i wonder if this will come down to a manning issue. optimized manning. optimized surface ship manning. do more with less.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by CaptainMike:
AIS. Automatic Identification System, it has been mentioned here in passing, but I think it almost certainly played a role in this collision. To the .mil folks, think of it as an advanced civilian TACAN or IFF.

First, I extracted just two sentences from a rather lengthy post.

Thank you, CaptainMike, for sharing your view of the unfortunate event. It is A Good Thing to read this from folks like you and Alan (Balzé Halzé) who are professionals in this area.

I have just one sort of nit-picky thing re the last three words that I quoted from your post: "TACAN or IFF." My credentials: I maintained both types of equipment, TACAN and IFF, while I was in the Navy, and also for a while in civilian life when I finished my active Navy duty.

A very excellent and undoubtedly accurate explanation of those, but CaptMike wasn't asserting that either was in use, merely explaining the AIS by analogizing AIS to those old systems for the military types to understand it easier. Apparently, it didn't work.

If this keeps up we might have to declare war on Japanese merchant vessels.

Thanks JALLEN, I was just trying to give a general idea of what AIS is to people who may have been in the military back in ye olden tymes. As I mentioned AIS does provide a wealth of information between vessels. Name, Position, course, speed, rate of turn,type and dimensions of vessel, navigation status, (Underway, anchored, hydrofoiling, adrift, sailing, fishing, etc.) Bearing, Range, Closest Point of Approach (CPA) time, bearing, distance of CPA. A veritable wealth of information
Again, in a place like the approaches to Tokyo, The Malacca Straights, Straights of Gibraltar, etc. Probably far too much information if you are not used to paying attention only to the information relevant to collision avoidance.
As I also mentioned, and I do not think it can be overstated, merchant sailors rely far too much on AIS which often leads them to discount any vessel which doesn't appear on AIS (Like the US Navy), particularly when said vessel presents a relatively small RADAR target (like a DDG)

quote:

Originally posted by CaptainMike:


As I also mentioned, and I do not think it can be overstated, merchant sailors rely far too much on AIS which often leads them to discount any vessel which doesn't appear on AIS (Like the US Navy), particularly when said vessel presents a relatively small RADAR target (like a DDG)

I wonder what I looked like on my 37'er heading out to Catalina! Nothing beats looking out the window!

I enjoyed watching the AIS of traffic coming and going in and out of San Diego. I believe some Navy ships used it, maybe within so many miles of a port or something.

damage to DDG 56

sheer speculation : is the puncture from the bulbous bow of the ALNIC MC ?

If the tanker wasn't loaded, the bulb would be riding above the water line.

It looks like the tanker struck DDG 56 at an angle significantly off perpendicular. Note less indentation at the right of the damage, and more indentation at the left.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:

sheer speculation : is the puncture from the bulbous bow of the ALNIC MC ?

From that pic, that certainly appears to be the case.

quote:

If the tanker wasn't loaded, the bulb would be riding above the water line.

That's correct.

US Navy ships are all equipped with AIS and receive all the time. They tend to run most of the time with the transmit side turned off. I don't know what the current protocol is for when it should be on/off. The disadvantage to turning it on all the time would be that hostile actors (terrorists, Iranians, NK's) would probably be able to find/track US warships much more easily.

Captain Mike,

Absolutely not challenging, just asking for clarification to have a better understanding of your level of experience. Have you always been merchant Marine, were you also a US Navy Captain as well?

quote:

Originally posted by Ronin1069:
Captain Mike,

Absolutely not challenging, just asking for clarification to have a better understanding of your level of experience. Have you always been merchant Marine, were you also a US Navy Captain as well?

I was an enlisted 1st class petty officer in the Navy. Bosun's mate, then Quartermaster, then Signalman.
I spent most of my watchstanding time on the bridge and qualified as an enlisted underway JOOD.(Conning officer on a 660 ft AOR). I got out after the 1st Gulf War and have been working as a Merchant Mariner ever since. (Got my 1600 ton Master license in 1994 and have been upgrading ever since)
I have also been the commanding officer of a USNS ship (Ships owned by the Navy but operated primarily by civilian crew) as a Civilian Mariner (CIVMAR).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...ed_States_Naval_Ship

What does this photo suggest as to the physical position of the vessels involved? I have no marine experience to make any kind of speculation.

quote:

Originally posted by CaptainMike:
2. AIS. Automatic Identification System, ... They are cheap, incredibly useful and even shrimp boats and small sailboats are carrying them now.

If we'd kept our 30' sailboat another season, that was one of her scheduled upgrades: A new radio with integrated AIS.

