Model Boat Mayhem
Mess Deck: General Section => Chit-Chat => Topic started by: derekwarner on August 21, 2017, 03:34:02 pm
-
????????. another tragedy........
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwii-s37xOjVAhUEvbwKHfsoA8kQFgg_MAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2F2017%2Faug%2F21%2Fus-destroyer-uss-john-s-mccain-damaged-after-collision-with-oil-tanker&usg=AFQjCNHLOmeQXZzF7zQtPz47Ugwzzox01Q
-
1 is incompetence 2 is either command crew training is seriously deficient or malicious actions
It is "interesting" that BOTH of these DDG's are fully equipped as Anti-Ballistic Missile defence ships and were both deployed to defend Japan / Korea and now BOTH have had "accidents"/"incidents" that mean loss of life and both ships out of action for a minimum of a year each
Personally I don't buy into coincidence like this , so its either bridge officer training is seriously sub-standard ( very possible ) or someone decided to do this on purpose ( and it would have to be someone on the bridge of the DDG's as well )
-
There is a report out already on the Fitzgerald which essentially blames the Captain, Exec, senior enlisted man and other crew members for poor training and situational awareness.
http://www.secnav.navy.mil/foia/readingroom/HotTopics/USS%20Fitzgerald/Supplemental%20Inquiry%20USS%20Fitzgerald.pdf
We'll have to wait and see what happened with the McCain but I doubt if it was North Korean agents on the bridge. Flying in over Singapore a few years back you can see that the area outside the port is wall to wall with anchored and moving ships. Must be a navigational nightmare if you are trying to thread your way through them.
Warships are always getting themselves into tricky situations but fortunately they are usually low profile incidents and don't involve loss of life. Obviously any navy prefers to keep its mistakes 'in house' if at all possible.
I imagine there was a lot of relief when HMS Queen Elizabeth tied up alongside last week. A mistake then would have been very embarrassing indeed.
Colin
-
1 is incompetence 2 is either command crew training is seriously deficient or malicious actions
What is 4 then???
USS Fitzgerald collided with that container ship
USS Lake Champlain (Ticonderoga class cruiser) collided with a fishing boat (May 17)
USS Louisiana (Ohio Class sub) collided with OSV (Aug 16)
-
Looks like institutional incompetence in the training of deck officers , USN is huge compared to any other in the world so you'd think they would "get" safety and put in place thorough training and ongoing assessments of officers to prevent incidents like this.
Have to admit I hadn't heard about the other 2 incidents so this does really look like very poor training , Singapore roads are renowned for incidents on an almost daily occurrence simply down to the amount of vessels at anchor , in port or transiting the area.
-
Colin not saying it was anyone linked to North Korea / China ( who lets face it will be very happy these two assets are out of commission ) but the actions of people who for whatever reason decide to cause an incident. Wouldn't be the first time ill intent was behind collisions
-
More likely to be incompetence as you say above Davie. There would be several people on the bridge of a large warship at all times, especially at night in congested waters so it seems unlikely that any one person could cause the ship to go off course. Plus I think there are automated radar collision warnings. USN has apparently initiated a general investigation into proficiency standards.
Colin
-
sadly men have died in this accident, but either arrogance or incompetence to blame, it reminds me of the gung ho! stance that the American navy seems to take in ever increasing measures, and reminds me of this little parody seen on youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYsdUgEgJrY
Jim.
-
I am beginning to wonder if this is an actual recording!!
Bob
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05cyncj
-
One assumes that in that part of the world USA warships would recognise the likelihood of a sudden attack by a small vessel, especially after the attack on USS Cole.
So how come a 50,000 tonne ship arrived unnoticed ?
-
It was not all that long ago that our navy was the moving targets, Southampton, Northampton , Invincible, Boxer plus a couple of Subs grounding when dived. We do not know what was actually happening on the warships ! to take there watch of the surrounding area. Just feel sorry for the sailors who had to pay the price.
-
In this case, simply looking at the damage on the ships, the container ship would be at fault. Give way to vessels crossing from starboard, as per COLREGs. Of course it could be a lot more complex than that, what with draft constraints, RAM, NUC, TSS lanes and so on. Regardless though the rules are very clear that you have a responsibility to avoid a collision, even if you're in the right. I suspect that there will be a lot of repercussions as a result even if the container ship is the one that ultimately carries the can.
With the Fitzgerald it was at fault according to COLREGS, if I remember correctly.
