J]

Originally Posted by Three Sisters

No comment

Attachment 154484

This is bad. Condolences for the crew.
I have a S-i-L who is back serving on a similar-sized USCG cutter (new one, after a long shore post and prior sea duty on older cutters); different missions, but they sail the same congested waters (and even far away from US coasts).

USN must have some real systemic problems.

That damage sure looks like a beam-on bow bulb hit. How could a bow crossing collision not be the DDG's fault? In a critical section too, likely berthing, mess, propulsion, control areas.

Damn.

PS: As a history nut, and kin involved in it, I had been meaning to mention another time.
The Pacific in WWII. The USN had immense fleets operating under incredible conditions. Events such as collisions were rare, they did happen though.
I think that the level of deck command chain, and crew training, was somehow better in 'seamanship'. Selection preferences for nav&deck divs were often given to people with prior sea service as civilians (famous example- JFK, maybe not so good...), like commercial or yachties (I knew some).
Maybe the Navy needs some mandatory practical seamanship courses (even like a USPS ones) for all, to give an appreciation for basic marine complexities.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by Dod42

Not sure if it's related but on our cruise north in Australia none of the American warships cruising the Australian coast post the joint exercises transmit AIS yet all the Australia warships did. Even when hailing us on VHS despite our AIS transmitting our name and position the Us warships hailed us a "blue sailing vessel" we are a white sailing vessel with at the time a blue spinnaker flying so some confusion as to who they where calling. Surely they have AIS, call us by name and there would have been no confusion.

While it seems incredible maybe they DONT have AIS, or are forbidden from using it, or (also incredible) don't know how? Or maybe it's broken?

In any case inexcusable.

This is like a Sherlock Holms mystery, understand what is and is not impossible.

[Twotimer]

Ahh yes, yet another example of "seamanship" by a ignorant, egocentric hubritic "ring knocker". The product of the "management style" of becoming a captain.

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by Tx J

This is bad. Condolences for the crew.
I have a S-i-L who is back serving on a similar-sized USCG cutter (new one, after a long shore post and prior sea duty on older cutters); different missions, but they sail the same congested waters (and even far away from US coasts).

USN must have some real systemic problems.

That damage sure looks like a beam-on bow bulb hit. How could a bow crossing collision not be the DDG's fault? In a critical section too, likely berthing, mess, propulsion, control areas.

Damn.

PS: As a history nut, and kin involved in it, I had been meaning to mention another time.
The Pacific in WWII. The USN had immense fleets operating under incredible conditions. Events such as collisions were rare, they did happen though.
I think that the level of deck command chain, and crew training, was somehow better in 'seamanship'. Selection preferences for nav&deck divs were often given to people with prior sea service as civilians (famous example- JFK, maybe not so good...), like commercial or yachties (I knew some).
Maybe the Navy needs some mandatory practical seamanship courses (even like a USPS ones) for all, to give an appreciation for basic marine complexities.

"Events such as collisions were rare, they did happen though."

I have to question that. Maybe so, maybe not. It would seem anecdotal. Can you mention a study that was done on this? Are collisions that less rare now? I am betting groundings are more rare now.