This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
It seems to be 3-0 to the merchant ships. (Plus a grounding in a harbor.)
I've read several exciting conspiracy theories (hacked GPS signals, hacked shipboard systems, over tired sailors, inexperienced captains and / or crew).
One assumes, that these ships are designed to spot, track and take out a fast moving aircraft or missile. How can they not spot another boat?
I've read several exciting conspiracy theories (hacked GPS signals, hacked shipboard systems, over tired sailors, inexperienced captains and / or crew).
One assumes, that these ships are designed to spot, track and take out a fast moving aircraft or missile. How can they not spot another boat?
In reply to dread-i:
On the radio an expert said it was probably inattention or equipment failure.
> ... How can they not spot another boat?
On the radio an expert said it was probably inattention or equipment failure.
In reply to dread-i:
Given some of what I've read, i would think it much more likely to be "Road hogging" by the US navy.... I'm driving a big warship - therefore you need to get out of my way.
However this most recent incident *may* have been a good excuse to cancel the annual willy waving contest in the korean strait at a time where KJI seemingly backed off the rhetoric a notch
There is of course the famous exchange with a lighthouse (which may or may not have a basis in truth):
youtube.com/watch?v=_VHXRYXzEVU&
Given some of what I've read, i would think it much more likely to be "Road hogging" by the US navy.... I'm driving a big warship - therefore you need to get out of my way.
However this most recent incident *may* have been a good excuse to cancel the annual willy waving contest in the korean strait at a time where KJI seemingly backed off the rhetoric a notch
There is of course the famous exchange with a lighthouse (which may or may not have a basis in truth):
youtube.com/watch?v=_VHXRYXzEVU&
7
1
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Very unlikely. Warships (of all nations) follow the rules like everyone else does. If that weren't the case, this sort of thing would be a weekly or daily occurrence.
In the latest case, the US ship was the stand on vessel, and the merchant ship was give way. It was a little more complicated by the fact that the US ship was crossing a separation scheme in very high traffic density and the merchant ship had very little space to play with. It looks to be mostly a failure to react in good time (by either or both ships) and possibly a failure to take into account the restrictions caused by many ships in close proximity. I suspect that ultimately these incidents will be nothing more than humans making simple mistakes either through negligence or inexperience.
> Given some of what I've read, i would think it much more likely to be "Road hogging" by the US navy.... I'm driving a big warship - therefore you need to get out of my way.
Very unlikely. Warships (of all nations) follow the rules like everyone else does. If that weren't the case, this sort of thing would be a weekly or daily occurrence.
In the latest case, the US ship was the stand on vessel, and the merchant ship was give way. It was a little more complicated by the fact that the US ship was crossing a separation scheme in very high traffic density and the merchant ship had very little space to play with. It looks to be mostly a failure to react in good time (by either or both ships) and possibly a failure to take into account the restrictions caused by many ships in close proximity. I suspect that ultimately these incidents will be nothing more than humans making simple mistakes either through negligence or inexperience.
4
22
In reply to MarkJH:
Almost certainly, though I do wonder if the US navy uses AIS when in dense shipping lanes?
When I've been boating round the Arctic we had absolutely no idea that the Norwegian coast guard, navy and other 'visiting' NATO ships were there. They don't use AIS as a deliberate means of being able to sneak up on fishing boats they're policing. The only indication of their presence being contact with other ships on Ma16.
I may be under the (incorrect) assumption that supertankers and other silly sized boats essentially follow pre-defined gps tracks, almost like a train with the intention to reduce manoeuvring as little as possible in order to save time and costs. If you are crewing a large ship and not actively searching for potential obstacles that do not immediately appear on radar or AIS then I imagine it can make life quite difficult.
Not to mention that grey paint works surprisingly well in flat light and fog :^)
> It looks to be mostly a failure to react in good time (by either or both ships)
Almost certainly, though I do wonder if the US navy uses AIS when in dense shipping lanes?
When I've been boating round the Arctic we had absolutely no idea that the Norwegian coast guard, navy and other 'visiting' NATO ships were there. They don't use AIS as a deliberate means of being able to sneak up on fishing boats they're policing. The only indication of their presence being contact with other ships on Ma16.