-
Why does the USS John S McCain have her Fwd 5" gun facing hard over to Stdb? and depressed ~~ say 15 degrees? :o...
USN protocol for these vessels is that the mounting face 0 degrees or Fwd and elevated by ~~ 22 degrees when not in use
I am sure there must be a reason.....just not sure what this can be...........
-
What is 4 then???
USS Fitzgerald collided with that container ship
USS Lake Champlain (Ticonderoga class cruiser) collided with a fishing boat (May 17)
USS Louisiana (Ohio Class sub) collided with OSV (Aug 16)
The ships name was USS Antietam, it ran aground
-
Personally, I suspect cyber attacks. Ships usually pass in the night, occasionally go bump, but this has happened to many times to be passed off as happenstance.
But what do I know.
-
The ships name was USS Antietam, it ran aground
no that would make 5 ships, I never included the Antietam as it never hit another ship
-
True - though the article I saw mentioned 4 incidents in the last couple of months hence the USS Antietam.
-
gingyer......
If I am not mistaken, your avatar is a 5"/54 calibre MK42 gun mount on the foredeck of an Airleigh Bourke Destroyer
Do you have any thoughts or comment on my previous question.....
"Why does the USS John S McCain have her Fwd 5" gun facing hard over to Stdb? and depressed ~~ say 15 degrees?"
Derek
-
I am thinking "hacking" GPS, or something else innocuous on board the shipping, or naval vessels.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40685821 (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40685821)
:o :o :o
Who was it here, that was annoyed that his street sweeper had a new GPS installed, and for
grins, over drove the GPS signal using a cell phone and laptop to show his sweeper out on
the North Sea for the day... %)
-
not got much of an idea.....
That said, I have seen pictures of Type 42 destroyers and the ships were being prepped for
receiving a tow the 4.5" gun is in the same position. Maybe the ship had prepared itself for receiving a tow
should the worst happen.
-
Hi,
Perhaps a total electricity failure whilst maneuvering or steering gear failure it does happen.
Rich
-
In this case, simply looking at the damage on the ships, the container ship would be at fault. Give way to vessels crossing from starboard, as per COLREGs. Of course it could be a lot more complex than that, what with draft constraints, RAM, NUC, TSS lanes and so on. Regardless though the rules are very clear that you have a responsibility to avoid a collision, even if you're in the right. I suspect that there will be a lot of repercussions as a result even if the container ship is the one that ultimately carries the can.
With the Fitzgerald it was at fault according to COLREGS, if I remember correctly.
What if McCain had overtaken the tanker then turned across her bows?
-
As stated there's a lot of possibilities, but to be honest the damage looks perpendicular, so it would probably have to be a pretty sharp turn to get into that sort of position at a proximity that would prevent the container ship from avoiding it.
Anything's possible though.
-
I am thinking "hacking" GPS, or something else innocuous on board the shipping, or naval vessels.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40685821 (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40685821)
:o :o :o
Who was it here, that was annoyed that his street sweeper had a new GPS installed, and for
grins, over drove the GPS signal using a cell phone and laptop to show his sweeper out on
the North Sea for the day... %)
I was thinking along those lines but even if they lost computers entirely how did they fail to spot a boat 3 time their size? Unless they're completely dependant on the electronics which even in this day an age is stupid at best, criminal at worst.
-
Most of these accidents happen because although they can see the ship, they assume it's not on a collision course, or they expect it to turn, but by the time they realise the turn isn't going to happen it's too late to take avoiding action themselves.
-
Forgive my ignorance but doesn't the smaller vessel, i.e. The McCain, have to give way to the much larger ship like the oil/container ship as the bigger ship can't manoeuvre like the destroyer can. So surely either way the destroyer's bridge crew are at fault for getting in the way of a vessel that can't stop very quickly or manoeuvre easily whilst underway. {:-{
-
They're actually not too different length wise, although obviously displacement is different.
-
Forgive my ignorance but doesn't the smaller vessel, i.e. The McCain, have to give way to the much larger ship like the oil/container ship as the bigger ship can't manoeuvre like the destroyer can. So surely either way the destroyer's bridge crew are at fault for getting in the way of a vessel that can't stop very quickly or manoeuvre easily whilst underway. {:-{
i would've thought so as destroyers are built for manoeuvrability so if they are attacked they can at least try and avoid, were as you said the oil tanker are not built that way, why tugs are needed at slow speed and even at high speed need a wide turning circle
-
for the USS Fitzgerald they already blamed poor seamanship on both the warship and the container ship
-
McGherkin: One of the first things they teach you in seamanship is how to avoid collisions. If you can see a ship on a converging course and the bearing isn't changing then you will both occupy the same space in the near future. Secondly, all navigational radars have a collision warning facility, if two ships are on a collision course then alarms go off etc. etc. on both vessels.
