US Navy Destroying Destroyers

[69GTX]

Sorry for the USN and its sailors that this happened again so soon.

The USS Fitzgerald collision investigation has already indicated at least 10-12 people were at fault. It will probably turn out similarly here. With one of the fastest and most maneuverable ships around (FFG), you just ensure no one can hit you. That's goal number one. Even if every tanker in the world was after you, just don't let them get close enough to get hit. It's not really that difficult with a proper watch station set, proper training, and a healthy dose of anxiety. Have these ships become over-automated such that the human factor is not highlighted enough?

 

[UberArchetype]

When this many incidents happen in such a short time it starts looking like a systemic discipline/morale problem. They are getting complacent, and leadership at every level is to blame for that.

 

[69GTX]

Originally Posted By: ammolab
That Destroyer has the ability to see and fight (or AVOID) any ship within 200 miles. "High Traffic"?...these guys are often part of a carrier battle group and sail continuously in close proximity with 8 to 12 vessels...


The one major difference is the the battle grounp steams as a unit via orders....and is certainly not trying to hit you or cut you off. Merchant ships are often on auto pilot or with the bridge only occasionally checking the tactical situation. I was OOD only once in heavy surface traffi....and that was a day time excursion across the English channel in fog while heading to a German port. That was scary. The CO was on the bridge too. I believe the full nav piloting party was set with the NAV and XO.

If you follow the path of the merchant that hit the Fitzgerald (overtaking from the starboard side), they didn't even know what they hit initially and steamed away for a half hour before returning to the scene.

 

[ArcticDriver]

Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Originally Posted By: pandus13
My sincere condolences to the families of the dead sailors!

Ls1Mike,

can you re-post the post in the other thread about the busy submarine landing?
Just to give an idea about a similar situation where not everything is under your control....?


It won't make a difference to be honest. Everyone thinks they know how it works in open ocean or tight shipping lanes.

Language barriers when talking to other ships, equipment malfunctions. Sometimes even with Radar it is hard to tell what another vessel is doing. I don't want to get this thread locked so I will leave it alone this time.


I do not have an unlimited tonnage Captains License.

I suppose one method to determine how common these collisions are would be to research how many collisions occur annually in this immediate vicinity. This collision took place at the Eastern limits of the Straits and not in the area of the earlier photograph.

I am having trouble with this website loading but marinetraffic.com is an excellent resource:

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:103.6/centery:0.8/zoom:9

 

[Andrew1972]

I have little understanding of the sea. However the destroyer can change course akin to a motorcycle compared to an oil tanker akin to an 18 wheeler?

 

[ArcticDriver]

Point of Impact.

The photos show just aft of midship on Port side.

Based on tanker hull designs, it appears that the Navy vessel was struck by the bulbous bow of the tanker which approached "Big Bad John" from approximately 7:00 to 8:00 o'clock if at the helm of the Navy Vessel.

But this is hard to imagine that greater damage did not occur unless the speeds were almost stationary of both vessels.

Ofcourse, this is only speculation on my part based on a couple photos.

Where was the Deck Watch?

 

[ls1mike]

Originally Posted By: ArcticDriver
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Originally Posted By: pandus13
My sincere condolences to the families of the dead sailors!

Ls1Mike,

can you re-post the post in the other thread about the busy submarine landing?
Just to give an idea about a similar situation where not everything is under your control....?


It won't make a difference to be honest. Everyone thinks they know how it works in open ocean or tight shipping lanes.

Language barriers when talking to other ships, equipment malfunctions. Sometimes even with Radar it is hard to tell what another vessel is doing. I don't want to get this thread locked so I will leave it alone this time.


I do not have an unlimited tonnage Captains License.

I suppose one method to determine how common these collisions are would be to research how many collisions occur annually in this immediate vicinity. This collision took place at the Eastern limits of the Straits and not in the area of the earlier photograph.

I am having trouble with this website loading but marinetraffic.com is an excellent resource:

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:103.6/centery:0.8/zoom:9



Yep AIS. It only works if you are transmitting. AIS is a decent source but you cannot rely on it. There are tons of vessels that don't transmit it.

Edit: it only works to see a vessel if that vessel is transmitting. You can have a receive only system.