I may be under the (incorrect) assumption that supertankers and other silly sized boats essentially follow pre-defined gps tracks, almost like a train with the intention to reduce manoeuvring as little as possible in order to save time and costs. If you are crewing a large ship and not actively searching for potential obstacles that do not immediately appear on radar or AIS then I imagine it can make life quite difficult.
Not to mention that grey paint works surprisingly well in flat light and fog :^)
1
In reply to GarethSL:
The AIS tracks have been put on YouTube and the US ship does not show up, so I would assume they were not transmitting at least. As I understand it, there is a VTS radar fairly close to where the collision occured, so that may shed some more light on what happened.
> Almost certainly, though I do wonder if the US navy uses AIS when in dense shipping lanes?
The AIS tracks have been put on YouTube and the US ship does not show up, so I would assume they were not transmitting at least. As I understand it, there is a VTS radar fairly close to where the collision occured, so that may shed some more light on what happened.
1
In reply to GarethSL:
You would have thought amongst the plethora of kit onboard your average warship some sort of collision warning radar could have been fitted.
After all if they can warn planes closing in on each other at 1,000+ kn, detecting boats travelling towards each other at 60kn max wouldn't be so difficult.
You would have thought amongst the plethora of kit onboard your average warship some sort of collision warning radar could have been fitted.
After all if they can warn planes closing in on each other at 1,000+ kn, detecting boats travelling towards each other at 60kn max wouldn't be so difficult.
In reply to GarethSL:
Whether the naval vessel was broadcasting AIS signals or not is irrelevant, as is whether GPS was malfunctioning or being jammed. The merchant vessel certainly would have been broadcasting AIS, and both vessels would have had anti-collision radars, which ought to have been closely monitored in such a busy area. It doesn't matter how grey the paint is, no-one's yet succeeded in making a vessel that size have zero radar signature!
> Almost certainly, though I do wonder if the US navy uses AIS when in dense shipping lanes?
> When I've been boating round the Arctic we had absolutely no idea that the Norwegian coast guard, navy and other 'visiting' NATO ships were there. They don't use AIS as a deliberate means of being able to sneak up on fishing boats they're policing. The only indication of their presence being contact with other ships on Ma16.
Whether the naval vessel was broadcasting AIS signals or not is irrelevant, as is whether GPS was malfunctioning or being jammed. The merchant vessel certainly would have been broadcasting AIS, and both vessels would have had anti-collision radars, which ought to have been closely monitored in such a busy area. It doesn't matter how grey the paint is, no-one's yet succeeded in making a vessel that size have zero radar signature!
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Not "could have" but "would have". I've not been on a vessel of any size (let's say over 40 metres in length) in the last 30 years that didn't have anti-collision radar. Most of those I've seen recently have had 100% backup on the anti-collision radar ( ie a complete second system operating). One of the vessels I'm dealing with at the moment is much smaller than either of those involved in this incident and carries complete dual systems of both S-Band and X-Band ARPA radar, which is far from uncommon. I'd expect naval vessels and large tankers or cargo vessels to have at least that capability.
> You would have thought amongst the plethora of kit onboard your average warship some sort of collision warning radar could have been fitted.
Not "could have" but "would have". I've not been on a vessel of any size (let's say over 40 metres in length) in the last 30 years that didn't have anti-collision radar. Most of those I've seen recently have had 100% backup on the anti-collision radar ( ie a complete second system operating). One of the vessels I'm dealing with at the moment is much smaller than either of those involved in this incident and carries complete dual systems of both S-Band and X-Band ARPA radar, which is far from uncommon. I'd expect naval vessels and large tankers or cargo vessels to have at least that capability.
In reply to Rob Naylor:
So what happened? Is there a systemic problem here, do you think, or are these spate of US Navy collisions just confidence?
So what happened? Is there a systemic problem here, do you think, or are these spate of US Navy collisions just confidence?
In reply to Rob Naylor:
All sounds very 'tomorrow never dies'!