Truth is: Big ships' radars simply don't see small recreational boats' radar signature. Even when sailboats hoist those silly little radar reflectors.

Thanks for the insights, CaptainMike!

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
I wonder what I looked like on my 37'er heading out to Catalina!

37' fiberglass boat? Probably didn't show up on radar at all. Or, if it did, was buried in surface clutter, would be my guess.

quote:

Originally posted by signewt:
What does this photo suggest as to the physical position of the vessels involved? I have no marine experience to make any kind of speculation.

That the tanker came from the port aft quarter.

(In automotive terms The tanker struck the McCain in the left rear quarter panel with her front bumper)

Which would imply at first glance that the McCain was the "Stand-on" vessel in this collision.

quote:

Originally posted by signewt:
What does this photo suggest as to the physical position of the vessels involved? I have no marine experience to make any kind of speculation.

Just my quick take, but it really looks like they cut in front of the freighter...

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by CaptainMike:
2. AIS. Automatic Identification System, ... They are cheap, incredibly useful and even shrimp boats and small sailboats are carrying them now.

If we'd kept our 30' sailboat another season, that was one of her scheduled upgrades: A new radio with integrated AIS.

Truth is: Big ships' radars simply don't see small recreational boats' radar signature. Even when sailboats hoist those silly little radar reflectors.

Thanks for the insights, CaptainMike!

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
I wonder what I looked like on my 37'er heading out to Catalina!

37' fiberglass boat? Probably didn't show up on radar at all. Or, if it did, was buried in surface clutter, would be my guess.

It would depend on the sea state, in calm conditions (less than 2' seas) I would be able to see you clear as a bell out to about 6 NM, in 8-10 ft seas probably not at all.
Most ships (Navy and civilian) have 2 types of navigation RADAR (X-band and S-band; 3 cm and 11 cm wavelength respectively) The X band is better for small, close targets (but gets absorbed by H20 so is poor in rain or fog) The S band is better for larger, longer range targets and cuts through rain and water vapor better. S band doesn't pick up wood or fiberglass hulls very well either.

I've asked this question indirectly in both threads on this, but am still unsure of the answer, so I'll ask directly.

It is my understanding that a US Navy Warship, navigating in international waters, in this day and age, would consider all vessels around it that don't bear US NAVY as possible hostile vessels, and would thus be tracking them should they pose a potential threat? Even if not for constant crew readiness.

If you're tracking every vessel around you as a potential hostile threat A) how do you let them get close to you unless required due to narrow navigable waters? and/or B) actually hit you?? Especially when you're on a ship that is in effect a Corvette/Mustang/Charger on the sea about to be hit by a tractor trailer.

Having never been in the Navy or sailed on a large ship I can only speculate but the latter seems paramount in defending the ship, don't let a ship capable of sinking you, hit you. It seems the only way this could happen is if A) Absolutely no one was paying attention, or B) at least 1 person was, but warnings were ignored.

I don't understand how a ship that is supposed to have eyes on EVERYTHING around them and be the fastest and most maneuverable vessel, gets hit by a slow moving ship the size of a 10 story building. Help me understand this please.

I am not really following this but all this "for Global good" bullshit and what have you is just absurd. Someone needs to start kicking some serious Ass.

I hope no loss of life occurred.

If there is so much traffic there they either need to get the hell out of there of stay away in the first place. This is unbelievable and totally unacceptable.

Our Navy needs to get their shit together and yesterday!

Rightward, I covered it as best I could on page 4.
The Straights of Malacca are incredibly congested, they likely were overwhelmed with target data and lost situational awareness.

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:

I don't understand how a ship that is supposed to have eyes on EVERYTHING around them and be the fastest and most maneuverable vessel, gets hit by a slow moving ship the size of a 10 story building. Help me understand this please.

We are still wondering this about the USS Fitzgerald. . .

I think the most likely scenario is that the bridge watch was either screwing around and not paying attention, was grossly incompetent, or both.

quote:

Originally posted by CaptainMike:
Rightward, I covered it as best I could on page 4.
The Straights of Malacca are incredibly congested, they likely were overwhelmed with target data and lost situational awareness.

Ok, that is a fair explanation. I guess it would point to a different issue though if the crew was overwhelmed with target data to the point where they became ineffective.

Follow up question. How often do US Navy ships get underway and navigate totally alone? Was this ship part of a fleet or off on it's own? If part of a group, even 2 ships, do they split target tracking duties and stay in constant contact?

I know US Navy Subs operate alone for obvious reasons, I guess it never occurred to me that a Destroyer or Cruiser would be off on its own and not part of a larger group.