 

[ls1mike]

Current Vessels actually transmitting AIS.

 

[Donald]

Do Navy ships have multiple lookouts on the deck at all times?

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: FlyNavyP3
Accidents happen at sea in congested shipping channels. I'm sure mistakes were made.

I'm more upset about the loss of fellow sailors than the damage to the ship or the money to fix it.


Me too...

 

[ls1mike]

Originally Posted By: Donald
Do Navy ships have multiple lookouts on the deck at all times?


They certainly do and I bet their hearts are heavy and they are going over the events again and again in their heads.

It is horrible to lose 10 people in an incident such as this. Those people on a small crewed vessel become more than just coworkers. They become family. You live with them, work with them, spend your time off with them. They don't go home at night so they rely on each other for everything for months at a time. So yep they have lookouts, lookouts who lost family.

 

[Stevie]

This is a terrible loss.

I'm counting at least 5 big Radar systems on that destroyer. I sailed a 40 ft. sailboat around the islands for a few years and my little $2500 Radar would set off a proximity alarm anytime I was within 16 miles then 8 miles of a ship. We always had somebody on deck to be lookout also. I would say that a few folks weren't doing their jobs, and some innocents died because of it. Very sad

 

[ArcticDriver]

Originally Posted By: Stevie
This is a terrible loss.

I'm counting at least 5 big Radar systems on that destroyer. I sailed a 40 ft. sailboat around the islands for a few years and my little $2500 Radar would set off a proximity alarm anytime I was within 16 miles then 8 miles of a ship. We always had somebody on deck to be lookout also. I would say that a few folks weren't doing their jobs, and some innocents died because of it. Very sad




This was a congested shipping lane and the radar operators on the Bridge and the CIC would have been aware of every vessel within several miles of the Destroyer.

Additionally the tanker, ALNIC MC, appears to have had AIS engaged and its track is available on MarineTraffic.com

The collision occured approximately 0545 which is Second Watch and the navy vessel would have had atleast 3 Deck Watch--Port, Starboard & Stern. They would have been in contact with the OOC on the Bridge.

Some questions are at what time was collision identified to be imminent? Was the "Collision Alarm" activated prior to the collision and within how many minutes? Were evasive actions initiated and how many minutes prior to collision? Were either ships' course altered in the minutes before the collision? Were the crew aboard the tanker awake (since the container ship which struck the USS Fitzgerald appears to have had all hands asleep)?

By the impact, it appears the Navy Vessel was off the bow of the tanker moving across the tankers path starboard to port.

The tanker was reported to have 12,000 Tonnes of oil aboard and has a registered NT of 13,000...valuable information when determining how slowly it can respond to changes in course and speed.

 

[tenderloin]

My guess is PC officers rather than the most qualified. No excuse to what is happening including our older by the day aircraft. But heck...Everyone focus on the totality....

 

[123Saab]

Originally Posted By: tenderloin
My guess is PC officers rather than the most qualified. No excuse to what is happening including our older by the day aircraft. But heck...Everyone focus on the totality....


Wow.....you step on a lego when you got up this morning?

 

[SHOZ]

Chinese chips in the radar hardware. It was hacked!!!!!!

 

[Andrew1972]

Navy reacting and least spending a day or two suspending operations to review in this apparent 2nd major fail.

 

[L_Sludger]

I hope this thread doesn't get torpedoed like the last one. There is a tendency for staff to launch type 93 long lance torpedoes at these threads for some reason.

 

[ArcticDriver]

The photo below indicates that the tanker was not full of crude as earlier reported.



This photo shows the hull breach.


This photo shows the initial angle of impact as well as the scrape running aft just below the rails to suggest the direction the Destroyer powered off.

 

[Timo325]

Originally Posted By: 123Saab

Originally Posted By: tenderloin
My guess is PC officers rather than the most qualified. No excuse to what is happening including our older by the day aircraft. But heck...Everyone focus on the totality....


Wow.....you step on a lego when you got up this morning?


I understand his point. Before I retired, the PC officers were getting ahead of the salty "direct" combat arms officers. Just the way the military is going.

My focus isn't on that but rather the fact that 10 sailors in the prime of their life are likely deceased. Those men and women are our national treasure and what make this incident truly unfortunate.