The commander of the Navy’s largest operational battle force and his subordinate in charge of the attached destroyer squadron have been removed from their positions as a result of ongoing investigations into a string of incidents this year that resulted in the death of 17 sailors and hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, USNI News has learned.

U.S. 7th Fleet Commander Vice Adm. Philip Sawyer removed Rear Adm. Charles Williams, commander of Combined Task Force 70, and Capt. Jeffery Bennett, commodore of Destroyer Squadron 15, from their positions on Monday (Tuesday local time) due to a loss of confidence in their ability to command, two Navy officials told USNI News and later confirmed by a statement from the service.

Williams also served as commander of Carrier Strike Group 5 with USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76). Bennett’s command included guided-missile destroyers USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) and USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62). Fitzgerald collided with a merchant ship off Japan on June 17 and resulted in the death of seven sailors, while McCain collided with a chemical tanker near Singapore on Aug. 21, resulting in the death of 10 sailors.

“Rear Adm. Marc Dalton, commander of Task Force 76 (CTF 76), assumed duties as commander, CTF 70. Capt. Jonathan Duffy, deputy commander, DESRON 15, assumed duties as commander,” read a statement from the Navy following an earlier version of this post.

The officials told USNI News the removals of Williams and Bennett are part of ongoing accountability actions as part of the Navy investigations into four surface ship incidents – three collisions and a grounding – in the Western Pacific this year.

[This is the lead part of a larger story summarizing the Navy's leadership moves recently, found in this Link.]

More careers aground.

quote:

The admiral commanding America’s Pacific naval fleet says he will retire.
Admiral Scott Swift made the shocking announcement in a statement released late Sept. 25.
In the statement, Swift revealed he had been informed that he would not rise to become Commander of United States Pacific Command, a usual advancement for Navy admirals who commanded the Pacific Fleet.


“I have been informed by the Chief of Naval Operations that I will not be his nominee to replace Adm. [Harry] Harris as the Commander, U.S. Pacific Command,” he said. “In keeping with tradition and in loyalty to the Navy, I have submitted my request to retire.”

Admiral Harry B. Harris, Jr., the current commander of Pacific Command, is reportedly under consideration to serve as the United States ambassador to Australia. Prior to commanding Pacific Command, Harris had commanded the Pacific Fleet.


Admiral Swift’s career included service with Attack Squadrons 94 and 97, flying the LTV A-7 Corsair. He saw combat during Operation Preying Mantis, and commander Air Wing 14 and Carrier Strike Group 9. His awards include the Distinguished Service Medal, Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit, Bronze Star, Meritorious Service Medal, and Air Medal with Combat V.
In recent months, the Pacific Fleet as rocked by the collisions involving the Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62) and USS John S. McCain (DDG 56) that killed a total of 17 sailors and seriously damaged both vessels, which were forward-based as part of Destroyer Squadron 15.


A number of other officers have been relieved of duty in the wake of those collisions, including Vice Adm. Joseph Aucoin, the commander of the 7th Fleet, and the commanders of Destroyer Squadron 15

Link

When an airplane hits a mountain, it is seldom the fault of the mountain.

quote:

The admiral commanding America’s Pacific naval fleet says he will retire.
Admiral Scott Swift made the shocking announcement in a statement released late Sept. 25.
In the statement, Swift revealed he had been informed that he would not rise to become Commander of United States Pacific Command, a usual advancement for Navy admirals who commanded the Pacific Fleet.

Doesn't shock me at all. ADM Smith's character is above reproach, and to be passed over like this would drive him to honorably submit his resignation. I know that sounds incredible given today's military environment, but that's the truth about this man.

I had the privilege to work for ADM Smith (then a newly-minted O-5) while at NAS Lemoore. He is an awesome leader who leads from the front and earned the respect of both enlisted and officers alike. The Ready Room was willing to mount up and attack Hell with a water pistol if he had asked us to do so. That time under his command was a very good time for all of us.

The man's character is above reproach, so for the Navy to reach this high up the chain of command to destroy his career tells me much about today's Navy. That being the case, I suggest the CNO be relieved as well to make a clean sweep.

