Another US Navy collision

What people fail to remember is Navy ships don't give good radar returns due to how they're built. They're built to give poor radar returns, topped off with no AIS (and the poor turning tankers have) then at night they are hard to see. Meanwhile the Navy has people who do nothing but look at radar screens their entire watch. Big tanker (strong returns) and AIS.... Shouldn't be hard for the Navy ship to see. Unless I missed something, we're not at war, so I don't see how this can be missed.

Salty Dawg....I see your point about the number of people on duty on a merchant vs millitary ship...but my point was that just moving the ship from point A to point B is only part of what a millitary crew has to do. They also have to be able to out run, gun and maneuver a group of hostiles that may be in boats, planes or submarines. Track incoming missiles...launch outgoing missiles....treat wounded, extinguish fires, coordinate with other vessels, distinguish friend from foe, and so on. They are supposed to be able to deal with SOOOOO much more than just moving the boat from point A to point B.

Merchant mariners have a different set of obstacles like cost consious owners, deadlines for delivery, profit based decisions, older equipment and neglected maintenance that I hope our millitary vessels don't have to deal with. I didn't mean to imply your job was easy or trivial in anyway.

Point taken.

In my own personal experience, Navy officers are not properly trained in the Rules of the Road. I'm not trying to be smart or sarcastic, but it's often "I'm a US Navy Warship, move out my way." I see it first hand as well they get out of the Navy and get on Merchant vessels.

We spend a bunch of money on our military, proper training should be a priority.

So in a busy commercial seaway, is there some compelling reason that a Navy ship would not put up the equivalent of a radar reflector to compensate for being difficult to see?

17 lives lost in two collisions? How many Naval personnel have been lost in any kind of combat this year? Even including SEALS and Navy aviators? This may very well be their biggest loss of life.

Actually, many might be suprised at how many are lost each year to suicide, off duty accidents and training.

Way more than what taxpayers should pony up...but hard to take the human side out of even military personnel.

CDreamer said:

So in a busy commercial seaway, is there some compelling reason that a Navy ship would not put up the equivalent of a radar reflector to compensate for being difficult to see?

17 lives lost in two collisions? How many Naval personnel have been lost in any kind of combat this year? Even including SEALS and Navy aviators? This may very well be their biggest loss of life.

Click to expand...

What about compelling reasons not to turn on the AIS? Better then some little BS reflector.

Something I've been meaning to post here - which I'm acknowledging may not be real popular - is that I truly feel bad for everyone affected by this mess.

The dead of course, and their many extended family members. Their friends. Nothing will ever make this feel ok.
But even the surviving crew members on the bridge, and the officers. Yes, people will be held accountable, as they should be.
But think of the additional effect on them mentally, emotionally. For example, it's likely that the officers' entire families will be forever changed by their father's reaction to this accident. And it was an accident. A brief series of mistakes. A few hundred yards in any direction and no collision.

Again, I know people should be punished. But beyond that, careers are over, lives ruined. Psneeld mentioned the military's high incidents of suicide. This is how that stuff happens. Unresolved, lifelong guilt.

A person makes a choice to drive drunk and kills someone. Maybe a family. I'd venture to say that in this case nobody made a conscious choice. They didn't imagine that their failure, mistake, inattentiveness, or whatever would cause this crash. And yet 10 sailors died. Same with the Fitz.

I almost think it would be "easier" for a CO to deal with a loss of troops in a battle. This has got to be devastating.

Again, just acknowledging that the effects of this aren't short-term for these people. It's a damn shame.

Hard to say.

I once was in a position to send someone to a troubled unit that had more than its fair sahre of fatal accidents to replace deceased pilots.

I was told to send pilot A, but I convinced the powers to be that pilot A was a yes man and picked a close friend to be tbe hatchet guy. He had to go and see what was chronically wrong with that outfit. I wound up screwing him in the long run as he was deployed on a long trip after reporting aboard. I have always had a funny feeling why.

The other funny thing was that the Commanding officer and Operations officer got choice assignments while I got a career ender at the end of our tours. Sometimes problem solvers aren't well received.

Some people never see themselves as the problem and in the right circumstances neither do their superiors.

Folks seem addicted to cell phones, tablets and electronic games is it possible they have access to that sort thing while on duty on a Navy vessel?
It is crazy, I have seen delivery vans trucks even law enforcement vehicles parked along rural roads I think that is what they are up to. Not to mention employees while "working" in all sorts of businesses.

