I readily confess to being almost completely ignorant about all things concerning seamanship & navigation. But even at that I cannot understand at all how lookouts stationed all around the ship can be fooled, letting something like this happen. But at the moment I am not nearly as concerned with placing blame as I am with mourning the sailors lost in this incident. My God, there must be some way - there just HAS TO BE - to adequately guard against this type of thing happening again. Pray for our sailors.....

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:

quote:

Originally posted by PeteF:
^^^^^^^
Except US ships employ Anti spoofing hardware and software. And lets not forget, they have multiple sources of navigation. When someone can spoof gravity and the earths rotation this might actually happen. Until then the simplest solution is usually the correct answer.

Even if the Navy systems are "spoof-proof" they may be using AIS signals which are apparently spoofable.

It was Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her little IT guy!

I'm sorry but I don't buy the hacking story for a New York minute...
Think about this for a second...The Captain was in his room when his ship was traversing one of the most crowded shipping lanes in the world. That right there should get him court-martialed.

Next there had to be several crew standing watch in the bridge with binoculars ( night vision goggles?) and can easily spot ships at night from several miles away.

While I am not as experienced in piloting a vessel as some here I have spent cumulatively several years at sea on various ships and can tell you that when we approached the C Buoy the Captain was on deck and fully awake with all the necessary crew in various positions to detect all ships around us and their course and speed...

This is just straight forward incompetence and the Admiral of the 7th Fleet should be fired as well for having two of his front line ships get into this situation.

quote:

Originally posted by smlsig:
I'm sorry but I don't buy the hacking story for a New York minute...
Think about this for a second...The Captain was in his room when his ship was traversing one of the most crowded shipping lanes in the world. That right there should get him court-martialed.

Next there had to be several crew standing watch in the bridge with binoculars ( night vision goggles?) and can easily spot ships at night from several miles away.

While I am not as experienced in piloting a vessel as some here I have spent cumulatively several years at sea on various ships and can tell you that when we approached the C Buoy the Captain was on deck and fully awake with all the necessary crew in various positions to detect all ships around us and their course and speed...

This is just straight forward incompetence and the Admiral of the 7th Fleet should be fired as well for having two of his front line ships get into this situation.

Was the Captain "in his room" on the McCain, too? I've not heard that.

I'm thinking about the computer CD training for SWO. I suppose it isn't as dramatic as handing a new flight school graduate the CD's to learn carrier ops, there may be some parallels.

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:

quote:

Originally posted by PeteF:

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:
Even if the Navy systems are "spoof-proof" they may be using AIS signals which are apparently spoofable.

How exactly do you spoof Inertial Navigation? That is my point. There are redundant navigation systems. The military acknowledges the chance of EW so it builds in safeties to deal with it.

I was suggesting that the AIS signals could be spoofed. So instead of there equipment warning them that they are closing with a humungus merchant ship, the AIS signal from the merchant ship is showing further away.

The Navy systems may be working but possibly the information signals they are receiving are wrong.

I would hope the Navy can pick up a 600' ship on its own radar without any AIS system.

There are times when a human relies too much on technology with the thought that it is infallible, and our military has been sucked into this issue. They would rather plug a few datum points into a computer in the hopes that it saves them enough time to focus on another portion of their jobs, or most recently, saving time for sensitivity training. There are going to be times when humans err but at least they can't be hacked (as far as I know there is no mind control) but an electronic system can be.

I believe the entire issue we are seeing right now, is a culmination of several years of leadership that put too much emphasis on diversity training rather than job training. Add on top of that a lack of discipline within the ranks, and I think you have a perfect storm. I bet there were more than a few that were on duty dicking around on social media and otherwise distracted from doing their jobs.

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:
There are times when a human relies too much on technology with the thought that it is infallible, and our military has been sucked into this issue. They would rather plug a few datum points into a computer in the hopes that it saves them enough time to focus on another portion of their jobs, or most recently, saving time for sensitivity training. There are going to be times when humans err but at least they can't be hacked (as far as I know there is no mind control) but an electronic system can be.