Nick: The Collision Regulations (ColRegs) state that it is the duty of the overtaking ship to keep clear. The vessel being overtaken should maintain a steady course unless it is clearly unsafe to do so.
Obviously the McCain somehow got across the bow of the tanker but at this stage it is idle to speculate exactly why.
In the meantime the Vice Admiral in charge of Seventh Fleet has been sacked!
Colin
-
Sorry everyone, but I really don't understand how this could have happened, having just finished reading the COLREGS on avoidance of collisions at sea. The map showing where this happened is not a narrow estuary, and unless there is a very narrow channel for a deep draught tankers there should not have been a problem. Again COLREGS covers this too.
With all the sophisticated radars and threat surveillance systems on the destroyer this should be impossible.
If the OOW was awake, paying attention, and the systems were switched on. Navigation lights?
They knew they were approaching Singapore where shipping will converge.
I see they have sacked the Vice Admiral commanding the 7th Fleet. Someone's head has to roll, ultimate responsibility and all that. He was only a few weeks from retiring too.
-
Hello
Just imagine a cowboy on a mustang horse playing around and some time crossing a crowded highway. Then this cowboy is in dark grey scheme, without AIS and speak his own language.
Having crossed the wake of this kind of ship and also having worked with them, I must say that this young sailors (because most are young) are well trained military personnel and sometimes poor sailors coming from Oklahoma or Arkansas and far from having maritim sense. They are "driving" the ship in the same way as she is an Abrams tank or F15 aircraft ... that's all.
I must say that there is often arrogance - I like the joke posted by BFSMP on reply #7, sometime it's not from that.
I remember an US Navy ship asking a fisherman to remain 600 yards from navy ship. The spanish fisherman asking "who's talking" as the US ship didn't give it's name or pennant number - the fisherman asking also "what is 600 yards" - The answer of the US ship never change " remain 600 yards from US Navy ship or .... "
At sea who uses the yard as unit of measurement ??? Is it a way for a foreign military ship to treat a Spanish fisherman working at sight of the Spanish coast ?
-
McGherkin: One of the first things they teach you in seamanship is how to avoid collisions. If you can see a ship on a converging course and the bearing isn't changing then you will both occupy the same space in the near future. Secondly, all navigational radars have a collision warning facility, if two ships are on a collision course then alarms go off etc. etc. on both vessels.
Of course, constant bearings etc are part of daily life but humans are not infallible, and whilst a ship may not be on a constant bearing one moment, it can be the next, and if you only check once then you may miss it.
-
:-))
Xantian
Even the RN measures the distance off in Cables.
Yards are horizontal bits on Masts %%
Ned
-
Didn't the Royal Navy use yards for gunnery?
-
Gunners used yards, but nautical miles were and
are still used for navigating.
Nautical mile 2000 Yards
Ned
-
We do not know who had the watch, if it was in the small hours, I would not be surprised if it was a junior officer (echoes of the Southampton collision), with modern ship navigating radars now capable of plotting over a hundred targets with course projection line and CPA, the picture can be very hard at times to read and keep up with. It only needs some inocus distraction on the bridge such as a phone call or radio message to distract you and with a container ship doing 20+ knots without the destroyers speed in a crowded small area and bang you have a collision, then all the senior men run and jump the net to blame the most junior hand.
-
CNN are saying that a Navy official told them that the McCain suffered a steering failure just before the collision. So maybe the crew are not to blame then?
Colin
-
I hear on tonights news that the US Navy top brass has removed the Admiral of the 7th Fleet because they consider there has too many incidents under his watch.
-
Then, maybe Trump will remove the Top Brass ... Who's the next after ?
-
CNN are saying that a Navy official told them that the McCain suffered a steering failure just before the collision. So maybe the crew are not to blame then?
Colin
Even the Mersey ferry has a secondary steering position.
Have they forgatten that old adage about equipment.... two is one and one is none ?