That's a good point. Sounds like I lived your situation recently in the private sector. I saw a glaring, and factually supportable problem with a specific person - same level as me but the other side of the org chart. Obviously hurting the company in several ways. Felt it was important enough to talk about with my boss. Allegiances being what they are, the guy got promoted. I got ostracized. Learned a valuable - and expensive lesson. Never again.

It's my understanding that sub sailors can now get their dolphins without going to sea. This is indicative of a training failure IMHO. Maybe there is some truth to the so-called participation trophy generation.

Then again, I lament the loss of hazing in the military. The tail-hook scandal sure messed that up pretty quickly.

My son in the US merchant marine says that their motto is: "If it's gray, stay the hell away". Partially because the merchant mariners don't feel that the Navy knows what it's doing navigationwise.

psneeld said:

No one learns well in a high stress environment...

Click to expand...

Good statement about a key factor which led people into anxiety and confusion.

BandB said:

Leaders who train and direct effectively. I'm a strong believe in the young people of today and bothered as others act sometimes as if the young people of their generation were perfect. Oh how our memories are selective. I don't know that any of this has anything to do with these accidents, but it starts at the top. Kids are teachable, trainable, moldable. Our generations are failing this generation. I'm sorry, but we've screwed things up pretty badly and we haven't left them the best situations to start with. We have not been good leaders.

Click to expand...

Kids are teachable, trainable, mold-able.. Exactly.

Good leaders know when and how to shield the kids from he BS from above AND train them so they CAN do the job.

We simply have too many weak leaders, who given some missive from above, pass it down directly with the words, "it's not my idea, but we have to do this"

I'm on Dauntless now, because I never did that.

Even worse, more often than not, weak leaders go well beyond whatever the directive is because they are clueless and everyone below them suffers.
I saw that 30 years ago in the Air Force and I see it today everyplace.

The train of tnought during the years I was in....was, sell your soul enough to get promoted high enough to do good, but not so much that too many suffer along the way. Yes, letting some shi* roll downhill was necessary for even great leaders.

That's a fine line to follow, and few do it well all thecway to Admiral/General.

psneeld said:

Actually, many might be suprised at how many are lost each year to suicide, off duty accidents and training.

Way more than what taxpayers should pony up...but hard to take the human side out of even military personnel.

Click to expand...

Wifey B: The suicides are the ones that tear me apart. The lives of young people destroyed, some dead, some living dead.

The impact of these two collisions. Some of these have spouses and kids. Think about the toll on the survivors.

You mention selling your soul. It's that and shutting part of yourself down too to be able to do the job. They have to go through things most of us can't imagine. I don't personally know the commander of the previous one but he escaped from his cabin and I can't imagine that he's not torn apart every day of his life that he escaped and seven of his men nearby did not.

Now these deaths get headlines and we discuss them here because they are boats. The horrors going on in the world, and it's not one party or another or today vs. yesterday as they've been with us, are staggering. Most of us do what we must to survive and don't focus on them.

We owe it to the Navy to address the problems but more we owe it to those serving and those now dead. Not for military reasons, for humane reasons. Forget for a moment Col Regs and whose fault, but picture the face of one of your close friends the last time you see him before the collision and him being missing.

7th Fleet Commander relieved of duty.

US Navy 7th Fleet commander to be dismissed - CNNPolitics

Ok, here goes. Speculation by an old white haired Boatswain Mate (47 years ago). Ag

The biggest cost savings on running a ship is in reducing the head count. Follow the money. A personal friend that was Captain of the USS Ticonderoga and also a trainer later of officers taking their first command told me this about 5 years ago. The Navy has increased responsibility of sailors, reduced crew sizes and increased work load of the crews, both Enlisted and Officers significantly since you were in.

That being said, and gospel as far as I am concerned, must be a big part of the problem. I recall becoming exhausted after less than 4 days out, and I was 21 in great shape and very healthy. Sleep was the most sought commodity on board way back then. At lunch, wolf down the chow, get to the rack for a bit of rest, same after supper. We all looked forward to our watch during the day so a full night sleep was possible.

During 'Nam dead dog tired exhaustion was the order of the day underway due to workday, watches, UNREPS, drills and Battle Stations. Short ports of call often there was no respite due to working parties for loading supplies and ammo.

After my friend told me about the force reduction I just shook my head at how far they must be pushed. My son was on a sub, The Pargo, he talked of 20 hour days also. Hard to be effective exhausted.

Probably playing video games on cell phones...

No... reread post 78.

Mule said:

The biggest cost savings on running a ship is in reducing the head count. F

Click to expand...

Rewording for you: "The quickest way to give the impression of cost savings is by reducing head count."

That's the problem, whether business or military. Reduce head count, save $250k, lose $2 billion boat.

