USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

[Randy]

Originally Posted by Randy

Still reading this and not sure if it's been posted yet but this article is pretty good.

https://features.propublica.org/navy...crash-crystal/

Great reference thanks for sharing.

I agree that this is a pretty good article but as a "great reference" not so much without specific citations.
If is written in a story/novel format. The various accident investigation reports would be more reliable. This account may or may not differ and in certain areas may rely on speculation and creative writing.
Still, a pretty good article.

I'll correct this post to say that after getting to the end of this article it does appear to be well documented

[kmacdonald]

It appears the Navy chose not to cooperate in the article.
https://www.propublica.org/article/u...e-investigated

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

Lodesman, are you retired Navy.

The Navy is entrenched in tradition, it's their culture. Grand Daddy, Daddy, and now Buffy are Naval officers. Grand Daddy earned it and Daddy and Buffy inherited it. The inbreeding has destroyed the Navy to the point that the species is no longer sustainable.
The Navy has public relations officers that stage press conferences with Naval spokesmen adorned in colorful merit badges surrounded by a cheer-leading team of other officers adorned in colorful merit badges. They try and use their extensive training in the use of hand gestures, facial expression, use of key words, and never ending use of acronyms in a feeble attempt "look" competent. They show up late to stress to the unknowing viewer how busy they are and how hard they are struggling with the issue. All fluff, no substance. All bark, no bite. I stopped collecting merit badges after Cub Scouts but it seems they never outgrew that stage.

RCN not USN, although our proximity means I've worked with the USN quite a bit - enough to know there are good ships and bad, good officers and bad, good sailors and bad.
There is no need to tar the lot with the same brush. Do you feel the same enmity for the Air Force and Army? They also parade around with scads of ribbons.
Different professions and academia have their merit badges in the form of postnominals. And the press conference is not the sole purview of the navy - any organization, government or otherwise, if large enough has PR peeps and talking heads that put on the same performance of "informing."

So do you think the entire US military should be mothballed?

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by SailRedemption

Still reading this and not sure if it's been posted yet but this article is pretty good.

https://features.propublica.org/navy...crash-crystal/

Yeah, a good read. It really humanizes the incident. It was posted already at #96.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

I bet if you calculated the accident rate of Naval ships per mile traveled vs the merchant fleet you would find that the Naval ships are millions of times more likely to be involved in a collision.

I'll take that bet. You sure put a lot of faith in commercial shipping. Has ACX posted a report on their version of the collision? The Crystal was every bit as culpable in this accident. Or do you believe they were being paid off to collide with Fitz? Time to don the tin-foil hats?

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Montanan

" watch keeping on port side but no watch on starboard side which was where the risks were present.

As I have pointed out previously, there were no assigned lookouts, port or starboard. The JOOD was to cover both, and despite a prolonged stay on the port wing, had gone to check the stbd in time to avoid the collision.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

So do you think the entire US military should be mothballed?

No, not even the entire Navy. The submarine service is excellent. The Air Force is excellent. The army somewhere between the Navy and Air Force. The Army and Air Force have their nepotism (inbreeding) issues also. Several other experimental policies have also taken their toll.

Do you know about the issues with the new Stealth Destroyers?

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

I'll take that bet. You sure put a lot of faith in commercial shipping. Has ACX posted a report on their version of the collision? The Crystal was every bit as culpable in this accident. Or do you believe they were being paid off to collide with Fitz? Time to don the tin-foil hats?

I and a lot of other don't believe Crystal had a shred of culpability in the collision. We all have our opinions based on our own experiences though. I don't believe they were paid off the to collide with the Fitz. I don't think the Fitz officers or crew were either. The command in the Pentagon MAY be dirty. If the Fitz wasn't set up for failure I certainly don't know what else could have been done to do so. If you follow the money trail of a lot of retired brass you might form the same opinion. It's very common for retired brass and family members to land multi million dollar "consulting jobs" for defense contractors they supported before retirement.

[jmorrison146]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

Yes, really. A cursory reading of the Navy brass testimony reveals the truth. The Navy designs, maneuvers, and operates it's vessels to produce small or no footprints and therefore assumes responsibility for collision avoidance. Try and look past the smoke, it's not that hard. Fortunately it takes a multitude of failures by many people to crash ships but the Navy was able to pull it off six times (or more) last year. You should be proud.

There's nothing in the Rules about a vessel low radar signature assuming all responsibility for collision avoidance.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

The Air Force is excellent.

This would be the same air force that strafes and bombs its allies?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarnak_Farm_incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Medusa

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

Do you know about the issues with the new Stealth Destroyers?