Is there any reason to suspect that the Admiral merely finished second in a very tight competition for the next rung of the ladder having nothing to do with these collisions, etc.?

This was posted on www.yachtforums.com and it's worth copying and pasting here:

My .02 from both the perspective as ex-Navy (1970's) Radarman/Operation Specialist and as a current US Merchant Marine Master. My current position has me occasionally operating with the USN, so I speak with some recency

1) USN Surface Warfare Officers are very good warriors - it's just they suck as ship drivers.
I'm reminded of an incident in the Indian Ocean when a Submarine Tender, at a range of 20+ miles, traveling on a reciprocal course at 12-14 knots, called me at 0100 wondering what my intentions were. Since our speed was 10-12 knots, My reply was, "I'm gonna have another cup of coffee, and see where we stand at 5 miles." Another, more mature voice called me almost immediately and said they wanted a CPA (closest point of approach) of 5 miles. I suggested they call back at 10 miles to see where we would stand. Since the ships were already lined up for a port-to-port passage, I had no real concern.

At 10 miles, with a CPA greater than 2 miles, the USN vessel called me up and again asked for my intention. My reply, again, was "to have another cup of coffee and monitor YOUR track". Again, the more mature voice called back to inform me that they wanted a 5NM CPA. My curt reply, was to let them know I was maintaining course and speed, in accordance with the rules of the road, and if they wanted a 5nm CPA, they should put their rudder over to starboard to open; and reminded them there was a whole INDIAN OCEAN for them to maneuver.


2) Perhaps I missed a report on McCain's course, but if they were traveling SW approaching the TSS by Horsburg light, they probably were in a cluster of merchant vessels heading in the same direction, at approximately the same speed.

With several merchant vessels packed so closely together, it is possible the McCain's surface search and navigation radars were rendered "blind" by the massive radar returns from the merchant ship's strong radar-crossection. One must understand, that a merchant ship, with layer upon layer of containers, presents a virtual "mirror" - overwhelming the radar receiver with radar energy. That radar energy, when displayed on the radar scope, is not a "blip"; it is a 360 degree ring. And one must also appreciate that the merchant ship's radars are also "blind" from the same phenomena. And with the McCain's stealth design, there would be no way for it's radar return to be seen on the other merchant ships' radar.

3) As previously noted, the NAVY prohibits the use of AIS (previous posts, however, mention it is now allowed). This is good.

4) USN vessels travel at night with only their navigation lights on. That means other ship traffic in the area can see a maximum of 4 lights (2 mastheads and 2 sidelights), or a little as one single 75w stern light. In the Singapore Straits, at night, a deck officer's vision is "over stimulated" with shore lights, "finger-of-God" brilliant LED lights of shrimp boaters and trawlers, and the merchant ship's traveling with their deck lights on to "be seen" and to mitigate pirate activity. It's just unlikely that a mate-on-watch of a merchant ship would see the stern light until it's almost too late. And even then, the merchant ships are not very maneuverable, either in speed or course in the traffic separation scheme, when there is only a cable separating them in distance on their beams. (Imagine I-95 from West Palm to Fort Lauderdale, only with 30,000 ton ships, not cars-all going in the same direction at about the same speed.)

It is possible the stern lookout, and the bridge-wing lookouts were all to comfortable with the proximity of the other merchant vessels. And we all know that judging distance to a light at night is very difficult. Furthermore, after the contact was reported to the bridge, the lookout believes he has "done his job", and with his limited experience, may not notice the subtle closing.

5) USN ships have far too many people on the bridge, and it is conducive to losing situational awareness. The radarmen in Combat Information Center are relaying bearing/range/course/speed/CPA of EVERY CONTACT without prioritizing which one is the "most dangerous" one.

6) I'm pretty sure the astute members are aware of the level of confusion on a naval ship's bridge. But if you want a refresher, go to:
https://pilotonline.com/news/m...bb-aab66d820175.html

Now, after hearing that, WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT.