I believe the entire issue we are seeing right now, is a culmination of several years of leadership that put too much emphasis on diversity training rather than job training. Add on top of that a lack of discipline within the ranks, and I think you have a perfect storm. I bet there were more than a few that were on duty dicking around on social media and otherwise distracted from doing their jobs.

Yep, and most probably yep. Sadly.

CNN (yeah I know) is reporting that the McCain suffered a loss of stearing but regained it after (????).
-----
Earlier, another US Navy official told CNN there were indications the destroyer experienced a loss of steering right before the collision, but steering had been regained afterward.
----

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/21/...collision/index.html

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:

I believe the entire issue we are seeing right now, is a culmination of several years of leadership that put too much emphasis on diversity training rather than job training. Add on top of that a lack of discipline within the ranks, and I think you have a perfect storm. I bet there were more than a few that were on duty dicking around on social media and otherwise distracted from doing their jobs.

It would be interesting to see if there were any active social media posts from the watch standers leading up to the collision. . .

With the millennial generation's addiction to social media, it would not surprise me one bit.

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:
There are times when a human relies too much on technology with the thought that it is infallible, and our military has been sucked into this issue. They would rather plug a few datum points into a computer in the hopes that it saves them enough time to focus on another portion of their jobs, or most recently, saving time for sensitivity training. There are going to be times when humans err but at least they can't be hacked (as far as I know there is no mind control) but an electronic system can be.

I believe the entire issue we are seeing right now, is a culmination of several years of leadership that put too much emphasis on diversity training rather than job training. Add on top of that a lack of discipline within the ranks, and I think you have a perfect storm. I bet there were more than a few that were on duty dicking around on social media and otherwise distracted from doing their jobs.

Training at many levels, along with practical time at-sea. While we can all point-out the short-comings that various budget cuts have produced, another issue is the amount of command time that senior officers have had. You look at the bios of most O-5 & O-6's and their bosses, they've only had maybe one ship under their command. They'll spend 15-18 years holding various positions in multiple departments and divisions but, when it comes to ship command time, only once. They do good, they move on to squadron-level, fleet level, maybe do some time in DC or, as a project PM. The Navy needs to identify it's best ship drivers, and put them to sea. This liberal arts idea of a career path is watering-down the quality of warfighter-at-sea.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:
There are times when a human relies too much on technology with the thought that it is infallible, and our military has been sucked into this issue. They would rather plug a few datum points into a computer in the hopes that it saves them enough time to focus on another portion of their jobs, or most recently, saving time for sensitivity training. There are going to be times when humans err but at least they can't be hacked (as far as I know there is no mind control) but an electronic system can be.

I believe the entire issue we are seeing right now, is a culmination of several years of leadership that put too much emphasis on diversity training rather than job training. Add on top of that a lack of discipline within the ranks, and I think you have a perfect storm. I bet there were more than a few that were on duty dicking around on social media and otherwise distracted from doing their jobs.

Training at many levels, along with practical time at-sea. While we can all point-out the short-comings that various budget cuts have produced, another issue is the amount of command time that senior officers have had. You look at the bios of most O-5 & O-6's and their bosses, they've only had maybe one ship under their command. They'll spend 15-18 years holding various positions in multiple departments and divisions but, when it comes to ship command time, only once. They do good, they move on to squadron-level, fleet level, maybe do some time in DC or, as a project PM. The Navy needs to identify it's best ship drivers, and put them to sea. This liberal arts idea of a career path is watering-down the quality of warfighter-at-sea.

You start "ship driving" as an Ensign division officer. My contemporaries were on the watch bill as JOODs moved up to OOD once the CO thought you could handle it. My brother spent 3 or 4 years on destroyers. Ship driving is in addition to your other duties and collateral duties. Usually, I believe there is an XO tour before moving to command, as in the case of the Fitzgerald former CO.

What has made me wonder were flag destined aviators who serve as CO of a deep draft ship, then a carrier before becoming "admired." They don't have ship driving experience as aviators.

