Another US Navy ship collision

Bill Jennings said:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/08/21/uss-john-s-mccain-collision/585097001/

I'm starting to wonder, the Navy isn't this incompetent. Has someone hacked our radar systems, or put out some effective electronic jamming/countermeasure devices? It's just too coincidental.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of conspiracy sites running with theories... honestly, BOTH of these two collisions it looks like the destroyer got hit rather than the destroyer hit the merchant vessel. As far as I'm concerned it could all be the Navy's fault, but one would be remiss not to consider all options. For sure I wouldn't expect the Navy to own up to a major operational concern if there WAS some outside interference.
 
I can't take credit for this, but another surface guy made the analogy that trying to take out a destroyer with a merchant ship is like trying to hit a Porsche with an 18-wheeler in an empty stadium parking lot.

I have no inside details about the John S McCain collision, but I can say for certain that there was no conspiracy associated with the Fitzgerald collision.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I can't take credit for this, but another surface guy made the analogy that trying to take out a destroyer with a merchant ship is like trying to hit a Porsche with an 18-wheeler in an empty stadium parking lot.

I have no inside details about the John S McCain collision, but I can say for certain that there was no conspiracy associated with the Fitzgerald collision.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that is the case as well. But it is damned embarrassing. God speed to those poor sailors lost.
 
You might remember that Trump said the country was going to build more ships during the campaign. At this rate we will need to build a lot of ships.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Not really that bold.

Let's just say there was a reason the Navy fired the CO, XO and the Command Master Chief last week.
Click to expand...

Are they going to bury the results of the inquiry in the same deep hole as the report on the USS Porter ?
 
weilke said:
Are they going to bury the results of the inquiry in the same deep hole as the report on the USS Porter ?
Click to expand...
Don't know what you are talking about. PORTER was hardly buried in some deep hole. Significant amount of training came out of the PORTER accident. That accident was very much our fault. I think the merchant got tagged with 10-20% responsibility, but very small in comparison.
 
There have been investigations that were 'buried' for political/PR reasons (VINCENNES comes to mind), but PORTER was not one of them.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Don't know what you are talking about. PORTER was hardly buried in some deep hole. Significant amount of training came out of the PORTER accident. That accident was very much our fault. I think the merchant got tagged with 10-20% responsibility, but very small in comparison.
Click to expand...

Did the Navy ever publish a report ? (and with 'publish' I mean make it accessible to those who paid for the ship, not in in some obscure subscription based naval science journal)
 
bobmrg said:
Where did this insane idea originate? We never shut down the surface search radar until there were lines on the dock. In my enlisted days as an electronics technician we worked on operating radars while in port.

Bob
Click to expand...
The idea that they secure many of the military radar/targeting systems when coming into port? I've read it several places, most which are fairly trustworthy sources. As mentioned, I doubt they secured tech like normal surface radar which every other ship is using out there, just the fancy stuff that doesn't need to be operational when not conduction combat drills or military ops.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Latest release indicates JSM had a steering failure before the collision. The AIS picture is making a little more sense now.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/21/politics/uss-john-s-mccain-collision/index.html
Click to expand...

From the linked article:
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.

That sounds a bit like the patch of black ice or the huge deer that came out of no where that caused every high schooler's car wreck, no?
 
SoonerAviator said:
The idea that they secure many of the military radar/targeting systems when coming into port? I've read it several places, most which are fairly trustworthy sources. As mentioned, I doubt they secured tech like normal surface radar which every other ship is using out there, just the fancy stuff that doesn't need to be operational when not conduction combat drills or military ops.
Click to expand...
Like I posted earlier, we DO secure air search and fire control radars radars when entering port (those radars can really interfere with shore based communications and air traffic control. But we DO NOT secure surface search and navigation radars.

All that aside, in the area where the JSM collision took place, we would be radiating everything.
 
SaltH2OHokie said:
From the linked article:
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.

That sounds a bit like the patch of black ice or the huge deer that came out of no where that caused every high schooler's car wreck, no?
Click to expand...
Not really. Steering a ship has more than a couple elements and the moving parts include a hydraulic system (at least the few I've seen had hydraulic systems for rudder control and electric over mechanical for propellor speed and direction control. I don't know how the variable pitch systems work.
 
weilke said:
Did the Navy ever publish a report ? (and with 'publish' I mean make it accessible to those who paid for the ship, not in in some obscure subscription based naval science journal)
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's called a FOIA request. You as a tax-payer can make the request, but just like with Air Force accidents, you won't see them widely advertised/accessible like NTSB reports.
 
I think it might be time for sea traffic control. President Trump can make that private from the start and maybe that will improve the performance!

It's honestly incredible that two gigantic ships could collide without one taking some sort of corrective action! I imagine being on a ship like that is literally hours and hours of sheer boredom but really it's got to be a level of complacency that makes these types of events happen.