7) The mantra of the merchant marine still remains: Haze grey; stay away!!

8) Because the Navy deck officers are not well versed in commercial shipping, and "common seaman practices", they just "don't know" what to do, and when to do it. A solution to this is to require all USN ship drivers to get a 3rd mates' license, and become STCW qualified.

http://www.yachtforums.com/thr...2/page-4#post-252353

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:Is there any reason to suspect that the Admiral merely finished second in a very tight competition for the next rung of the ladder having nothing to do with these collisions, etc.?

No, not really JALLEN. Historically, the Pacific Command (PACOM) slot is usually filled by the Pacific Fleet Commander (PACFLT). As recently as a few days ago media reports were stating that ADM Swift was the heir apparent to the position ADM Harris is vacating, which wasn't really news given that's usually the case.

Word from the grapevine today is that CNO Richardson saw this as an opportunity to remove an aviator from the head of PACOM and put one of his boys in the position. If true, look for a bubble-head to be named.


If you want a good read into the character of ADM Swift, check out this interview that he did back in August: http://cimsec.org/admiral-scot...-life-u-s-navy/33578

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...ional-standards.html

New Navy orders went out in mid September 2017.

More sleep and no more 100-hour workweeks for sailors

Ships steaming in crowded waters like those near Singapore and Tokyo will now broadcast their positions as do other vessels

commanders are requiring sailors to use old-fashioned compasses, pencils and paper to help track potential hazards, as well as reducing a captain’s discretion to define what rules the watch team follows if the captain is not on the ship’s bridge.

Admiral Rowden also ordered standardized rules for watch teams on the bridge when the captain is not present; new reporting requirements for major equipment failures and near misses; and manually tracking vessels that come with 5,000 yards of a Navy ship to avoid collisions.

The Navy has allowed ships to rely on grueling watch schedules that leave captains and crews exhausted, even though the service ordered submarines to abandon similar schedules two years ago. A Government Accountability Office report from May said sailors were on duty up to 108 hours each week.

The new rules essentially will adopt studies by the Naval Postgraduate School to develop a shorter watch schedule to match circadian rhythms, which uses three hours of watch duty and nine hours off. Recognizing the benefits, the Navy ordered submarines to move to a similar schedule in 2015.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...ional-standards.html

New Navy orders went out in mid September 2017.

More sleep and no more 100-hour workweeks for sailors

Ships steaming in crowded waters like those near Singapore and Tokyo will now broadcast their positions as do other vessels

commanders are requiring sailors to use old-fashioned compasses, pencils and paper to help track potential hazards, as well as reducing a captain’s discretion to define what rules the watch team follows if the captain is not on the ship’s bridge.

Admiral Rowden also ordered standardized rules for watch teams on the bridge when the captain is not present; new reporting requirements for major equipment failures and near misses; and manually tracking vessels that come with 5,000 yards of a Navy ship to avoid collisions.

The Navy has allowed ships to rely on grueling watch schedules that leave captains and crews exhausted, even though the service ordered submarines to abandon similar schedules two years ago. A Government Accountability Office report from May said sailors were on duty up to 108 hours each week.

The new rules essentially will adopt studies by the Naval Postgraduate School to develop a shorter watch schedule to match circadian rhythms, which uses three hours of watch duty and nine hours off. Recognizing the benefits, the Navy ordered submarines to move to a similar schedule in 2015.

They should just follow the STCW rules in peacetime that all of the Merchant Marine vessels follow .

quote:

A Government Accountability Office report from May said sailors were on duty up to 108 hours each week.

I don't know if it had changed since the late 90's when I separated from the USN, but 108 hour weeks would have been a leisurely schedule for much of my underway life... and yeah, it sucked BIG time.

"The U.S. Navy has gone back to using compasses and pencils when it comes to navigating the high seas.

New orders were issued earlier this month after a number of deadly accidents this year…"

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...adly-collisions.html

quote:

Originally posted by parallel:

quote:

A Government Accountability Office report from May said sailors were on duty up to 108 hours each week.