Of course, this was 35-40 years ago. No telling what they actually do now.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
Training at many levels, along with practical time at-sea. While we can all point-out the short-comings that various budget cuts have produced, another issue is the amount of command time that senior officers have had. You look at the bios of most O-5 & O-6's and their bosses, they've only had maybe one ship under their command. They'll spend 15-18 years holding various positions in multiple departments and divisions but, when it comes to ship command time, only once. They do good, they move on to squadron-level, fleet level, maybe do some time in DC or, as a project PM. The Navy needs to identify it's best ship drivers, and put them to sea. This liberal arts idea of a career path is watering-down the quality of warfighter-at-sea.

The military at large is this way. No need to actually know your job anymore, just "how to command" because if you can do that, you can command others to do their job. Problem is, when you put someone in a position that doesn't understand the technical functions of others, that commander will not be respected, therefore, discipline takes a shot to the chin. Oftentimes, you will have an officer or senior NCO in a position just because they need to check a few additional boxes before the next promotion. That leads to a lot of resentment from those that have worked long and hard in a job, especially if they were overlooked for a position that is being held by someone outside of that specialty. Taking the jobs from those that actually know what they are doing and handing them to someone else in the hopes that they are grooming them for a greater leadership role is absurd at best and often fatal when our military is involved. I'd like to see the actual career path for the chuds at the top to see how much time they have doing (or at least understanding) the jobs they command others to do.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:
There are times when a human relies too much on technology with the thought that it is infallible, and our military has been sucked into this issue. They would rather plug a few datum points into a computer in the hopes that it saves them enough time to focus on another portion of their jobs, or most recently, saving time for sensitivity training. There are going to be times when humans err but at least they can't be hacked (as far as I know there is no mind control) but an electronic system can be.

I believe the entire issue we are seeing right now, is a culmination of several years of leadership that put too much emphasis on diversity training rather than job training. Add on top of that a lack of discipline within the ranks, and I think you have a perfect storm. I bet there were more than a few that were on duty dicking around on social media and otherwise distracted from doing their jobs.

Training at many levels, along with practical time at-sea. While we can all point-out the short-comings that various budget cuts have produced, another issue is the amount of command time that senior officers have had. You look at the bios of most O-5 & O-6's and their bosses, they've only had maybe one ship under their command. They'll spend 15-18 years holding various positions in multiple departments and divisions but, when it comes to ship command time, only once. They do good, they move on to squadron-level, fleet level, maybe do some time in DC or, as a project PM. The Navy needs to identify it's best ship drivers, and put them to sea. This liberal arts idea of a career path is watering-down the quality of warfighter-at-sea.

You start "ship driving" as an Ensign division officer. My contemporaries were on the watch bill as JOODs moved up to OOD once the CO thought you could handle it. My brother spent 3 or 4 years on destroyers. Ship driving is in addition to your other duties and collateral duties. Usually, I believe there is an XO tour before moving to command, as in the case of the Fitzgerald former CO.

What has made me wonder were flag destined aviators who serve as CO of a deep draft ship, then a carrier before becoming "admired." They don't have ship driving experience as aviators.

Of course, this was 35-40 years ago. No telling what they actually do now.

Still true as far as I know.

Has anyone seen track data for ALNIC MC ?

Using Marine Traffic (w Terr-AIS and Sat-AIS)there is very little info.

From a 15 Aug 2017 15:57 UTC data point w speed and course, the data jumps to:

20 Aug 17:49 UTC (about 3.5 hours prior to collision)

Then the next data point is

20 Aug 22:58 UTC (about 1.5 hours after the collision)

Navy wasn't hacked. Somebody had better be working on their resume.

quote:

Originally posted by smlsig:
CNN (yeah I know) is reporting that the McCain suffered a loss of stearing but regained it after (????).
-----
Earlier, another US Navy official told CNN there were indications the destroyer experienced a loss of steering right before the collision, but steering had been regained afterward.
----

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/21/...collision/index.html

That is certainly a possibility. Absolutely.

quote:

Originally posted by smlsig:
CNN (yeah I know) is reporting that the McCain suffered a loss of stearing but regained it after (????).
-----
Earlier, another US Navy official told CNN there were indications the destroyer experienced a loss of steering right before the collision, but steering had been regained afterward.
----

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/21/...collision/index.html

Even if true, it doesn't explain why they didn't identify the merchant vessel, contact them and request that they change course.

just as with DDG 62, an important question is whether the ship was receiving AIS and displaying it anywhere in CIC or the bridge.