Not to get off this terrible loss of life topic but I own a boat myself. It's a small boat that is for fishing and family outings. I use it often-- once or twice a week Spring through Fall. I go out in very crowded waters with a crazy amount of boats. I will say this, the culture around maritime navigation and boat to boat traffic conflicts is totally different than aviation( based solely on my limited experience.) The lack of training the average boat owner has( literally often nothing) really contributes to a total free for all out there. I've had boats literally refuse to alter course or speed and sail virtually right at me forcing me to take action. I've had enormous yachts sail within 100 feet of me and throw such a large wake that I felt in danger of being swamped with water. It's really not a friendly seas situation. I seriously doubt this mindset contributed to the situation here because I would hope professional crews were far more advanced than your average boat owner but it is amazing to me that this has happened twice in a relatively short amount of time. Perhaps it is time for the maritime regulators to issue some type of spacing requirement similar to airliners on transatlantic flights so these types of collisions can be avoided. Their is no reason at all boats this size should be anywhere near each other given how enormous the sea is!
 
Last edited:
I'll wait for someone else to FOIA this report in a year or two and read about it, or ask one of my various Navy buddies for the scuttlebutt assuming they aren't deployed/retired/quit by then.

Sadly pretty thin in the SWO department friend wise, but I'm sure they still know more than I will.
 
jspilot said:
Their is no reason at all boats this size should be anywhere near each other given how enormous the sea is!
Click to expand...

The sea is enormous but you can only use all of that room to avoid collisions if you aren't trying to get anywhere in particular. Just like you are more likely to see a lot of airplanes over an airport than in the rest of the enormous sky, there are some choke points in the oceans where traffic is concentrated. Probably the worst of these is the Strait of Malacca. This collision happened very close to the Eastern entrance to the strait.

The following is from Wikipedia.
"The strait is the main shipping channel between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean, linking major Asian economies such as India, China, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea. Over 94,000 vessels[3] pass through the strait each year (2008) making it the busiest strait in world,[4] carrying about 25% of the world's traded goods, including oil, Chinese manufactured products, and Indonesian coffee.[5] About a quarter of all oil carried by sea passes through the Strait, mainly from Persian Gulf suppliers to Asian markets. In 2007, an estimated 13.7 million barrels per day were transported through the strait, increasing to an estimated 15.2 million barrels per day in 2011.[6] In addition, it is also one of the world's most congested shipping choke points because it narrows to only 2.8 km (1.5 nautical miles) wide at the Phillips Channel (close to the south of Singapore).[7]"
 
Wheels said:
The sea is enormous but you can only use all of that room to avoid collisions if you aren't trying to get anywhere in particular. Just like you are more likely to see a lot of airplanes over an airport than in the rest of the enormous sky, there are some choke points in the oceans where traffic is concentrated. Probably the worst of these is the Strait of Malacca. This collision happened very close to the Eastern entrance to the strait.

The following is from Wikipedia.
"The strait is the main shipping channel between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean, linking major Asian economies such as India, China, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea. Over 94,000 vessels[3] pass through the strait each year (2008) making it the busiest strait in world,[4] carrying about 25% of the world's traded goods, including oil, Chinese manufactured products, and Indonesian coffee.[5] About a quarter of all oil carried by sea passes through the Strait, mainly from Persian Gulf suppliers to Asian markets. In 2007, an estimated 13.7 million barrels per day were transported through the strait, increasing to an estimated 15.2 million barrels per day in 2011.[6] In addition, it is also one of the world's most congested shipping choke points because it narrows to only 2.8 km (1.5 nautical miles) wide at the Phillips Channel (close to the south of Singapore).[7]"
Click to expand...

Right yeah I totally get that but I'm not actually kidding when I say that maybe in these highly congested areas it's time for sea traffic control. Why not? The technology is already in place. Clearly these boats need to be spaced apart better and if it takes an outside force to help make that happen I'm for that. It's not required to space boats out in the wide open ocean but maybe these shipping lanes are just too crowded now?

I honestly have no idea if what I'm half heartedly suggesting makes even a little bit of sense but something has to give here. Our US Navy better be more competent than this because right now it's hard to have any trust in the capabilities of these crews. That does not send a strong message to other nations about our Navy and I want our Navy to be the best in the world. The flying division of the Navy seems to have it together... Thank God for that, but right now the Navy looks like a bunch of little kids playing with floating boats in their bathtub during "bath time." That's not acceptable!
 
jspilot said:
Right yeah I totally get that but I'm not actually kidding when I say that maybe in these highly congested areas it's time for sea traffic control.
Click to expand...

