quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

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 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 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. The entire problem is 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???? 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navigational console that is still being installed on Navy vessels that was developed in 2008, has been COMPLETELY outdated for well over 5 years now.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.

You were criticizing crew levels.

You don't know, nor do I, what equipment is operational on Navy ships right now. On many ships, I doubt it is anything like the Sperry you keep rattling on about. Even in the old WWII tin cans in my day, there was tremendous radar gear. There was no GPS then, of course. On one ship, I recall there was a small room with the LORAN receivers and associated gear. Otherwise, it was DR, and Mr. Sol.

If it is all due to ineptitude of the Navy, why aren't Navy ships hitting each other? They do sometimes, of course. Why is it always a merchantman, though?

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

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 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 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. The entire problem is 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???? 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.

You were criticizing crew levels.

You don't know, nor do I, what equipment is operational on Navy ships right now. On many ships, I doubt it is anything like the Sperry you keep rattling on about. Even in the old WWII tin cans in my day, there was tremendous radar gear. There was no GPS then, of course. On one ship, I recall there was a small room with the LORAN receivers and associated gear. Otherwise, it was DR, and Mr. Sol.

If it is all due to ineptitude of the Navy, why aren't Navy ships hitting each other? They do sometimes, of course. Why is it always a merchantman, though?

Whatever equipment is operational on Navy ships right now, it IS capable of keeping them from getting run over by a freighter that's a block long if they had properly trained crew monitoring it. The most rudimentary radars that joe blow could buy at West Marine would pick up a cargo ship, clear as day.

Because Navy ships are incredibly hard to see at night, due to their intentional designs. And, their lack of willingness to broadcast their location, especially in crowded shipping lanes with AIS like every other commercial ship is required to do. So that should make them extra vigalent to stay out of other ships way. But they should be extra vigalent at all times regardless, they're a war ship afterall.

Is there knowledge of other countries naval ships being involved in the same type of accidents? Maybe we just don't hear about it.

What are the stats for the Russians, the Chinese, British, French, Aussies, etc?

I'm really curious.

quote:

Originally posted by OKCGene:
Is there knowledge of other countries naval ships being involved in the same type of accidents? Maybe we just don't hear about it.

What are the stats for the Russians, the Chinese, British, French, Aussies, etc?

I'm really curious.

This article only goes from 1945-1988 and out of 1276 Naval accidents 799 were U.S.. I'll try to find something more recent.

https://fas.org/wp-content/upl...cidents1945-1988.pdf

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:


You were criticizing crew levels.

You don't know, nor do I, what equipment is operational on Navy ships right now. On many ships, I doubt it is anything like the Sperry you keep rattling on about. Even in the old WWII tin cans in my day, there was tremendous radar gear. There was no GPS then, of course. On one ship, I recall there was a small room with the LORAN receivers and associated gear. Otherwise, it was DR, and Mr. Sol.

If it is all due to ineptitude of the Navy, why aren't Navy ships hitting each other? They do sometimes, of course. Why is it always a merchantman, though?

Whatever equipment is operational on Navy ships right now, it IS capable of keeping them from getting run over by a freighter that's a block long if they had properly trained crew monitoring it. The most rudimentary radars that joe blow could buy at West Marine would pick up a cargo ship, clear as day.

Because Navy ships are incredibly hard to see at night, due to their intentional designs. And, their lack of willingness to broadcast their location, especially in crowded shipping lanes with AIS like every other commercial ship is required to do. So that should make them extra vigalent to stay out of other ships way. But they should be extra vigalent at all times regardless, they're a war ship afterall.

Congratulations, Captain Obvious!

We've waded through all your bogus assertions of erroneous facts, aluminum hulls, 500 man crews, old Sperry nav gear, wild imagination about watch standing, to finally arrive in the vicinity of what is likely the crux of the matter. Even the dumb old Admirals are coming to the same conclusion.

