quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:

quote:

Originally posted by VBVAGUY:
My father used to be a Merchant Marine after he got out of the US Navy. He was speaking recently with another MM and he had a theory that there may be a possibility that these merchants ships are intentionally ramming US Navy ships in hopes of getting some pay out from their insurance and the US Government. He said that the US Navy will not fire upon a merchant ship because if they did even as self defense, world public outcry would be very bad for the US Navy firing on an unarmed merchant ship. Just a theory. God Bless

Wouldn't the AIS show that?

Beside a destroyer should be able to run circles around a tanker, with one propeller tied behind its aft, just to make it fair.

I agree, there is no way merchant marine ships are purposefully hitting navy destroyers looking for a payout.

quote:

Originally posted by VBVAGUY:
My father used to be a Merchant Marine after he got out of the US Navy. He was speaking recently with another MM and he had a theory that there may be a possibility that these merchants ships are intentionally ramming US Navy ships in hopes of getting some pay out from their insurance and the US Government. He said that the US Navy will not fire upon a merchant ship because if they did even as self defense, world public outcry would be very bad for the US Navy firing on an unarmed merchant ship. Just a theory. God Bless

The owners of the merchant ships, who would actually collect on insurance, are not the ones captaining these ships. They have a hired captain and crew and no captain is going to risk his license so an owner can run an insurance scam.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by LBTRS:


During my 26 years on active duty in the Navy I was always surprised at how old the technology we were using actually was.

Not only technology.

In early 1969, I was sitting in a 5" gun turret as "safety officer", shooting ammo older than
I was!

I hate to say it but one my ship had a crows nest which was utilized at the beginning of my first ship in '68.

quote:

Originally posted by SeaCliff:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by LBTRS:


During my 26 years on active duty in the Navy I was always surprised at how old the technology we were using actually was.

Not only technology.

In early 1969, I was sitting in a 5" gun turret as "safety officer", shooting ammo older than
I was!

I hate to say it but one my ship had a crows nest which was utilized at the beginning of my first ship in '68.

Crows nest have pretty much gone away with technology. Just like how nobody uses flags anymore to convey messages during the day.....Whistle signals are going that way.....almost always everything is done via VHF radio these days......AIS makes it very easy to know/hail the name of the ship you're trying to hail, without trying to read it off of the transom with binoculars.

quote:

Originally posted by SeaCliff:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by LBTRS:


During my 26 years on active duty in the Navy I was always surprised at how old the technology we were using actually was.

Not only technology.

In early 1969, I was sitting in a 5" gun turret as "safety officer", shooting ammo older than
I was!

I hate to say it but one my ship had a crows nest which was utilized at the beginning of my first ship in '68.

I was in the CG and the first ship I was on had a gun from WWII and some of the ammo had 1930 stamped on the rounds...

The second ship I was on had a gun developed by the Italians and was made in the 1950's..and we were happy to have it. The FT's had to punch cards to change programming.....

The remains of all 10 missing sailors have been located and recovered from flooded areas of the USS John S. McCain.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2...s-john-s-mccain.html

A teacher at my children's school sent out an email this morning, her son serves on the USS John S. McCain:

"Good Morning,
I wanted to thank everyone for their prayers for Xxxxx and our family. I spoke to him last night and I wanted to give you an update.
They will have the last funeral on the ship today for the ten men that passed during the accident. They got Port-A-Johns for the ship so the sailors are no longer using buckets. (That was a big relief!) All of the men now have rooms off the ship. Xxxxx and 9 others were the last to be housed yesterday. Although they do not have wifi or internet to call home, he is able to find an area outside that he and the other men are able to connect. He has a bed to sleep in and a bathroom with a shower. (This made him very happy!) They are still working the sailors all day and night to begin repairs on the ship's systems. He gets very little sleep but he is eating regularly now. All of these things have helped him but the stress level is over the top on the ship. Below is Xxxxx's email address and mailing address if you would like to send him or any of the sailors a note of encouragement. I know they can all use it. Thank you again for your continued prayers,

Xxxxx"

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
The remains of all 10 missing sailors have been located and recovered from flooded areas of the USS John S. McCain.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2...s-john-s-mccain.html

Thankfully they were all found, although a shame they weren't found alive

THE PENTAGON – A Navy investigation has turned up little evidence supporting the idea that USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) was a victim of a cyber attack, making it more likely that mechanical failure or crew error is to blame for the Aug. 21 collision between the destroyer and a chemical tanker.

Operation Orion Hammer, the Navy tasking to investigate potential cyber interference in the operation of the guided-missile destroyer, has not uncovered any indications that a cyber attack affected the ship’s control systems just prior to the crash, three Navy officials confirmed to USNI News on Thursday. McCain reportedly lost control of its steering just moments before the collision with tanker Alnic MC in a busy shipping channel.