You're talking about the Zumwalt and its mysterious propulsion blackouts?

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

I and a lot of other don't believe Crystal had a shred of culpability in the collision.

Crystal failed at these three parts of rule 17:

Rule 17

Action by Stand-on Vessel

• (a)
  (i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed.
  
  
  • (ii) The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her manoeuvre alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these Rules.
• (b)
  When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.
  
  
• (c)
  A power-driven vessel which takes action in a crossing situation in accordance with subparagraph (a)(ii) of this Rule to avoid collision with another power-driven vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, not alter course to port for a vessel on her own port side.
  

I do agree that the Navy set Fitz up for failure, but I don't think it was a deliberate act to drum up business for shipyards.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

This would be the same air force that strafes and bombs its allies?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarnak_Farm_incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Medusa



You're talking about the Zumwalt and its mysterious propulsion blackouts?

Yes, the same Air Force.

The Zumwalt can't go into head seas over 12' without submarining. It's way overweight and they ripped out a lot of the interior, removed paint, and made part of the superstructure out of carbon fiber. Still way overweight, didn't fix the design failure, and it still doesn't even have any weapons systems. Didn't they say it was the most expensive ship in the Navy? I'm sure it will be staffed with a fledgling crew and sent out on a "secret mission" with much fanfare. Pray merchant ships avoid it even though they are invisible. I'm just so proud of our Navy.

You know about the new carriers new design catapult system? The one that doesn't work most of the time and their aircraft have to land elsewhere? The old steam powered catapult worked great and was perfected over centuries of use. They got caught in their own "new" mousetrap.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

You know about the new carriers new design catapult system? The one that doesn't work most of the time and their aircraft have to land elsewhere? The old steam powered catapult worked great and was perfected over centuries of use. They got caught in their own "new" mousetrap.

If the catapult doesn't work, they won't tae off so hos could they land elsewhere?


How do they use the catapult when landing?

[Borschelrh]

Thanks for your additional details they help interpret the events better. As we see it is multiple failures and at a minimum represents poor leadership and even worse training standards. Given this was the 7th similar incident we must reach a conclusion there is something wrong with Naval training and/or selection of personnel. We can hope that the Navy will correct these issues as it directly affects readiness and our ability to conduct safe and efficient operations. We must also remember the Aegis class missile destroyers are actually our Anti-Ballistic Missile defense systems operating at large. If readiness is as poor as evidenced by this and the other incidents then we are in big trouble assuring our forces and allies we can do the job we promised. So, this has deeper ramifications at the Foreign Affairs level as well. Add in that US Naval ships could reasonably be seen as operating recklessly in foreign waters which adds complexity to the problems.

[Borschelrh]

One thing not being emphasized is that in both the McCain and the Fitzgerald the monthly Ship Status Reports clearly showed the problems. In the Army for TO&E units (I can't speak for the Navy but can assume it is likely identical) we have a similar report called the Unit Status Report (USR) in which you rate your organization's status based on many things such as staffing, training, equipment readiness, personnel, maintenance etc. The Navy has essentially the same report which is prepared monthly. Each category is rated on a scale of 1-5 and anything less than a 4 for a single category and an average of 4.5 overall and the unit becomes non-deployable (this is waiverable in certain circumstances and must be done officially by the Division Commander) . It takes courage for a commander to write the truth as generally if you fall off the deployable assets list for your higher commander (which affects his USR as well) you get relieved of your command if it is in any way attributable to your actions or lack thereof. Reading a bit deeper I see references to the commanders rating training and personnel very low which went uncorrected by higher command for 2 years and would have required waivers to continue operations. In some ways this shifts a lot of responsibility to the higher commanders and clearly indicates they knew what was going on. Their failure to correct the problems speaks volumes as to overall Naval readiness and very likely indicates it is not something easily solved and is systemic.

What this means is that very likely the mission requirements have been running at a very hard pace (Operational Tempo) for too long and personnel, training, resources, and equipment are all suffering. The higher commands cannot help as they are in the same situation. For example the Fitzgerald didn't have a Chief of the Boat for over a year. Anyone who has been in the military knows this is the real guy running the operations on a day-to-day level. Without one the lower ranks are left flying blind. Often, and this is true in every service, the officers are "green" and depend on the Chief's (Sergeants in the Army) to make sure that things run smoothly (quietly whispering in their ears to not do something stupid). Clearly this wasn't happening which means there are problems with retention such that the pool of good NCO's is too thin to supply sufficient personnel to do the work.