> Whether the naval vessel was broadcasting AIS signals or not is irrelevant, as is whether GPS was malfunctioning or being jammed.
All sounds very 'tomorrow never dies'!
In reply to MG:
There is a really interesting bridge recording from the USS Porter that had a similar accident in the gulf some years back. http://gcaptain.com/intense-bridge-conversation-porter/
What I find particularly interesting is that it shows that they had all the information they needed from nothing more complicated than the OoD looking out the window, but they still managed to make entirely the wrong decision. Neither ARPA or AIS would have made any difference; it was an error of (very basic) seamanship. Quite why that happened (or whether similar errors contributed to the current run of accidents) are outside my expertise, but it does look like more than a coincidence. A fully crewed warship with massive power to weight and manoeuvrability should easily be able to avoid a collision, regardless of what the other vessel does.
> So what happened? Is there a systemic problem here, do you think, or are these spate of US Navy collisions just confidence?
There is a really interesting bridge recording from the USS Porter that had a similar accident in the gulf some years back. http://gcaptain.com/intense-bridge-conversation-porter/
What I find particularly interesting is that it shows that they had all the information they needed from nothing more complicated than the OoD looking out the window, but they still managed to make entirely the wrong decision. Neither ARPA or AIS would have made any difference; it was an error of (very basic) seamanship. Quite why that happened (or whether similar errors contributed to the current run of accidents) are outside my expertise, but it does look like more than a coincidence. A fully crewed warship with massive power to weight and manoeuvrability should easily be able to avoid a collision, regardless of what the other vessel does.
1
In reply to MarkJH:
Oh, the rules of the road (never understood why it wasn't called rules of the sea) I remember learning it off by heart in order to pass the exam (100% required). Happy memories.
Cheers
Toby
Oh, the rules of the road (never understood why it wasn't called rules of the sea) I remember learning it off by heart in order to pass the exam (100% required). Happy memories.
Cheers
Toby
1
In reply to MG:
At this stage I have no idea, and wouldn't like to second-guess. All I know is what MarkJH says above:
"In the latest case, the US ship was the stand on vessel, and the merchant ship was give way. It was a little more complicated by the fact that the US ship was crossing a separation scheme in very high traffic density and the merchant ship had very little space to play with. It looks to be mostly a failure to react in good time (by either or both ships) and possibly a failure to take into account the restrictions caused by many ships in close proximity. I suspect that ultimately these incidents will be nothing more than humans making simple mistakes either through negligence or inexperience."
On the face of it, the tanker should have given way, but as Mark said, it's not as simple as that. A "Stand On" vessel doesn't have *absolute* right of way over a "Give Way" vessel. If there is a risk of collision, a Stand On vessel can still be required under Rule 2 and Rule 17 of the COLREGs to give way so as to avoid it.
I know we love making absolute pronouncements here on UKC, but I think I'll pass on that until the investigation report is published.
At this stage I have no idea, and wouldn't like to second-guess. All I know is what MarkJH says above:
"In the latest case, the US ship was the stand on vessel, and the merchant ship was give way. It was a little more complicated by the fact that the US ship was crossing a separation scheme in very high traffic density and the merchant ship had very little space to play with. It looks to be mostly a failure to react in good time (by either or both ships) and possibly a failure to take into account the restrictions caused by many ships in close proximity. I suspect that ultimately these incidents will be nothing more than humans making simple mistakes either through negligence or inexperience."
On the face of it, the tanker should have given way, but as Mark said, it's not as simple as that. A "Stand On" vessel doesn't have *absolute* right of way over a "Give Way" vessel. If there is a risk of collision, a Stand On vessel can still be required under Rule 2 and Rule 17 of the COLREGs to give way so as to avoid it.
I know we love making absolute pronouncements here on UKC, but I think I'll pass on that until the investigation report is published.