While the possibility of a cyber attack was considered unlikely in the case of McCain, the Navy set out to investigate the possibility of an attack to rule it out as part of the investigation.

On Monday, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson told reporters a cyber attack is “certainly something we are giving full consideration to, but we have no indication that that’s the case yet. But we’re — we’re looking at every possibility, so we’re not leaving anything to chance there.”

On Tuesday, U.S. Pacific Fleet commander Adm. Scott Swift told reporters in Singapore, “we are not taking any consideration off the table and every scenario will be reviewed and investigated in detail.”


The service would not elaborate on the cyber investigation beyond the comments from Swift and Richardson when asked by USNI News.

The aft steering mechanism of an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer is built around a pair of motors that each can control the ship’s rudders, in case one motor goes down. The decades-old design of the motors’ controls are largely analog, with redundant electrical systems that would be practically impossible to disable by cyber means, several former sailors told USNI News.

Other ship’s systems have been hardened to prevent cyber intrusion, and if even one particular system was compromised there would be several other backups.


For years, Naval Sea Systems Command has stressed so-called cyber hygiene in its control systems and has been meticulous in rooting out ways mechanical control systems could be compromised by malicious software. In 2014 Naval Sea Systems Command released a set of standards that would make it harder to compromise a ship’s systems through cyber intrusion.

What might be the most tantalizing point behind the cyber attack theory is that it’s technically possible, Bryan Clark, a naval analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and former aide to former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert, told USNI News on Thursday.

“There could have been some sort of cyber disruption, but it seems unlikely that a single cyber event could have caused the accident, given the multiple sensors and combat systems available to the crew,” Clark said.

“Also, the accident occurred near dawn, so the crew could have visually tracked the surrounding ships and their movements even if a cyber attack was underway.”

There have also been theories the merchant ships that collided with McCain and USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62) could have been compromised via a cyber attack.


In June, more than 20 merchant ships in the Black Sea reported their GPS had placed them more than 25 miles inland in what is widely believed to be a test of a Russian electronic warfare system that would make a commercial GPS signal unreliable. Additionally, both Iran and North Korea have had long histories of tampering with GPS signals.

Again, while possible, the chain of events of compromising a merchant ship’s navigation – either by hacking or spoofing its GPS auto-guidance system – locating a U.S. warship and then having the crew allow the ship to be hit would be difficult to accomplish, several naval analysts told USNI News.

Link

https://news.usni.org/2017/09/...ions-before-congress

Rear Adm. Richard Brown, commander of Naval Personnel Command and Deputy Chief of Naval Personnel, will lead a dual admiralty and Judge Advocate General Manual (JAGMAN) investigation into the Aug. 21 collision between McCain and the Liberian-flagged chemical tanker Alnic MC, U.S. Pacific Fleet spokeswoman Lt. Cmdr. Nicole Schwegman

The investigation is one of several examinations into the collision that resulted in the death of 10 sailors in the early morning as the destroyer navigated a crowded shipping lane in the Strait of Malacca.

However, like the dual-purpose investigation into the June 17 collision of USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62) led by Rear Adm. Brian Fort, liability concerns for the U.S. will prevent public release of the results until the potential claims against the U.S. are settled, several officials confirmed to USNI News.

Brown is an experienced surface warfare officer with previous command of a destroyer and a cruiser.

“A Dual-Purpose investigation may be used to protect privileged information while allowing the investigation to be used for other official purposes (e.g., disciplinary action, safety),” according to the Navy’s JAG manual.

The military is examining whether compromised computer systems were responsible for one of two U.S. Navy destroyer collisions with merchant vessels that occurred in recent months, Vice Admiral Jan Tighe, the deputy chief of naval operations for information warfare, said on Thursday.

Naval investigators are scrambling to determine the causes of the mishaps, including whether hackers infiltrated the computer systems of the USS John S. McCain ahead of the collision on Aug. 21, Tighe said during an appearance at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Investigators are not, however, considering the possibility that the USS Fitzgerald collision, which took place on June 17, was the result of hacking.

“With the McCain incident happening so close to the Fitzgerald,” questions immediately arose about whether computer manipulation could have been the cause of the crash, Tighe said. The Navy has no indication that a cyberattack was behind either of the incidents, but is dispatching investigators to the McCain to put those questions to rest, she said.

Tighe said the Navy plans to use the results of the McCain probe to include a look at cybersecurity in future investigations.

The two collisions left a total of 17 sailors dead and the Navy humiliated. Chief of Naval Operations John Richardson ordered a halt to operations after the second collision and called on the service to review safety protocols for its global fleet.