The area where this mishap occured is part of a traffic management scheme with defined directions of flow, modifications to the normal rules of the road and required communications. The collision happened in the area where everyone merges into the main lanes that go across the straits. Considering that many of the merchants have a single watchstander with a very limited education from a place like india or the philipines, the system works remarkably well.
 
Last edited:
Bill Jennings said:
Not surprising, Charlie Oscar always takes the fall in the Navy. The CO and XO of the ship will be next.
Click to expand...
Well, it IS unique in that the Navy has a horrible reputation for holding flag officers accountable. We are quick to fire CO's, XO's and Department Heads, but it hardly ever the Flag's fault.

I think they are trying the Voltaire approach. "It is wise to kill and admiral from time to time to encourage the others..."
 
Fearless Tower said:
I think they are trying the Voltaire approach. "It is wise to kill and admiral from time to time to encourage the others..."
Click to expand...

Yup, a message sent kind of thing. If they kill the admiral....
 
weilke said:
The area where this mishap occured is part of a traffic management scheme with defined directions of flow, modifications to the normal rules of the road and required communications. The collision happened in the area where everyone merges into the main lanes that go across the straits. Considering that many of the merchants have a single watchstander with a very limited education from a place like india or the philipines, the system works remarkably well.
Click to expand...

Ok but I think this may actually prove the point even more. Do we really want to rely on the un- educated guy in the watch area to make important observations and give instructions to the captain? No... That's like if every plane around the world was relying completely on see and avoid. In addition if all these so called rules still did not prevent this from happening it's fair to say the rules don't work that well. I'm never in favor of more oversight and generally believe people should be trusted to do their jobs but when evidence shows the contrary we should consider the current system as in need of improvement!
 
jspilot said:
I'm never in favor of more oversight and generally believe people should be trusted to do their jobs but when evidence shows the contrary we should consider the current system as in need of improvement!
Click to expand...
I agree on what you are saying here, our society today seems to always vote for more rules/laws to cure it's ailment's.
 
jspilot said:
Ok but I think this may actually prove the point even more. Do we really want to rely on the un- educated guy in the watch area to make important observations and give instructions to the captain? No... That's like if every plane around the world was relying completely on see and avoid.
Click to expand...

All the big commercial ships are equipped with radar, AIS chart plotters and IMO spec collision avoidance systems. Anyone who operates these ships is supposed to know how the colregs and the various traffic separation schemes work. The main mechanism to ensure qualifications of the crew are the insurance companies that cover those billion dollar risks. In constrained areas and around harbors, the commercial ships take on a pilot who is familiar with that particular area but out on the ocean it is a somewhat self-organizing orderly chaos. What makes this easier is the fact that everyone (except for the submarines) moves in only two dimensions and at a highly predictable speed. Now every day, there are situations where someone screws up, is asleep at the wheel or just ignorant and ships approach closer than intended, but as both ships usually have the option to take evasive action collisions are quite rare.

In addition if all these so called rules still did not prevent this from happening it's fair to say the rules don't work that well.
Click to expand...

Hundreds of thousands of shipping movements happen every year without being involved in any incident. Occasionally some ships swap paint but it is rare that it causes structural damage or sinkings. Two incidents involving ships of the same operator within a couple of months dont invalidate a system that has been working for hundreds of years.

https://www.vesselfinder.com/
 
Last edited:
Just a few ships in the channel:

0977973f117a8f2b5e7c96528c69fa56--strait-of-malacca-airplane-window.jpg

oil-tanker-traffic-jam.jpg

20140211_singaporeships.jpg
 
weilke said:
All the big commercial ships are equipped with radar, AIS chart plotters and gyroscopic compass systems for backup. Anyone who operates these ships is supposed to know how the colregs and the various traffic separation schemes work. The main mechanism to ensure qualifications of the crew are the insurance companies that cover those billion dollar risks. In constrained areas and around harbors, the commercial ships take on a pilot who is familiar with that particular area but out on the ocean it is a somewhat self-organizing orderly chaos. What makes this easier is the fact that everyone (except for the submarines) moves in only two dimensions and at a highly predictable speed. Now every day, there are situations where someone screws up, is asleep at the wheel or just ignorant and ships approach closer than intended, but as both ships usually have the option to take evasive action collisions are quite rare.



Hundreds of thousands of shipping movements happen every year without being involved in any incident. Occasionally some ships swap paint but it is rare that it causes structural damage or sinkings. Two incidents involving ships of the same operator within a couple of months dont invalidate a system that has been working for hundreds of years.

https://www.vesselfinder.com/
Click to expand...

Same goes for military aviation. A couple of accidents doesn't mean the system needs improvement. Just the nature of the business. Human / equipment error will always exist.
 
