US Navy Destroying Destroyers
- Thread starter Andrew1972
- Start date
- Status
This class of FFG is the recipient of fast tracking officers into XO/CO slots. The CO on the Fitzgerald was the previous XO, and was only in the CO slot a couple of months before their June collision. The McCain's CO also was the previous XO. The idea is that they fill XO slots on that ship, and then fleet up to CO. Never was a fan of going from XO to CO on same ship. And back in my day that was basically taboo....even split Dept head tours would be on 2 different ships. You got to experience 3-4 different ships on your Dept Head, XO, and CO tours. Familiarity can breed problems even if you became more expert on that particular class of ship.
In looking at the McCain CO's resume, he had 2 Engineer Officer tours but nothing in Nav/Ops/Weapons. He reported to the McCain in April 2015 as XO. He had 11 months into his CO tour.
CO's resume
In looking at the McCain CO's resume, he had 2 Engineer Officer tours but nothing in Nav/Ops/Weapons. He reported to the McCain in April 2015 as XO. He had 11 months into his CO tour.
CO's resume
Originally Posted By: tenderloin
It was the Russians?
Collision
GPS "Spoofing" is a genuine cyber warfare concern; however, there is no likelihood it played a part in either the USS Fitzgerald or USS McCain collisions.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/214...an-cyberweapon/
It was the Russians?
Collision
GPS "Spoofing" is a genuine cyber warfare concern; however, there is no likelihood it played a part in either the USS Fitzgerald or USS McCain collisions.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/214...an-cyberweapon/
Just to clarify since I've seen it mentioned a few times. This is DDG not a FFG. The US Navy no longer operates FFG's only DDG CG and CVN in warships. Obviously there are others as well, PC, LCS, amphibs etc. But no more FFG.
Originally Posted By: madRiver
Really sad to hear another collision and sailors killed. As a US tax payer this abhorrent.
Who gives a [censored] about taxes? Ten kids are missing FFS....
Really sad to hear another collision and sailors killed. As a US tax payer this abhorrent.
Who gives a [censored] about taxes? Ten kids are missing FFS....
Saw a brief note on CNN indicating that the destroyer lost its directional control briefly before the collision...hard to post a link because I saw it on my phone and I can't access cnn.com on this PC for whatever reason.
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
Saw a brief note on CNN indicating that the destroyer lost its directional control briefly before the collision...hard to post a link because I saw it on my phone and I can't access cnn.com on this PC for whatever reason.
Can you find additional links?
I can't find any information on that.
Thanks
Saw a brief note on CNN indicating that the destroyer lost its directional control briefly before the collision...hard to post a link because I saw it on my phone and I can't access cnn.com on this PC for whatever reason.
Can you find additional links?
I can't find any information on that.
Thanks
ls1mike
$50 Site Donor 2024
US Pacific Fleet
This just provides info.
It was said early on that they may have lost steerage. It seems it has not been confirmed.
This just provides info.
It was said early on that they may have lost steerage. It seems it has not been confirmed.
Errors happen. Regardless who's at fault I will not criticize. What other western democracy is protecting us from that NK Numbskull.
Thank you USA
Thank you USA
The Navy apparently has some operational problems related to both training and its officer corps, but the service will figure this out and fix the problem, although some admirals are probably looking forward to the inevitable Congressional drilling with much trepidation.
Meanwhile, a number of people in service to their country died needlessly in accidents.
This is unacceptable and tragic and should be the focus of our outrage.
Another question might be that if officers can't avoid grief in peacetime, then what would be the fruits of their leadership should they actually have to fight their command?
Meanwhile, a number of people in service to their country died needlessly in accidents.
This is unacceptable and tragic and should be the focus of our outrage.
Another question might be that if officers can't avoid grief in peacetime, then what would be the fruits of their leadership should they actually have to fight their command?