2
In reply to dread-i:
I suspect they were ignoring anti-collision alarms if they were in a busy area, it'll have been going off all the time. Having spent a fair amount of time fishing in the Casquets traffic separation scheme I can tell you that quite a lot of large commercial vessels
a) don't follow radio procedures (or even listen to them). Every single day of the week Jobourg Traffic VTS spend ages trying to raise vessels on the radio.
b) ignore anything other than another massive vessel.
c) don't keep a proper lookout. Every year in UK waters multiple vessels get run down by cargo ships simply because the cargo ships aren't watching where they're going or failing to adjust their vessel's speed to the environment they're in. Reading the MAIB collision reports is eye opening the first time you do it. It's common for a ship to run down a fishing boat, know they've done so, yet carry on without stopping .
I suspect they were ignoring anti-collision alarms if they were in a busy area, it'll have been going off all the time. Having spent a fair amount of time fishing in the Casquets traffic separation scheme I can tell you that quite a lot of large commercial vessels
a) don't follow radio procedures (or even listen to them). Every single day of the week Jobourg Traffic VTS spend ages trying to raise vessels on the radio.
b) ignore anything other than another massive vessel.
c) don't keep a proper lookout. Every year in UK waters multiple vessels get run down by cargo ships simply because the cargo ships aren't watching where they're going or failing to adjust their vessel's speed to the environment they're in. Reading the MAIB collision reports is eye opening the first time you do it. It's common for a ship to run down a fishing boat, know they've done so, yet carry on without stopping .
Post edited at 10:20
In reply to Rob Naylor:
you'd expect a certain standard of watchkeeping on both vessels and hope that a warning could be given by radio before a collision occurred. It's hard to see that there wasn't some neglect on both sides
you'd expect a certain standard of watchkeeping on both vessels and hope that a warning could be given by radio before a collision occurred. It's hard to see that there wasn't some neglect on both sides
In reply to Toerag:
I know that all this occurs....in fact some years ago when on a seismic survey and unable to manoeuvre much we were nearly run down by a Greek cargo vessel which wasn't keeping a radio or even visual watch....we were firing flares right onto its bridge wing at one time, with no effect. I watched the vessel's name being revealed to me one letter at a time, as they slid past the chartroom scuttle!
But that was in an area where the captain of the cargo vessel didn't expect to see any other traffic. The area where this collision took place was a very busy shipping lane where I can't imagine that even the most lackadaisical captain wouldn't have ensured a decent watch being kept.
> I suspect they were ignoring anti-collision alarms if they were in a busy area, it'll have been going off all the time. Having spent a fair amount of time fishing in the Casquets traffic separation scheme I can tell you that quite a lot of large commercial vessels
> a) don't follow radio procedures (or even listen to them). Every single day of the week Jobourg Traffic VTS spend ages trying to raise vessels on the radio.
> b) ignore anything other than another massive vessel.
> c) don't keep a proper lookout. Every year in UK waters multiple vessels get run down by cargo ships simply because the cargo ships aren't watching where they're going or failing to adjust their vessel's speed to the environment they're in. Reading the MAIB collision reports is eye opening the first time you do it. It's common for a ship to run down a fishing boat, know they've done so, yet carry on without stopping .
I know that all this occurs....in fact some years ago when on a seismic survey and unable to manoeuvre much we were nearly run down by a Greek cargo vessel which wasn't keeping a radio or even visual watch....we were firing flares right onto its bridge wing at one time, with no effect. I watched the vessel's name being revealed to me one letter at a time, as they slid past the chartroom scuttle!
But that was in an area where the captain of the cargo vessel didn't expect to see any other traffic. The area where this collision took place was a very busy shipping lane where I can't imagine that even the most lackadaisical captain wouldn't have ensured a decent watch being kept.
1
In reply to Rob Naylor:
This all pales in comparison with the incident involving the USS Forrestal during the Vietnam war, which managed to discharge a rocket on its own flight deck. I knew an American librarian who served on the Forrestal as his national service, and always found the idea of the mild mannered man that I knew running around a burning flight deck pushing missiles into the sea highly amusing.
This all pales in comparison with the incident involving the USS Forrestal during the Vietnam war, which managed to discharge a rocket on its own flight deck. I knew an American librarian who served on the Forrestal as his national service, and always found the idea of the mild mannered man that I knew running around a burning flight deck pushing missiles into the sea highly amusing.