The mystery is specifically, where was the breakdown in these two incidents. Each aspect will be examined very intensely. They have already moved on one possibility, gear failure, to go back to pencils and paper, keeping track of bogies, drawing lines in paper, etc. I wonder if there is as much emphasis on manuevering board as when I went through OCS, or do they let the x-box figure it out?

Crew training on complex gear will be getting a hard look. The new stuff may be awfully sophisticated, but too complicated for effective operational use, too easy to mishandle in the stress of CIC, too many maintenance issues.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:


You were criticizing crew levels.

You don't know, nor do I, what equipment is operational on Navy ships right now. On many ships, I doubt it is anything like the Sperry you keep rattling on about. Even in the old WWII tin cans in my day, there was tremendous radar gear. There was no GPS then, of course. On one ship, I recall there was a small room with the LORAN receivers and associated gear. Otherwise, it was DR, and Mr. Sol.

If it is all due to ineptitude of the Navy, why aren't Navy ships hitting each other? They do sometimes, of course. Why is it always a merchantman, though?

Whatever equipment is operational on Navy ships right now, it IS capable of keeping them from getting run over by a freighter that's a block long if they had properly trained crew monitoring it. The most rudimentary radars that joe blow could buy at West Marine would pick up a cargo ship, clear as day.

Because Navy ships are incredibly hard to see at night, due to their intentional designs. And, their lack of willingness to broadcast their location, especially in crowded shipping lanes with AIS like every other commercial ship is required to do. So that should make them extra vigalent to stay out of other ships way. But they should be extra vigalent at all times regardless, they're a war ship afterall.

Congratulations, Captain Obvious!

We've waded through all your bogus assertions of erroneous facts, aluminum hulls, 500 man crews, old Sperry nav gear, wild imagination about watch standing, to finally arrive in the vicinity of what is likely the crux of the matter. Even the dumb old Admirals are coming to the same conclusion.

The mystery is specifically, where was the breakdown in these two incidents. Each aspect will be examined very intensely. They have already moved on one possibility, gear failure, to go back to pencils and paper, keeping track of bogies, drawing lines in paper, etc. I wonder if there is as much emphasis on manuevering board as when I went through OCS, or do they let the x-box figure it out?

Crew training on complex gear will be getting a hard look. The new stuff may be awfully sophisticated, but too complicated for effective operational use, too easy to mishandle in the stress of CIC, too many maintenance issues.

It all boils down to improperly trained crew or crew that were not doing their duties!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HUMAN ERROR!

All the technology is useless unless the operators know when, and how, to use it. One must fully understand, these two vessels were in sight of one another-all it would have taken to avoid collision is to "look out the window".

The primary failure in this collision was human error on the part of McCain's conning officer. Although the admiralty lawyers will assign some blame to the merchant ship (albeit a very small percentage because all collisions result because the stand-on vessel did not take action to avoid collision- see International Rule 17b, ". . .shall take such action as will best avoid collision.") the root cause is the failure of the conning officer to see RISK-OF-COLLISION and avoid the other ship.

What could he have done to avoid collision with ships on both sides only 200-300 yards away? USN ship's are highly maneuverable with propulsion. The conning officer could have reduced pitch or reversed pitch on the propellers. The key though, is to be looking out the window and have situational awareness.

281 CREW is still a TON of crew for that size vessel, no matter how you slice it. The freighter that hit it is much larger and runs on 10% of that crew, and that's standard.

I've been saying that Navy shipmates as a whole are horrible navigators, which is echo'd by the entire merchant marine industry.

You can sit here and pick at straws, but if the Fitzgerald and Mccain had a properly trained crew when it comes to operating the ship and navigating, NEITHER of these accidents would have occurred. You have an extremely maneuverable ship that doesn't get out of the way of a slow, portly, slow maneuvering cargo ship. If they cannot see a fully lit cargo ship running them over, there is something seriously wrong. It boils down to training and leadership. And if a Navy destroyer cannot get to where it needs to go in the world to do it's duty, it doesn't matter how much technology it has or what weapons it has, it's about as useful as a paper weight. All they had to do in both situations to avoid a collision was to increase speed.