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
Saw a brief note on CNN indicating that the destroyer lost its directional control briefly before the collision...hard to post a link because I saw it on my phone and I can't access cnn.com on this PC for whatever reason.
I found more on that claim but it sure sounds like some CYA:
"The McCain suffered a steering failure as the warship was beginning its approach into the Strait of Malacca, causing it to collide with a commercial tanker, a Navy official told CNN.
The official said it was unclear why the crew couldn't use the ship's backup steering systems to maintain control.
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/politics/uss-john-s-mccain-collision/index.html
Saw a brief note on CNN indicating that the destroyer lost its directional control briefly before the collision...hard to post a link because I saw it on my phone and I can't access cnn.com on this PC for whatever reason.
I found more on that claim but it sure sounds like some CYA:
"The McCain suffered a steering failure as the warship was beginning its approach into the Strait of Malacca, causing it to collide with a commercial tanker, a Navy official told CNN.
The official said it was unclear why the crew couldn't use the ship's backup steering systems to maintain control.
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/politics/uss-john-s-mccain-collision/index.html
I have spent a fair bit of time on ships at sea, on the bridge and engine room. Even a loss of the primary steering gear shouldn't cause a collision like this. There are manual means of moving the rudder, and in a pinch the twin screws can be controlled separately to adjust heading. Heck when the collision was imminent they could have performed a "crash back" (full astern on the props) and just stopped. I am very interested in the conclusions of the investigation, assuming they don't end up being classified.
jeff
jeff
Originally Posted By: ArcticDriver
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.
I agree that the loss of life the greatest concern; however, I would argue collisions at sea are avoidable and the USN ships are smaller, more manueverable and have the very latest and most expensive navigation equipment to avoid collision.
Its time for Vice Admiral Aucoin to be retired...as a starting point.
Less than 24 hours later:
"... several U.S. officials said Vice Adm. Joseph Aucoin, commander of the Japan-based 7th Fleet, will be removed from his command Wednesday by U.S. Pacific Fleet Commander Adm. Scott Swift."
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/08/23/report-navy-relieve-admiral-wake-pacific-mishaps.html
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.
I agree that the loss of life the greatest concern; however, I would argue collisions at sea are avoidable and the USN ships are smaller, more manueverable and have the very latest and most expensive navigation equipment to avoid collision.
Its time for Vice Admiral Aucoin to be retired...as a starting point.
Less than 24 hours later:
"... several U.S. officials said Vice Adm. Joseph Aucoin, commander of the Japan-based 7th Fleet, will be removed from his command Wednesday by U.S. Pacific Fleet Commander Adm. Scott Swift."
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/08/23/report-navy-relieve-admiral-wake-pacific-mishaps.html
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.
For this collision to happen 12 or more sailors have to have failed in their assigned duty on that watch.
You have condemned the crew of the McCain but with your initial paragraph your are comparing maneuvering with professional drivers at the Brickyard to driving during rush hour in LA. Maneuvering in the open seas in a strike group is not the same as maneuvering in a busy sea lane.
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.
For this collision to happen 12 or more sailors have to have failed in their assigned duty on that watch.
You have condemned the crew of the McCain but with your initial paragraph your are comparing maneuvering with professional drivers at the Brickyard to driving during rush hour in LA. Maneuvering in the open seas in a strike group is not the same as maneuvering in a busy sea lane.
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
This class of FFG is the recipient of fast tracking officers into XO/CO slots. The CO on the Fitzgerald was the previous XO, and was only in the CO slot a couple of months before their June collision. The McCain's CO also was the previous XO. The idea is that they fill XO slots on that ship, and then fleet up to CO. Never was a fan of going from XO to CO on same ship. And back in my day that was basically taboo....even split Dept head tours would be on 2 different ships. You got to experience 3-4 different ships on your Dept Head, XO, and CO tours. Familiarity can breed problems even if you became more expert on that particular class of ship.