1
In reply to John2:
A librarian burning missals and throwing them into the sea? I think we should be told why.
A librarian burning missals and throwing them into the sea? I think we should be told why.
3
In reply to Rob Naylor:
We can still speculate though can't we
The AIS tracks are here youtube.com/watch?v=vlrA36GzHNs& . To give an idea of scale, each lane of the TSS is about 1Nm.
One of the really puzzling aspects of this is that the damage to the McCain seems incredible localised with no scraping aft of the big hole (as you would expect in a crossing collision), suggesting that she was stopped or very slow at the time of the collision
My guess/ wild speculation would be that the McCain was crossing the TSS at right angles and was passing clear ahead of the alnic MC. Both ships were happy, bearings were changing etc, but it was a very close pass. As she started to clear the bows of the Alnic, she saw another ship (the Hyundai Global) about a quarter of a mile away in the separation zone (itself a contravention of the rules), which had previously been obscured by the Alnic. The McCain realised that the Hyundai Global wouldn't be able to take avoiding action in time, so cut speed to pass astern (or even stopped dead). Unfortunately this now put her back on a collision course with the Alnic, but they had already dismissed her as a collision risk (and would by now just be seeing her port hand light from the bridge position) and were unaware of how close she was.
> I know we love making absolute pronouncements here on UKC, but I think I'll pass on that until the investigation report is published.
We can still speculate though can't we
The AIS tracks are here youtube.com/watch?v=vlrA36GzHNs& . To give an idea of scale, each lane of the TSS is about 1Nm.
One of the really puzzling aspects of this is that the damage to the McCain seems incredible localised with no scraping aft of the big hole (as you would expect in a crossing collision), suggesting that she was stopped or very slow at the time of the collision
My guess/ wild speculation would be that the McCain was crossing the TSS at right angles and was passing clear ahead of the alnic MC. Both ships were happy, bearings were changing etc, but it was a very close pass. As she started to clear the bows of the Alnic, she saw another ship (the Hyundai Global) about a quarter of a mile away in the separation zone (itself a contravention of the rules), which had previously been obscured by the Alnic. The McCain realised that the Hyundai Global wouldn't be able to take avoiding action in time, so cut speed to pass astern (or even stopped dead). Unfortunately this now put her back on a collision course with the Alnic, but they had already dismissed her as a collision risk (and would by now just be seeing her port hand light from the bridge position) and were unaware of how close she was.
3
In reply to wercat:
Yes. The military is usually rigorous and ruthless, to the point of insanity, when it comes to lookouts and monitoring.
I can well imagine civilian traffic collisions, but when the military has these collisions it seems to border on impossibility.
Though there will no doubt be context we aren't aware of here.
It has conveniently given an excuse to not hold exercises that might have antagonised NK even further.
Yes. The military is usually rigorous and ruthless, to the point of insanity, when it comes to lookouts and monitoring.
I can well imagine civilian traffic collisions, but when the military has these collisions it seems to border on impossibility.
Though there will no doubt be context we aren't aware of here.
It has conveniently given an excuse to not hold exercises that might have antagonised NK even further.
In reply to dread-i:
So by that, do you mean 3 navy ships sunk and one damaged, with no merchant ship losses? If that's the case, I'd worry for the US navy if another "Midway" occured!
M
> It seems to be 3-0 to the merchant ships. (Plus a grounding in a harbor.)
So by that, do you mean 3 navy ships sunk and one damaged, with no merchant ship losses? If that's the case, I'd worry for the US navy if another "Midway" occured!
M
In reply to Mark Bannan:
While said in jest, there seems to be a flourishing YouTube genre trying to paint these collisions as "attacks", "false-flag attacks" or otherwise intentional actions.
In terms of compelling evidence cited, we appear to be in the realms of one happening near Japan (which is close to North Korea) and container ships being crewed by Phillipinos (which is where there is an Islamic insurgent issue)...couldn't bring myself to watch further, but no doubt there are other smoking guns pointing to CIA, NSA, free-mason, George Soros involvement.