The AIS data provides position, course, speed, name of vessel, etc every few seconds.

The Navy might be extremely reluctant to integrate the AIS data with the own ship sensor data. An enemy could send false AIS data, even creating completely imaginary ships. But using the AIS as an independent plot and cross checking w own ship sensors would certainly seem to be valuable.

Given that both DDG 62 and DDG 56 collisions came from ships approaching from the stern, it would be a good idea to be sure the stern watch was well staffed. If it is normally only one person at night, perhaps making it two or three would be a consideration.

Perhaps a camera system that covers stern, port, and starboard would help. Perhaps even infrared. With displays in CIC.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
What has made me wonder were flag destined aviators who serve as CO of a deep draft ship, then a carrier before becoming "admired." They don't have ship driving experience as aviators.

Of course, this was 35-40 years ago. No telling what they actually do now.

Still the same, NAVAIR controls carriers.
I think it's safe to assume that those who take command, while a rigorous and hard job, are also surrounded by enough experienced support to advise and mitigate most mistakes....save the grounding of the Enterprise in Alameda back in '83.

U.S. Navy to Relieve Admiral of Command After Collisions

Navy tradition of public accountability calls for commanders to be dismissed when superiors lose confidence in their leadership.

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Navy plans to remove the commander of the fleet that has suffered four recent collisions in Asia and the deaths of several sailors, U.S. officials said Tuesday.

Navy officials declined to comment. But two U.S. officials familiar with the matter said that Vice Adm. Joseph Aucoin, the three-star commander of the U.S. Seventh Fleet in Yokosuka, Japan, will be relieved of command on Wednesday in connection with four collisions since January, including two fatal ones.

Vice Adm. Aucoin was expected to retire in coming weeks, but under the Navy’s tradition of public accountability, commanders or ship captains are dismissed as soon as their superiors lose confidence in their leadership.

His expected removal—by the commander of U.S. Pacific Fleet, Adm. Scott Swift—doesn’t represent a specific finding of fault against Vice Adm. Aucoin. Navy officials are investigating the role that training, manning and other internal fleet processes may have played in the collisions.

The Navy said Monday that it would impose a rare operational pause across the globe following the accidents, all within the 7th Fleet’s waters.

Those include the collision on Monday of the destroyer USS John S. McCain with a commercial vessel, the Alnic MC, as the McCain headed for a port visit in Singapore. A search and rescue operation had been under way for 10 missing sailors. Navy officials said Tuesday that some remains have been found but that the operations continues.

That accident followed the destroyer USS Fitzgerald’s June 17 collision with another commercial ship, killing seven sailors.

The Navy said last week that the Fitzgerald’s commanding officer, the ship’s executive officer and the senior enlisted sailor on the ship all had been relieved of their command. The cause of the two fatal collisions are unknown and investigations continue into each, defense officials said.

Two other accidents within the U.S. Seventh Fleet’s area of responsibility occurred earlier this year. In May, the guided missile cruiser USS Lake Champlain collided with a South Korean fishing vessel, and in January, another cruiser, the USS Antietam, ran aground near its port in Yokosuka.

Vice Adm. Aucoin, a naval flight officer, received his commission in 1980 through the University of North Carolina Naval Reserve Officers' Training Corps program there, and was designated a naval flight officer the next year. He served on a number of aircraft carriers as a pilot and as a commander and held other jobs at the Pentagon. He became Seventh Fleet commander in September 2015, according to the Navy.