In looking at the McCain CO's resume, he had 2 Engineer Officer tours but nothing in Nav/Ops/Weapons. He reported to the McCain in April 2015 as XO. He had 11 months into his CO tour.
CO's resume
There is nothing unusual about his career progression. As for "fast tracking" this is a typical progression for a superior performing surface warfare officer.
This class of FFG is the recipient of fast tracking officers into XO/CO slots. The CO on the Fitzgerald was the previous XO, and was only in the CO slot a couple of months before their June collision. The McCain's CO also was the previous XO. The idea is that they fill XO slots on that ship, and then fleet up to CO. Never was a fan of going from XO to CO on same ship. And back in my day that was basically taboo....even split Dept head tours would be on 2 different ships. You got to experience 3-4 different ships on your Dept Head, XO, and CO tours. Familiarity can breed problems even if you became more expert on that particular class of ship.
In looking at the McCain CO's resume, he had 2 Engineer Officer tours but nothing in Nav/Ops/Weapons. He reported to the McCain in April 2015 as XO. He had 11 months into his CO tour.
CO's resume
There is nothing unusual about his career progression. As for "fast tracking" this is a typical progression for a superior performing surface warfare officer.
ls1mike
$50 Site Donor 2024
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/21/politics/uss-john-s-mccain-collision/index.html
There's that confound "systemic" word again.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/21/politics/uss-john-s-mccain-collision/index.html
There's that confound "systemic" word again.
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
This class of FFG is the recipient of fast tracking officers into XO/CO slots. The CO on the Fitzgerald was the previous XO, and was only in the CO slot a couple of months before their June collision. The McCain's CO also was the previous XO. The idea is that they fill XO slots on that ship, and then fleet up to CO. Never was a fan of going from XO to CO on same ship. And back in my day that was basically taboo....even split Dept head tours would be on 2 different ships. You got to experience 3-4 different ships on your Dept Head, XO, and CO tours. Familiarity can breed problems even if you became more expert on that particular class of ship.
In looking at the McCain CO's resume, he had 2 Engineer Officer tours but nothing in Nav/Ops/Weapons. He reported to the McCain in April 2015 as XO. He had 11 months into his CO tour.
CO's resume
There is nothing unusual about his career progression. As for "fast tracking" this is a typical progression for a superior performing surface warfare officer.
I never said it was unusual. It would been helpful imo if the McCain CO had a NAV/OPS tour in there instead of a 2nd engineer's tour. It's great being a super-engineer. But, there's a front half of the ship too. Who knows, maybe this skipper was one of the best regardless. But, with 2 DDG's damaged in 2 months, with "Fleet Up" skippers in command, maybe that program needs a second look. While I understand the benefit of having a seasoned XO stay on the ship as CO, there's also a downside in that too much familiarity over time can breed complacency. The Navy usually staggers the Dept Head, XO, CO tours accordingly to ensure you don't end up with a gap where too much shipboard "command" experience is lost at one point. I don't know if this Fleet Up program is only for the "best" prospective XO's and CO's....or it's closer to the norm for the DDG community.
New change to Fleet Up CO pipeline
I just found that link. Seems in August 2016 they were looking at providing some alternatives in this XO/CO fleet up program to ensure the CO is better prepared for his role.
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
This class of FFG is the recipient of fast tracking officers into XO/CO slots. The CO on the Fitzgerald was the previous XO, and was only in the CO slot a couple of months before their June collision. The McCain's CO also was the previous XO. The idea is that they fill XO slots on that ship, and then fleet up to CO. Never was a fan of going from XO to CO on same ship. And back in my day that was basically taboo....even split Dept head tours would be on 2 different ships. You got to experience 3-4 different ships on your Dept Head, XO, and CO tours. Familiarity can breed problems even if you became more expert on that particular class of ship.
In looking at the McCain CO's resume, he had 2 Engineer Officer tours but nothing in Nav/Ops/Weapons. He reported to the McCain in April 2015 as XO. He had 11 months into his CO tour.