While the idea of a cyberattack causing a collision remain purely speculative, U.S. intelligence officials have warned in recent years that this sort of digital threat could pose a major problem for the Navy’s sprawling armada. Tighe said on Thursday that the service has already set aside $1.5 billion between fiscal years 2014 and 2023 to improve defenses.

The Fitzgerald and the McCain, both Arleigh Burke-class destroyers outfitted with a suite of advanced sensors and weapons, represent two of the most capable ships in the Navy’s arsenal. The collisions have raised troubling questions about the readiness of the American Pacific fleet at a time when it faces a number of threats in the region, from North Korean missile tests to China’s territorial claims over disputed islands.

Early assessments of the two incidents have blamed crew training and growing demands on the Navy’s fleet of warships. Following the McCain collision in August, the Navy relieved the commander of the 7th Fleet, Vice Adm. Joseph Aucoin, citing a “loss of confidence in his ability to command.” The skipper of the Fitzgerald has also been dismissed, along with several of the ship’s officers, for losing situational awareness ahead of the June collision.

If hackers breached the McCain’s digital defenses, it would represent a startling development in naval warfare. American intelligence officials have theorized that hackers working on behalf of an enemy state could conceivably hack into a ship’s computer systems and blind its commander by, for example, displaying an inaccurate location of the ship on its charts.

Such a deception could conceivably result in a night-time crash, such as the one suffered by the McCain. The merchant vessel Alnic MC struck the ship’s left, or port, side and left a huge gash in its hull.

Tighe said the Navy is preparing for potential digital warfare and said the service has to be able to “be able to fight through” a cyber attack. Ships must monitor their own computer systems, she said, and if one method of communication is knocked out, naval forces have to be able to rely on other methods to relay commands and information.

“Semaphores” — the system of communicating by hand-held flags — “ are going to be really hard to hack,” Tighe said.

“That’s a joke,” she quickly added.

Link

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
The military is examining whether compromised computer systems were responsible for one of two U.S. Navy destroyer collisions with merchant vessels that occurred in recent months...

It was a glitch.

I have been reading the various posts and responses to the two collisions but have not joined in because I am not ex-Navy.
I could not imagine living for long periods of time on a warship. For those who have, and are, you have my respect.
I cant help but wonder if boredom and complacency are factors in the collisions. Aren't most navigation systems automated these days? Plug in your desired course and sit back and let the ship self steer? Then days of cruising and "nothing going on while underway" boredom lead to less situational awareness? I don't think the ships were hacked. I just think that no one was paying any attention to what was going on around them. Leadership and supervision seem lacking too.
It doesn't seem to require too much investigating to figure this out. Military duty of any type is hazardous, but the loss of life in the collisions seem senseless and entirely avoidable to me.
Navy guys.... Tell me I am looking at this too simplistically!

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
I have been reading the various posts and responses to the two collisions but have not joined in because I am not ex-Navy.
I could not imagine living for long periods of time on a warship. For those who have, and are, you have my respect.
I cant help but wonder if boredom and complacency are factors in the collisions. Aren't most navigation systems automated these days? Plug in your desired course and sit back and let the ship self steer? Then days of cruising and "nothing going on while underway" boredom lead to less situational awareness? I don't think the ships were hacked. I just think that no one was paying any attention to what was going on around them. Leadership and supervision seem lacking too.
It doesn't seem to require too much investigating to figure this out. Military duty of any type is hazardous, but the loss of life in the collisions seem senseless and entirely avoidable to me.
Navy guys.... Tell me I am looking at this too simplistically!

Both of these incidents occurred in high density traffic areas, dark although no other visibility limitations mentioned in either case.

Neither ship had been underway for very long, a week at most, if that. That ought not be a factor. Ships should be able to operate for extended periods of time, months if need be.

Each of the highly experience OODs I have discussed these with remarked how things can go bad very quickly in these high traffic somewhat congested waters. Maybe a series of events distracted one or more watch standers until it was too late. I'm sure we will see the reports of the investigations when available. Until then, it is interesting, and mostly harmless, to speculate.

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
I have been reading the various posts and responses to the two collisions but have not joined in because I am not ex-Navy.
I could not imagine living for long periods of time on a warship. For those who have, and are, you have my respect.
I cant help but wonder if boredom and complacency are factors in the collisions. Aren't most navigation systems automated these days? Plug in your desired course and sit back and let the ship self steer? Then days of cruising and "nothing going on while underway" boredom lead to less situational awareness? I don't think the ships were hacked. I just think that no one was paying any attention to what was going on around them. Leadership and supervision seem lacking too.
It doesn't seem to require too much investigating to figure this out. Military duty of any type is hazardous, but the loss of life in the collisions seem senseless and entirely avoidable to me.
Navy guys.... Tell me I am looking at this too simplistically!