I don't know if it had changed since the late 90's when I separated from the USN, but 108 hour weeks would have been a leisurely schedule for much of my underway life... and yeah, it sucked BIG time.

On one of my cruises, we were port and starboard for 5 or 6 days, two days in port, then port and starboard for 5 days. It didn't seem that bad. There wasn't anything else to do but sleep, eat and be on watch.

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...ional-standards.html

New Navy orders went out in mid September 2017.

More sleep and no more 100-hour workweeks for sailors

Ships steaming in crowded waters like those near Singapore and Tokyo will now broadcast their positions as do other vessels

commanders are requiring sailors to use old-fashioned compasses, pencils and paper to help track potential hazards, as well as reducing a captain’s discretion to define what rules the watch team follows if the captain is not on the ship’s bridge.

Admiral Rowden also ordered standardized rules for watch teams on the bridge when the captain is not present; new reporting requirements for major equipment failures and near misses; and manually tracking vessels that come with 5,000 yards of a Navy ship to avoid collisions.

The Navy has allowed ships to rely on grueling watch schedules that leave captains and crews exhausted, even though the service ordered submarines to abandon similar schedules two years ago. A Government Accountability Office report from May said sailors were on duty up to 108 hours each week.

The new rules essentially will adopt studies by the Naval Postgraduate School to develop a shorter watch schedule to match circadian rhythms, which uses three hours of watch duty and nine hours off. Recognizing the benefits, the Navy ordered submarines to move to a similar schedule in 2015.

They should just follow the STCW rules in peacetime that all of the Merchant Marine vessels follow .

It's nearly impossible for me to follow those rules. I don't know how the Navy would do it.

In fact, it is impossible for me and every other senior officer onboard. Every week I have to perform a bit of magic in order to make my work/rest hour log stay out of the red.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:


They should just follow the STCW rules in peacetime that all of the Merchant Marine vessels follow .

It's nearly impossible for me to follow those rules. I don't know how the Navy would do it.

In fact, it is impossible for me and every other senior officer onboard. Every week I have to perform a bit of magic in order to make my work/rest hour log stay out of the red.

The suggestion was made without being burdened by any experience, information, or idea about the operations, manning or missions of Navy ships.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...ional-standards.html

New Navy orders went out in mid September 2017.

More sleep and no more 100-hour workweeks for sailors

Ships steaming in crowded waters like those near Singapore and Tokyo will now broadcast their positions as do other vessels

commanders are requiring sailors to use old-fashioned compasses, pencils and paper to help track potential hazards, as well as reducing a captain’s discretion to define what rules the watch team follows if the captain is not on the ship’s bridge.

Admiral Rowden also ordered standardized rules for watch teams on the bridge when the captain is not present; new reporting requirements for major equipment failures and near misses; and manually tracking vessels that come with 5,000 yards of a Navy ship to avoid collisions.

The Navy has allowed ships to rely on grueling watch schedules that leave captains and crews exhausted, even though the service ordered submarines to abandon similar schedules two years ago. A Government Accountability Office report from May said sailors were on duty up to 108 hours each week.

The new rules essentially will adopt studies by the Naval Postgraduate School to develop a shorter watch schedule to match circadian rhythms, which uses three hours of watch duty and nine hours off. Recognizing the benefits, the Navy ordered submarines to move to a similar schedule in 2015.

They should just follow the STCW rules in peacetime that all of the Merchant Marine vessels follow .

It's nearly impossible for me to follow those rules. I don't know how the Navy would do it.

In fact, it is impossible for me and every other senior officer onboard. Every week I have to perform a bit of magic in order to make my work/rest hour log stay out of the red.

Yep, regulations are out of control now!

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...ional-standards.html

New Navy orders went out in mid September 2017.

More sleep and no more 100-hour workweeks for sailors

Ships steaming in crowded waters like those near Singapore and Tokyo will now broadcast their positions as do other vessels

commanders are requiring sailors to use old-fashioned compasses, pencils and paper to help track potential hazards, as well as reducing a captain’s discretion to define what rules the watch team follows if the captain is not on the ship’s bridge.