-
The McCain would obviously have a secondary steering position but it is unlikely that you could must switch over in seconds, and that is assuming that the rudder mechanism itself hadn't jammed.
People don't always appreciate that hazardous situations in confined waters can escalate with terrifying speed giving those in charge very little time to react even if well trained and drilled.
But, again, we are just speculating here with no facts available until the interim report comes out
Colin
-
50000 ton merchant vessels do not change speed or direction easily, so their courses are fairly predictable. Modern warships are designed to not show up on radar and be generally stealthy. As such, with their vastly more powerful radar and ability to maneuver, whatever the rules of the road, it is up to the stealthy military ship to keep out of harms way. If their crews training has taught them otherwise, some retraining is in order.
There does seem to have been a lot of it about lately. In recent years, there have been air crashes where the airliner crew were managing the systems that fly the plane, rather than actually flying the plane. Thinking of the Air France flight that crashed mid Atlantic. Idle speculation, but can that sort of thing happen on modern ships?
-
50000 ton merchant vessels do not change speed or direction easily, so their courses are fairly predictable
Yep, and have a look to the tanker AIS tracking - nothing more predictable course than ships on traffic separation scheme and noticed that around it's like a supermarket parking with many ship anchored.
If it's understable to sail without AIS during "war game" it's just stupid when crossing a "ship highway" like that all foreign navy like RN or European one have the AIS switched ON in this case
At 0.50 the tanker turn left - it's just after the colision
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlrA36GzHNs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlrA36GzHNs)
-
wouldn't surprise me if anti collision etc was on blink or was turned off
but if it was steering issue how long would it take for a modern warship get secondary steering to work
-
Why would they turn off the anti collision warning???
Colin
-
Following may dispel misconceptions or help to understand steerage capability on an Airleigh Bourke Class Destroyer
Airleigh Bourke Class destroyers have two individual dedicated electro-hydraulic systems for steerage via the rudders
Each of these hydraulic systems have dedicated 24/7 hydraulic accumulator pressure reserve that could provide steerage commands to the rudder system in the event of an emergency
US protocol is for both hydraulic systems to be on line when departing or entering a port
One system [either] is used during sea deployment
It is common to use one system for one leg of a deployment and the other system on the return leg]
[I understand this to also be common to Warships of the RN, RNZN and RAN]
The usage of one online system at sea allows for minor or scheduled maintenance to the other system without disruption to sea deployment duties, or compromise the vessels ability for steerage
If one system failed during sea deployment, the second system would auto start within milli seconds
If both systems lost electrical power, the singular and combined hydraulic accumulators have the capacity to provide steerage until an auxiliary hydraulic supply can be [again] PLC controlled & bought into service
Both rudders are fixed as a pair, each propeller can be driven at independent shaft speed and thrust direction
[the above is based on my onboard inspection of an Airleigh Bourke Class Destroyer some years ago]
Form this [xtian29 & I agree], it would be extremely difficult to understand how the loss of steerage could be the root cause of the incident with the Airleigh Bourke Class Destroyer USS John S McCain
.....Derek
-
Yep, and have a look to the tanker AIS tracking - nothing more predictable course than ships on traffic separation scheme... and noticed that around it's like a supermarket parking with many ship anchored.
If it's understable to sail without AIS during "war game" it's just stupid when crossing a "ship highway" like that all foreign navy like RN or European one have the AIS switched ON in this case
At 0.50 the tanker turn left - it's just after the colision
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlrA36GzHNs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlrA36GzHNs)
Well, that pretty much settles it. Crossing a TSS means you are always the give way vessel and not transmitting AIS is a very silly idea.
-
Very interesting information Derek, thanks for posting.
There are a couple of reports in the US suggesting that operational and budgetary pressures have badly affected crew training and equipment maintenance.
Quite agree that it seems mad not to be using AIS. I'm sure the Chinese and Russians etc. know exactly where major US warships are in 'peacetime'.
Colin
-
AIS can be switched off in crowded waters as it will be permanently on unless you set range so close as to be useless.
In these circumstances it is usual to double the lookouts on the bridge and run with BOTH steering motors on ( although 1 can be on immediate standby ).
In addition the Engine Room should have additional Engineers, additional to the watch keepers.
It SHOULD be assumed that MOST emergencies can be provided for.
Even a full loss of power will have the Emergency Generator on auto start and connect. This will supply power to steering and machinery circuits.
Bob
-
Quite agree that it seems mad not to be using AIS. I'm sure the Chinese and Russians etc. know exactly where major US warships are in 'peacetime'.