Granted that the ships are moving in 2D space but still, the oceans seem pretty large and it seems difficult to imagine that these aren't very rare occurrences.

One hopes that, if the basis is human error, it doesn't carry over into the friendly skies. 3D space isn't necessarily better, especially at higher speeds.

USS John S. McCain to Be Repaired in Japan

Those who've served in 7th Fleet know that Yoko has a very good reputation when it comes to yard work. Also makes sense considering they're down 4-surface combatants and they're located half-way around the world from a US facility.

quote:

The U.S. Navy will repair the guided-missile destroyer USS John S. McCain (DDG 56) at the U.S. Naval Ship Repair Facility-Japan Regional Maintenance Center in Yokosuka, Japan.

Repairs will begin upon arrival from Singapore aboard a heavy lift vessel in October, the Navy said.

....

DDG 56 on heavy lift ship

https://news.usni.org/2017/10/...a2&mc_eid=cd9005089f

The commanding officer, Cmdr. Alfredo J. Sanchez, and executive officer, CDR Jessie L. Sanchez, of the guided-missile destroyer USS John S. McCain (DDG 56) were relieved of their duties by Vice Adm. Phil Sawyer, Commander, Seventh Fleet, on Oct. 11. Both were relieved due to a loss of confidence.

While the investigation is ongoing, it is evident the collision was preventable, the commanding officer exercised poor judgment, and the executive officer exercised poor leadership of the ship’s training program.

Destroyer USS John S. McCain Developed Hull Crack in Transit on Heavy Lift Vessel

Great
Wonder if it was inevitable given the settling and stress on the framing being out of water or, the keel blocks weren't currently positioned?

quote:

Following an Aug. 21 collision with merchant vessel Alnic MC, McCain was being transported from Singapore, where the collision occurred, to Yokosuka, Japan, where repairs will take place. During the transit on heavy lift transport vessel MV Treasure, the crack – “about four inches long on the starboard side, amidships” with an accompanying small dent – was noticed, Cmdr. Clay Doss told USNI News.

The new damage, combined with inclement weather and heavy seas associated with Typhoon Lan, forced Treasure to reroute to the Philippines.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
The symbolism is epic

Exactly what I was thinking.

In keeping with it's namesake, DDG56 McCain now has a strong tendency to turn to port.......

quote:

Originally posted by heathtx:
In keeping with it's namesake, DDG56 McCain now has a strong tendency to turn to port.......

And is a bit cracked.

If you read the entire article, near the bottom it states the crack is very small and only 4" long. But sounds like the ship wanted to get out of very heavy weather anyways and decided to pull into port.

WASHINGTON (NNS) -- The Navy released Nov. 1, a report detailing the events and actions that led to the collision of USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62) and ACX Crystal off the coast of Japan June 17, and the collision of USS John S. McCain (DDG 56) and merchant vessel Alnic MC Aug. 21.

"Both of these accidents were preventable and the respective investigations found multiple failures by watch standers that contributed to the incidents, said Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. John Richardson. "We must do better."

"We are a Navy that learns from mistakes and the Navy is firmly committed to doing everything possible to prevent an accident like this from happening again. We must never allow an accident like this to take the lives of such magnificent young Sailors and inflict such painful grief on their families and the nation.

"The vast majority of our Sailors are conducting their missions effectively and professionally - protecting America from attack, promoting our interests and prosperity, and advocating for the rules that govern the vast commons from the sea floor to space and in cyberspace. This is what America expects and deserves from its Navy.

"Our culture, from the most junior sailor to the most senior Commander, must value achieving and maintaining high operational and warfighting standards of performance and these standards must be embedded in our equipment, individuals, teams and fleets.

We will spend every effort needed to correct these problems and be stronger than before," said Richardson.