While said in jest, there seems to be a flourishing YouTube genre trying to paint these collisions as "attacks", "false-flag attacks" or otherwise intentional actions.
In terms of compelling evidence cited, we appear to be in the realms of one happening near Japan (which is close to North Korea) and container ships being crewed by Phillipinos (which is where there is an Islamic insurgent issue)...couldn't bring myself to watch further, but no doubt there are other smoking guns pointing to CIA, NSA, free-mason, George Soros involvement.
In reply to dread-i:
This is really odd..
Have you sailed or been around military ships? They tell you to clear the area before you can even see them.
I wouldn't be surprised if there is some inference/hacking. Are these areas that busy compared to other areas yet all happened in that theatre.
This is really odd..
Have you sailed or been around military ships? They tell you to clear the area before you can even see them.
I wouldn't be surprised if there is some inference/hacking. Are these areas that busy compared to other areas yet all happened in that theatre.
Post edited at 01:46
3
In reply to Roadrunner5:
I have, and have never experienced that myself. I have heard them advising of specific operations and requesting a clearances consistent with these, but never heard of a naval ship on passage doing anything other than following the rules. Specifically, the idea that a US warship in foreign territorial waters would be telling ships transiting the Malacca strait to divert on their account is absurd.
> Have you sailed or been around military ships? They tell you to clear the area before you can even see them.
I have, and have never experienced that myself. I have heard them advising of specific operations and requesting a clearances consistent with these, but never heard of a naval ship on passage doing anything other than following the rules. Specifically, the idea that a US warship in foreign territorial waters would be telling ships transiting the Malacca strait to divert on their account is absurd.
8
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Another link here
http://newsthump.com/2017/08/24/north-korea-threatens-to-sink-us-navy-by-le...
Another link here
http://newsthump.com/2017/08/24/north-korea-threatens-to-sink-us-navy-by-le...
2
In reply to Roadrunner5:
I've both sailed on them and been on other vessels in their vicinity and like MarkJH never seen them doing anything but following COLREG rules when on passage. They might do it in their own territorial waters, or when on active operations, but not when on passage.
Having looked at the AIS time lapse now, I think that Mark's speculation about the McCain noticing the Hyundai Global coming up (illegally) in the separation zone and on the port side of Alnic MC as a collision risk and stopping without being aware how close Alnic MC was is one strong contender for a explanation of what happened.
I don't know what you mean by interference/ hacking. Interfering with GPS is possible with the right gear, but you'd have to simultaneously hack the ARPA radar on the vessel, which is very unlikely. A combination of circumstances and human error is a much more likely scenario. No point in introducing conspiracy theories when there are so many possible explanations that are just down to basic error. I've seen loads of instances at sea where people just misread what was going on around them.
I've both sailed on them and been on other vessels in their vicinity and like MarkJH never seen them doing anything but following COLREG rules when on passage. They might do it in their own territorial waters, or when on active operations, but not when on passage.
Having looked at the AIS time lapse now, I think that Mark's speculation about the McCain noticing the Hyundai Global coming up (illegally) in the separation zone and on the port side of Alnic MC as a collision risk and stopping without being aware how close Alnic MC was is one strong contender for a explanation of what happened.
I don't know what you mean by interference/ hacking. Interfering with GPS is possible with the right gear, but you'd have to simultaneously hack the ARPA radar on the vessel, which is very unlikely. A combination of circumstances and human error is a much more likely scenario. No point in introducing conspiracy theories when there are so many possible explanations that are just down to basic error. I've seen loads of instances at sea where people just misread what was going on around them.
6
In reply to Roadrunner5:
>I wouldn't be surprised if there is some inference/hacking.
I'm looking at these from an info sec point of view and the evidence looks a little thin.
GPS can be blocked or spoofed. But the military use different, encrypted GPS. Regardless of that, ships have been able to navigate without GPS for centuries.
Some ships run windows. (Yes, really! Google 'windows for warships'). But if there were a local exploit, you'd need a sailor to execute it. If there was a remote exploit, then China, or NK, would probably save it for when it was really needed. Test it once, perhaps. But to use it again and again would risk exposing it and the bug being fixed.