Admiral Rowden also ordered standardized rules for watch teams on the bridge when the captain is not present; new reporting requirements for major equipment failures and near misses; and manually tracking vessels that come with 5,000 yards of a Navy ship to avoid collisions.

The Navy has allowed ships to rely on grueling watch schedules that leave captains and crews exhausted, even though the service ordered submarines to abandon similar schedules two years ago. A Government Accountability Office report from May said sailors were on duty up to 108 hours each week.

The new rules essentially will adopt studies by the Naval Postgraduate School to develop a shorter watch schedule to match circadian rhythms, which uses three hours of watch duty and nine hours off. Recognizing the benefits, the Navy ordered submarines to move to a similar schedule in 2015.

They should just follow the STCW rules in peacetime that all of the Merchant Marine vessels follow .

It's nearly impossible for me to follow those rules. I don't know how the Navy would do it.

In fact, it is impossible for me and every other senior officer onboard. Every week I have to perform a bit of magic in order to make my work/rest hour log stay out of the red.

Yeah, but Merchant Marine vessels have Under 36 crew usually for the entire vessel. Some super tankers run with only 16 crew. We're talking about a destroyer that has almost 500 CREW members for a 500' vessel. There are more officers on a destroyer (by far) than your entire ship has as crew. It would be very easy to follow the STCW rules when dealing with that many crew.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:


They should just follow the STCW rules in peacetime that all of the Merchant Marine vessels follow .

It's nearly impossible for me to follow those rules. I don't know how the Navy would do it.

In fact, it is impossible for me and every other senior officer onboard. Every week I have to perform a bit of magic in order to make my work/rest hour log stay out of the red.

The suggestion was made without being burdened by any experience, information, or idea about the operations, manning or missions of Navy ships.

No, the Navy has failed all 3 aspects (operations, manning, and missions) by having 2 destroyers getting run over by Cargo Ships taking them each ship out of operation for well over a year if not indefinitely, and major issues with another 2 ship accidents, another destroyer grounding itself in Tokyo Bay.

A destroyer has one purpose- to defend itself and the other ships in the fleet. A destroyer runs an INSANE amount of crew for the size of it's ship, nearly 500 of them......Getting run over by a cargo ship is a major fail in the defending itself aspect, don't ya think????????

A Merchant Marine cargo vessel that's larger than a destroyer usually will run 20-30 crew (not 500), of which they have a ton of manual labor to keep up with. Making sure all reefers are working on containers, containers are staying strapped, loading and unloading operations, lashing and unlashing, ship operations, navigation, etc. etc.

An inability of a merchant marine ship to be able to follow the STCW safe manning regulations, usually falls into the ship owner being too cheap to employ enough crew members and always running with the bare minimum amount of crew it can legally sail with. There are exceptions where it can sail under the safe manning requirements if a crew member is injured etc.

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:


Yeah, but Merchant Marine vessels have Under 36 crew usually for the entire vessel. Some super tankers run with only 16 crew. We're talking about a destroyer that has almost 500 CREW members for a 500' vessel. There are more officers on a destroyer (by far) than your entire ship has as crew. It would be very easy to follow the STCW rules when dealing with that many crew.

Some who know what they are talking about believe that one contributing factor is undermanning which has been geting worse in recent times

The Fitzgerald crew was 210 enlisted, 38 CPO and 33 officers. McCain had the same.

You have no idea about these things, the operations, the equipment, the missions, and by your own admission, no experience in the Navy.

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:


They should just follow the STCW rules in peacetime that all of the Merchant Marine vessels follow .

It's nearly impossible for me to follow those rules. I don't know how the Navy would do it.

In fact, it is impossible for me and every other senior officer onboard. Every week I have to perform a bit of magic in order to make my work/rest hour log stay out of the red.

The suggestion was made without being burdened by any experience, information, or idea about the operations, manning or missions of Navy ships.