I strongly suspect that the USN restricts the use of AIS, not because of keeping their movements from other states but rather to avoid helping Al Queda etc target them and especially in a part of the world such as the Malacca Straits.
They take force protection against the small fast boat type threat very seriously ever since the USS Cole - I still remember when I visited a sister ship to the McCain about 12 years ago alongside in Portsmouth and they had loaded 0.5" MGs manned at several positions on the upper deck.
-
Good point re AIS but I think it is possible to have a sort of 'alias' when using it.
When HMS Queen Elizabeth entered Portsmouth last week the MOD police launches escorting her had armed guards standing on their decks.
Also, when I visited the USS Iowa in Portsmouth back in 1984 the Harpoon launchers were roped off with a sign saying 'Deadly Force Authorised beyond This Point'.
Colin
-
Could apply to Arctic ships too? Get the RRS Sir David Attenborough transponder to ping "Boaty McBoatface".
Surely a simple FoF (friend or foe) I.D. is necessary.
-
AIS has no minimum range , its a gps linked transmitter , AIS receivers ( commercial ones ) link directly into the radar ( provided its an ARPA type ) as well as directly into electronic chart plotters. Warships probably don't use electronic charts but considering the amount of radars warships use it does seem very unlikely that they wouldn't have had anti-collision warnings.
The big problem with AIS lies in the fact you can put a laptop between the GPS receiver and the transmitter unit and you can put in a quite sizeable offset ( have heard up to 10 miles ) , this is clearly illegal but the software is freely available and a cheap laptop with an interface card means it can be done ( has been done in the UK , lets just say the guy won't be doing it again... MCA.... ). As for changing what name comes up , yes you can do that BUT you can't change the IMO number which means using any of the online AIS websites will show the true ID of the ship which is why the worlds Navies ( and somewhat illegally as they don't have a dispensation from the IMO organisation or MCA the Scottish Fishery Protection ships , they also switch off ALL nav lights and darken ship again without seemingly legal clearance ... ) simply switch them off all together.
-
The Straights News claims Singapore authorities did not "see" the destroyer on any of their systems.
From what I have read here and on the News elsewhere it appears that . . .
The crew knew she was a stealth ship, difficult or worse to see on radar.
They had their identification transponder & collision avoidance switched off.
They probably also had their navigation and deck lights turned off.
No one on the bridge was paying attention, and probably in the engine room and steering flat as well.
This then was not an accident, or even incompetence, it looks like a deliberate death wish.
Or "Let's try to sneak into an Asian port without their noticing us."
-
Having AIS switched off will only mean other vessels do not know your identity, it should not dramatically effect anti collision modus as the best system is your radar set your compass bearing plate and your eyes. Personally I did not use my AIS in busy shipping areas because it would distract me having to stop and scroll down the list read it and then correlate it to my position. Though with new modern sets they do automatically come up on digital map systems and radar. But it is an aid not the BE ALL.
-
Also, when I visited the USS Iowa in Portsmouth back in 1984 the Harpoon launchers were roped off with a sign saying 'Deadly Force Authorised beyond This Point'.
The threat of deadly force in those days would probably be to do with the protection of any nuclear tipped cruise missiles onboard rather than of the ship as a whole.
-
Yes, an explosive motor boat wouldn't have much effect on a 12 inch armour belt!
Colin
-
Many years ago when I was doing my first deck certificate, I was talking to a guy up for his second mates ticket. He was telling me a story that happened about 40 years ago, when the US 7th fleet was steaming around the Pacific and a British freighter picked up all these radar targets in front of it all though it was a black night there was nought to see. So the old man called on the VHF "goog evening US &th fleet this the British vessel >>>>>>>, at which the whole see lit up with Navigation lights and deck lights and the Yanks demanded know how a British merchant ship got the intelligence to know who they were, though Vietnam was happening at the time. The British master replied oh British intelligence!!
-
https://www.c-span.org/video/?433093-4/washington-journal-bryan-mcgrath-discusses-recent-incidents-involving-us-navy-ships&live
Worth a watch guys
-
Interesting link, what he says is very true of our services from the various stories I hear off. But as he said there will be an indepth investigation which will be available under the F of D act. So lets wait till then before we make anymore conjectures.
-
USS John S. McCain Loaded on Heavy Lift Transport: https://youtu.be/abjqBV3cdAo