CO's resume
There is nothing unusual about his career progression. As for "fast tracking" this is a typical progression for a superior performing surface warfare officer.
I never said it was unusual. It would been helpful imo if the McCain CO had a NAV/OPS tour in there instead of a 2nd engineer's tour. It's great being a super-engineer. But, there's a front half of the ship too. Who knows, maybe this skipper was one of the best regardless. But, with 2 DDG's damaged in 2 months, with "Fleet Up" skippers in command, maybe that program needs a second look. While I understand the benefit of having a seasoned XO stay on the ship as CO, there's also a downside in that too much familiarity over time can breed complacency. The Navy usually staggers the Dept Head, XO, CO tours accordingly to ensure you don't end up with a gap where too much shipboard "command" experience is lost at one point. I don't know if this Fleet Up program is only for the "best" prospective XO's and CO's....or it's closer to the norm for the DDG community.
New change to Fleet Up CO pipeline
I just found that link. Seems in August 2016 they were looking at providing some alternatives in this XO/CO fleet up program to ensure the CO is better prepared for his role.
There's a rumor going around that the Chinese have hacked into the navigation systems of both destroyers causing them not to see the oil tankers before the collisions.
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
There's a rumor going around that the Chinese have hacked into the navigation systems of both destroyers causing them not to see the oil tankers before the collisions.
They'd have to take down CIC/Sonar/Fire Control/Radar as well... all of whom can track contacts. And even if they did, you'd still have the old eye balls from look outs and bridge watch standers. When standing surface watches as OOD I'd have a pair of look outs on the bridge/sail with me. And the Nav ET or Fire Control Tech of the Watch would have #1 periscope optics to see even further out. Unless the tanker was coming at them w/o running lights, I don't see how you don't see them coming with plenty of notice. If the Nav/Warfare tracking systems were hacked, you'd have had a ship's emergency where the CO and XO would be on the bridge and the piloting party probably set. If those systems are not functioning, then the ship is "unarmed" and cannot perform its mission. That's critical. Everyone would be on their toes. That tanker should not have gotten in that close even with all electronics down. You still have the old maneuvering board as well as doing TMA in your head, the basics the Navy taught you.
I recalling doing a night shift on the surface in the Bahamas and following behind a Cruise ship about 4 miles ahead of us. I deviated a slight bit off track to avoid the cold sea swells that were crashing right on our heads in the sail. We had plenty of room in our channel to do that. A couple minutes later the CO was on the JA phone with me with a [censored]? Get back on course OOD he said! He was concerned about closing the range to that Cruise ship to
There's a rumor going around that the Chinese have hacked into the navigation systems of both destroyers causing them not to see the oil tankers before the collisions.
They'd have to take down CIC/Sonar/Fire Control/Radar as well... all of whom can track contacts. And even if they did, you'd still have the old eye balls from look outs and bridge watch standers. When standing surface watches as OOD I'd have a pair of look outs on the bridge/sail with me. And the Nav ET or Fire Control Tech of the Watch would have #1 periscope optics to see even further out. Unless the tanker was coming at them w/o running lights, I don't see how you don't see them coming with plenty of notice. If the Nav/Warfare tracking systems were hacked, you'd have had a ship's emergency where the CO and XO would be on the bridge and the piloting party probably set. If those systems are not functioning, then the ship is "unarmed" and cannot perform its mission. That's critical. Everyone would be on their toes. That tanker should not have gotten in that close even with all electronics down. You still have the old maneuvering board as well as doing TMA in your head, the basics the Navy taught you.
I recalling doing a night shift on the surface in the Bahamas and following behind a Cruise ship about 4 miles ahead of us. I deviated a slight bit off track to avoid the cold sea swells that were crashing right on our heads in the sail. We had plenty of room in our channel to do that. A couple minutes later the CO was on the JA phone with me with a [censored]? Get back on course OOD he said! He was concerned about closing the range to that Cruise ship to
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