No, the Navy has failed all 3 aspects (operations, manning, and missions) by having 2 destroyers getting run over by Cargo Ships taking them each ship out of operation for well over a year if not indefinitely, and major issues with another 2 ship accidents, another destroyer grounding itself in Tokyo Bay.

A destroyer has one purpose- to defend itself and the other ships in the fleet. A destroyer runs an INSANE amount of crew for the size of it's ship, nearly 500 of them......Getting run over by a cargo ship is a major fail in the defending itself aspect, don't ya think????????

A Merchant Marine cargo vessel that's larger than a destroyer usually will run 20-30 crew (not 500), of which they have a ton of manual labor to keep up with. Making sure all reefers are working on containers, containers are staying strapped, loading and unloading operations, lashing and unlashing, ship operations, navigation, etc. etc.

An inability of a merchant marine ship to be able to follow the STCW safe manning regulations, usually falls into the ship owner being too cheap to employ enough crew members and always running with the bare minimum amount of crew it can legally sail with. There are exceptions where it can sail under the safe manning requirements if a crew member is injured etc.

You have no idea.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:


Yeah, but Merchant Marine vessels have Under 36 crew usually for the entire vessel. Some super tankers run with only 16 crew. We're talking about a destroyer that has almost 500 CREW members for a 500' vessel. There are more officers on a destroyer (by far) than your entire ship has as crew. It would be very easy to follow the STCW rules when dealing with that many crew.

Some who know what they are talking about believe that one contributing factor is undermanning which has been geting worse in recent times

The Fitzgerald crew was 210 enlisted, 38 CPO and 33 officers. McCain had the same.

You have no idea about these things, the operations, the equipment, the missions, and by your own admission, no experience in the Navy.

Perhaps. But I don't need to know a single thing about their operations, equipment or missions to know given their accident record that there are serious flaws in their operation.

A ship is a ship. I know what it takes to actually properly navigate a ship of that size. AND, most all commercial merchant mariner vessels do it with 2 on watch at a time (TOTAL), and only 1 of them is an officer, and they don't have anywheres near this accident record the Navy does as a percentage to the total amount of ships running around. Last year there were 76 TOTAL maritime accidents (if memory serves me right) with Merchant Mariner vessels out of around 50,000 vessels operating. AND, you're talking about some of the ships operating with complete idiots as crew with very sketchy training....ships flagged in Monrovia, Haiti, Liberia, etc. for example. The entire problem with the navy is there are far too many people involved in the chain of command in terms of the navigational aspect of the ship.

It is a KNOWN fact throughout the Maritime Industry that the Navy's navigational skills and the Navy's standard navigational operations are seriously flawed. What good is having the best destroyer in the world if you can't get it to where you need it to be without getting run over by a cargo ship of all things or hit by a fishing boat???? Shit, the Sperry navigational console that is still being installed on Navy vessels that was developed in 2008, has been COMPLETELY outdated for well over 5 years now. I have 25' center consoles that have electronics that are light years ahead of the Sperry Console.

The Navy has become far too BLOATED (like every other Government entity) to be competitive and make changes needed to keep up with technology and operations. There are far too many people in the chain of command to react in the time needed to react. Far too many people in the decision making process to adapt to new technology and make it work. The Navy spends billions on fighter jets that won't fly properly (F22), ships that won't perform fast enough or be maneuverable enough to do what they were designed to do (littoral combat ships), Catapult systems that don't work or aren't reliable enough to be battle ready (supercarriers that can't be sent out to battle), ship accidents, etc. etc. But hey, the new ships have gender neutral bathrooms!

But the biggest problem here is the Navy failing to accept that their are flaws in their operations and changing and adapting.

NO, YOU HAVE NO IDEA. You have the same Navy Mantra as everyone else in the Navy, where there is no issue here, the issue is elsewhere and we're going to keep doing what we're doing expecting different results. The definition of insanity. You have 2 destroyers getting run over by cargo ships in a couple of months time span....something is SERIOUSLY wrong with that picture. A destroyer is a war ship that's supposedly able to protect itself from darn near ANY type of attack, yet gets taken out by a cargo ship a city block long?????????????