I've seen it so many times in business. Never been a proponent of it.

Except the head count isnt $250,000...it can be in the millions per when you factor in training, benefits, retirement, family health care and benefits.......times the number of reductions.....

Times multiple ships vesus the actual losses, not necessarily the price of a new ship......

Sure in the long run...I tend to agree that studying the best manning versus current or reduced is critical.....

But the numbers get really scary when you discuss what a military person really costs. Thus the constant push to get the person out of the equation.

psneeld said:

Except the head count isnt $250,000...it can be in the millions per when you factor in training, benefits, retirement, family health care and benifits.......times the number of reductions.....

Times multiple ships vesus the actual losses, not necessarily the price of a new ship......

Sure in the long run...I tend to agree that studying the best manning versus current or reduced is critical.....

But the numbers get really scary when you discuss what a military person really costs. Thus the constant push to get the person out of the equation.

Click to expand...

And then the times they reduce headcount but all the people just end up assigned somewhere else. I love shifting dollars from the right pocket to the left one. Or should I say starboard to port.

BandB said:

And then the times they reduce headcount but all the people just end up assigned somewhere else. I love shifting dollars from the right pocket to the left one. Or should I say starboard to port.

Click to expand...

My "favorite" example is when a firm takes an across-the-board meat axe to staff to meet some PowerPoint-derived targets that everyone convinces themselves will solve all their problems. Once they sober up and reality kicks in, they then have to hire contractors to make up the talent/experience gap. I know more than one person who enjoyed a long career after being hired back following a reduction in force.

Ski in NC said:

Probably playing video games on cell phones...

Click to expand...

I slep on this comment. I am not shooting from the hip. Here are mostly young people that have volunteered to defend u and me. People that do not receive the best pay around, work hours necessary to do the job whatever the circumstances with no overtime and normally no fair trade time all defending you and me. Freedoms normally extended to most Americans are gone once the right hand is dropped upon the swearing in. They go into harms way to project the power of the USA in a dangerous job on our behalf.

They deserve better than your shameful comment.

I understand my comment comes across as rude. I mean no insult to the those that serve proudly. But we are looking at two incidents, back to back, that are basically unimaginable for a well run Navy ship.

No harm in speculating as to the cause. We all know that phone distractions are becoming a real problem in many situations.

The shame is not in my comment. The shame is on the crews and command that allowed this to occur, twice.

Roger that. And the Admirals that put processes in place that appear to be inadequate.

Funny thing the U.S. military seems to be going through what the UK militray went through years ago. Then the U.K. shrunk the military to solve the cash flow without solving the problem and went the other way, everyone had a university degree and there where no seaman to tie up ships. Now we've just launched a new aircraft carrier with no planes , they were bought from the U.S. years ago and the U.S. has been unable to supply them, to many problems , don't meet specs and older planes outfly them. DARPA has helped immensely in the procurement process, but it's still unwieldly, and full of corruption. There is a very interesting book on "The english problem" well written about supplying to the english military most of you would find interesting, and relates somewhat to the U.S. problem.
https://www.amazon.com/Lions-Donkey...&sr=1-1&keywords=Lions,+Donkeys+and+Dinosaurs

Serious question: Do USN ships have WiFi with unblocked Internet access?
And, I'm not implying it would be causal to any incidents.

Here is an interesting perspective and the AIS tracks in video.
It's scary:


valvanuz
gCaptain Crew


Interesting AIS tracks:http://video.dailymail.co.uk/video/...489993/960x540_MP4_3793256630306489993.mp4205
Obviously no track for “McCain”.
Looking at three specific ships about to enter the TSS lanes (sec. 43) “Team Osco”, “Alnic MC” and “Guang Zhou Wan”
First, is “Team Osco” maintaining constant speed and heading through the process.
Third is “Guang Zhou Wan”. Just a bit faster than “Alnic MC”, it is just behind on their port side and seems to be willing to pass on “Alnic MC” port side (good practice). At about sec 47 it veers slightly to the right. Maybe two possibilities: It feels squeezed between the “Alnic MC”, the shipping lane inner-border and the fast-arriving “Hyunday Global” or, it makes collision alteration course to avoid a ship arriving on its starboard side (“McCain?”)
Second is “Alnic MC”. It maintains heading and speed until sec 50 then it veers sharply to the left with collision at sec 52 (speed down to 1.4kn). Why veering to the left? It probably realized too late the risk of collision with “McCain” or it thought it would get at a greater risk with the “Guang Zhou Wan”, already on its starboard side and slightly behind.

Key point: All merchant ships were already in the TSS with normal headings and speeds.