USS FITZGERALD

The collision between Fitzgerald and Crystal was avoidable and resulted from an accumulation of smaller errors over time, ultimately resulting in a lack of adherence to sound navigational practices. Specifically, Fitzgerald's watch teams disregarded established norms of basic contact management and, more importantly, leadership failed to adhere to well-established protocols put in place to prevent collisions. In addition, the ship's triad was absent during an evolution where their experience, guidance and example would have greatly benefited the ship.

USS JOHN S. MCCAIN

The collision between John S. McCain and Alnic MC was also avoidable and resulted primarily from complacency, over-confidence and lack of procedural compliance. A major contributing factor to the collision was sub-standard level of knowledge regarding the operation of the ship control console. In particular, McCain's commanding officer disregarded recommendations from his executive officer, navigator and senior watch officer to set sea and anchor watch teams in a timely fashion to ensure the safe and effective operation of the ship. With regard to procedures, no one on the Bridge watch team, to include the commanding officer and executive officer, were properly trained on how to correctly operate the ship control console during a steering casualty.

Download: Collision Report for USS Fitzgerald and USS John S. McCain Collisions

https://s3.amazonaws.com/CHINF...ollision+Reports.pdf

PHOTOS AND VIDEOS

USS JOHN S. MCCAIN:

-Photos of 10 Sailors killed aboard USS John S. McCain (DDG 56), family and official: https://s3.amazonaws.com/Custo...Sailor+portraits.zip

-Photos of USS John S. McCain (DDG 56): https://s3.amazonaws.com/Custo...+S+McCain+photos.zip

-Video of USS John S. McCain (DDG 56): https://s3.amazonaws.com/Custo...n+S+McCain+video.zip

USS FITZGERALD:

-Photos of the seven Sailors killed aboard USS Fitzgerald:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/Custo...erald+Casualties.zip

-Video (interviews and b-roll) of fleet level support to the crew of USS Fitzgerald after collision: https://s3.amazonaws.com/Custo...tzgerald+Sailors.zip

-Video of statement from Vice Adm. Joseph P. Aucoin, U.S. 7th Fleet commander, regarding USS Fitzgerald's return to Fleet Activities (FLEACT) Yokosuka after collision: https://s3.amazonaws.com/Custo...ment+VADM+Aucoin.zip

-Video of USS Fitzgerald returning to Fleet Activities (FLEACT) Yokosuka following collision: https://s3.amazonaws.com/Custo...d+Yokosuka+Japan.zip

-Photos of USS Fitzgerald returning to Fleet Activities (FLEACT) Yokosuka after the collision: https://s3.amazonaws.com/Custo...t+USS+Fitzgerald.zip

-Video of USS Fitzgerald moving into Dry Dock 4 at Fleet Activities (FLEACT) Yokosuka to continue repairs and assess damage from its June 17 collision: https://s3.amazonaws.com/Custo...+dry-dock+170711.zip

Link

my guess about DDG 62 Fitzgerald track was very wrong

I thought DDG 62 was going west to east, and it turns out it was going north to south at 20 knots

so this was not a case of Crystal overtaking DDG 62

if you want to download the Navy report pdf that JALLEN posted above:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/CHINF...ollision+Reports.pdf

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sdy,

DDG 56 John S McCain got confused on which station was steering the ship. Steering was never physically lost. The two shafts working opposite each other caused an un-commanded turn to port.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sdy,

Even that somewhat sugar coated account exceeds my imagined level of incompetence.

A real FUBAR, both of them. Yikes!

Fitzgerald(from Navy report)






Figure 4 indicates there were no personnel on the bridge wings

DDG 62 did not use AIS

"It is unknown if the OOD was tracking the CRYSTAL or another commercial vessel" - Wan Hai would fit the description "pass 1500 yds from FITZGERALD"

For any of our US Navy guys (current and former), based on the above timeline, was the crew as grossly incompetent as this makes them appear?