Boredom and complacency absolutely has a part to do with these collisions. How much, is to be determined. Leadership and supervision as well is an issue. In the Fitzgerald reports leadership and complacency were cited, there wasn't a single officer on the bridge at the time of collision and I think it was 12 other enlisted were written up (off the top of my head without going back to the article posted in the fitzgerald thread on here).

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:
In the Fitzgerald reports leadership and complacency were cited, there wasn't a single officer on the bridge at the time of collision and I think it was 12 other enlisted were written up (off the top of my head without going back to the article posted in the fitzgerald thread on here).

The news reports mentioned 12 "sailors" without identifying any beyond the CO, XO and CMCPO (enlisted), each of whom has been relieved of duty.

I seriously doubt there were no officers on the bridge during the collision sequence. They will be included among the 12 "sailors" who will be punished for their role.

OTOH, if you recall a report that "there wasn't a single officer in the bridge at the time of the collision," please find it and provide a link.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:
In the Fitzgerald reports leadership and complacency were cited, there wasn't a single officer on the bridge at the time of collision and I think it was 12 other enlisted were written up (off the top of my head without going back to the article posted in the fitzgerald thread on here).

The news reports mentioned 12 "sailors" without identifying any beyond the CO, XO and CMCPO (enlisted), each of whom has been relieved of duty.

I seriously doubt there were no officers on the bridge during the collision sequence. They will be included among the 12 "sailors" who will be punished for their role.

OTOH, if you recall a report that "there wasn't a single officer in the bridge at the time of the collision," please find it and provide a link.

See third paragraph

https://news.usni.org/2017/08/...s-punishments-coming

THE PENTAGON — The top three leaders of the guided-missile destroyer involved in the June collision, which resulted in the death of seven sailors and hundreds of millions of dollars in damage, have been removed from their positions, the vice chief of naval operations told reporters on Thursday afternoon.

USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62) commander Cmdr. Bryce Benson, executive officer Cmdr. Sean Babbitt and command master chief CMC Brice Baldwin were removed from their positions by U.S. 7th Fleet commander Vice Adm. Joseph Aucoin this week based on the early results of several investigations into the June 17 collision between the destroyer and the merchant ship ACX Crystal, VCNO Adm. Bill Moran told reporters.

As the investigations continue, Moran said there could further punitive actions taken, including against Fitzgerald’s leadership. Neither Benson, Babbitt nor Baldwin were on the bridge when the collision occurred.

While the leadership have not been separated from the Navy, Moran said being detached for cause because of this incident sends a message.

“Several junior officers were relieved of their duties due to poor seamanship and flawed teamwork as bridge and combat information center watchstanders. Additional administrative actions were taken against members of both watch teams,” read the statement.

“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.”

According to a timeline of events, neither a collision alarm nor general quarters were sounded ahead of Crystal hitting the ship at about 1:30 a.m. on June 17, and the first indication to most of the crew that the ship had hit anything was the lurch they felt in their bunks.

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

As the investigations continue, Moran said there could further punitive actions taken, including against Fitzgerald’s leadership. Neither Benson, Babbitt nor Baldwin were on the bridge when the collision occurred.

That in no way implies that there wasn't a single officer on the bridge, just that these particular three weren't. I find it very hard to believe that no officers were on the bridge at the time of the collision.

quote:

“Several junior officers were relieved of their duties due to poor seamanship and flawed teamwork as bridge and combat information center watchstanders. Additional administrative actions were taken against members of both watch teams,” read the statement.

So there you have it. Contrary to your statement that there wasn't a single officer on the bridge, there were officers on the bridge, and in CIC, as I would have expected.

The Captain wasn't on the bridge at the time, but should have been, not as a watch stander, but having been summoned by the OOD pursuant to night orders to call the Captain whenever certain conditions arise, most certainly including whenever another ship will have a closest approach of x yards, or miles.

This to me is the biggest mystery. Why the OOD did not notify the Captain who would most certainly come to the bridge in that situation to make sure matters were under control.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

“Several junior officers were relieved of their duties due to poor seamanship and flawed teamwork as bridge and combat information center watchstanders. Additional administrative actions were taken against members of both watch teams,” read the statement.

So there you have it. Contrary to your statement that there wasn't a single officer on the bridge, there were officers on the bridge, and in CIC, as I would have expected.

The Captain wasn't on the bridge at the time, but should have been, not as a watch stander, but having been summoned by the OOD pursuant to night orders to call the Captain whenever certain conditions arise, most certainly including whenever another ship will have a closest approach of x yards, or miles.

This to me is the biggest mystery. Why the OOD did not notify the Captain who would most certainly come to the bridge in that situation to make sure matters were under control.

Because the OOD had no idea matters were not under control until they got hit by a freighter.