Velocity173 said:
Same goes for military aviation. A couple of accidents doesn't mean the system needs improvement. Just the nature of the business. Human / equipment error will always exist.
Click to expand...
Just thinking out of the box here for a moment. What if some state actor decided to demonstrate its unhappiness with the US Navy operating in its back yard by deliberately causing commercial ships to steer into a collision course with US Navy ships. Seems like something that would achieve their aim while maintaining plausible deniability that they had anything to do with it. How could they do it? Bribery, hacking, spoofing, I don't know. Saves them the possibility of an armed conflict while making the US think twice about operating near their shores.
 
Witmo said:
Just thinking out of the box here for a moment. What if some state actor decided to demonstrate its unhappiness with the US Navy operating in its back yard by deliberately causing commercial ships to steer into a collision course with US Navy ships. Seems like something that would achieve their aim while maintaining plausible deniability that they had anything to do with it. How could they do it? Bribery, hacking, spoofing, I don't know. Saves them the possibility of an armed conflict while making the US think twice about operating near their shores.
Click to expand...

I suppose that's possible but the brief that I heard from the commander of the Pacific Fleet, said hacking wasn't involved.
 
Witmo said:
Just thinking out of the box here for a moment. What if some state actor decided to demonstrate its unhappiness with the US Navy operating in its back yard by deliberately causing commercial ships to steer into a collision course with US Navy ships. Seems like something that would achieve their aim while maintaining plausible deniability that they had anything to do with it. How could they do it? Bribery, hacking, spoofing, I don't know. Saves them the possibility of an armed conflict while making the US think twice about operating near their shores.
Click to expand...

Trying to hit a destroyer with a tanker would be like trying to run over a rabbit with a D10 dozer.
 
Bill Jennings said:
Not surprising, Charlie Oscar always takes the fall in the Navy. The CO and XO of the ship will be next.
Click to expand...

I always laugh when they take out a high ranking CO that has nothing to do with the accident. As if another ADM in charge of the 7th Fleet would have prevented this. Why not even go higher and axe ADM Swift (Pacific Command).
 
weilke said:
All the big commercial ships are equipped with radar, AIS chart plotters and IMO spec collision avoidance systems. Anyone who operates these ships is supposed to know how the colregs and the various traffic separation schemes work. The main mechanism to ensure qualifications of the crew are the insurance companies that cover those billion dollar risks. In constrained areas and around harbors, the commercial ships take on a pilot who is familiar with that particular area but out on the ocean it is a somewhat self-organizing orderly chaos. What makes this easier is the fact that everyone (except for the submarines) moves in only two dimensions and at a highly predictable speed. Now every day, there are situations where someone screws up, is asleep at the wheel or just ignorant and ships approach closer than intended, but as both ships usually have the option to take evasive action collisions are quite rare.



Hundreds of thousands of shipping movements happen every year without being involved in any incident. Occasionally some ships swap paint but it is rare that it causes structural damage or sinkings. Two incidents involving ships of the same operator within a couple of months dont invalidate a system that has been working for hundreds of years.

https://www.vesselfinder.com/
Click to expand...

Right yes I get all this and like I said I don't actually think they need sea traffic control but we have to be honest, if people keep colliding ships something has to give. The system gets broken when evidence shows its broken. When flying was new, there was no need for air traffic control because planes could separate themselves because there was almost no traffic. I'm nearly suggesting that maybe these shipping channels have become congested enough where a better system needs to be created so these things are harder to have happen.

If the investigation reveals issues of miscommunication or misunderstanding between the boats as a contributing cause, it seems silly to just say "well let's continue to not help boats stay apart."

I'd be curious how the air traffic control system started( I honestly don't know.) Clearly people felt the system was required for safety. Maybe we've reached that point today with shipping. Is in not worth looking into? This article says a lot about the huge increase in shipping and number of boats at sea. Worth a quick read!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.livescience.com/48788-ocean-shipping-big-increase-satellites.html
 
Last edited:
jspilot said:
Right yes I get all this and like I said I don't actually think they need sea traffic control but we have to be honest, if people keep colliding ships something has to give. The system gets broken when evidence shows its broken. When flying was new, there was no need for air traffic control because planes could separate themselves because there was almost no traffic. I'm nearly suggesting that maybe these shipping channels have become congested enough where a better system needs to be created so these things are harder to have happen.

If the investigation reveals issues of miscommunication or misunderstanding between the boats as a contributing cause, it seems silly to just say "well let's continue to not help boats stay apart."

I'd be curious how the air traffic control system started( I honestly don't know.) Clearly people felt the system was required for safety. Maybe we've reached that point today with shipping. Is in not worth looking into?
Click to expand...


Started with Archie League.

http://imansolas.freeservers.com/ATC/short_history_of_the_air_traffic.html

Our modernized ATC system (FAA) was born out of a collision in 1956 though.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_Grand_Canyon_mid-air_collision
 
The sailors are too busy being given sensitivity training, transgender studies, and tolerance lessons. Basic seamanship is out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top