These ships are, I would imagine, bristling with radar and the like. They may even have access to real time spy satellite data. Again, this is speculation, but it would be reasonable to park a satellite over an area with lots of activity. From disputed islands, to rocket launches.
As has been mentioned above, civilian ships publish their location via radio beacon. So even if one ship was hidden behind another, their location would be known.
>I wouldn't be surprised if there is some inference/hacking.
I'm looking at these from an info sec point of view and the evidence looks a little thin.
GPS can be blocked or spoofed. But the military use different, encrypted GPS. Regardless of that, ships have been able to navigate without GPS for centuries.
Some ships run windows. (Yes, really! Google 'windows for warships'). But if there were a local exploit, you'd need a sailor to execute it. If there was a remote exploit, then China, or NK, would probably save it for when it was really needed. Test it once, perhaps. But to use it again and again would risk exposing it and the bug being fixed.
These ships are, I would imagine, bristling with radar and the like. They may even have access to real time spy satellite data. Again, this is speculation, but it would be reasonable to park a satellite over an area with lots of activity. From disputed islands, to rocket launches.
As has been mentioned above, civilian ships publish their location via radio beacon. So even if one ship was hidden behind another, their location would be known.
Post edited at 10:10
2
In reply to MarkJH:
I worked a lot around faslane and we'd often be told to clear zones. We've even had vessels come out to us saying we. We'd to leave the area. Maybe it was a sub, we were trawling.
And I'm not introducing the hacking idea it's been all over mainstream US media
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/hacking-and-gps-spoofi...
9 collisions between 1989 and 2016
Now 3 in 3 months.
https://blogs-images.forbes.com/niallmccarthy/files/2017/08/20170822_Navy_C...
Obviously you get random clustering but I'm not surprised the navy and looking at this from all angles.
I worked a lot around faslane and we'd often be told to clear zones. We've even had vessels come out to us saying we. We'd to leave the area. Maybe it was a sub, we were trawling.
And I'm not introducing the hacking idea it's been all over mainstream US media
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/hacking-and-gps-spoofi...
9 collisions between 1989 and 2016
Now 3 in 3 months.
https://blogs-images.forbes.com/niallmccarthy/files/2017/08/20170822_Navy_C...
Obviously you get random clustering but I'm not surprised the navy and looking at this from all angles.
Post edited at 12:34
1
In reply to Roadrunner5:
There are many restricted zones within port authority areas on the Clyde, both civilian and military. These fall within local harbour authority laws and are clearly charted and described. Not at all relevant to two vessels navigating in open water.
True, but it is still silly (in the absence of any evidence at all to suggest that this is the case). Collisions with warships do occur regardless of the sophistication of the onboard instruments, and it is inevitably the case that it is the humans in charge that have screwed up (see earlier link to USS Porter incidnet). Read this for an informed and instructive article: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017-08/collisions-part-i%E2%80%...
Less thrilling than a DPRK hacker in a dimly lit room somewhere but possibly a more sober and fruitful starting point for fixing the problem.
> I worked a lot around faslane and we'd often be told to clear zones. We've even had vessels come out to us saying we. We'd to leave the area. Maybe it was a sub, we were trawling.
There are many restricted zones within port authority areas on the Clyde, both civilian and military. These fall within local harbour authority laws and are clearly charted and described. Not at all relevant to two vessels navigating in open water.
> And I'm not introducing the hacking idea it's been all over mainstream US media
True, but it is still silly (in the absence of any evidence at all to suggest that this is the case). Collisions with warships do occur regardless of the sophistication of the onboard instruments, and it is inevitably the case that it is the humans in charge that have screwed up (see earlier link to USS Porter incidnet). Read this for an informed and instructive article: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017-08/collisions-part-i%E2%80%...
Less thrilling than a DPRK hacker in a dimly lit room somewhere but possibly a more sober and fruitful starting point for fixing the problem.
Post edited at 12:48
3
In reply to MarkJH:
Look at the historic occurrences.. the hardline conservatives like Savage have been pushing terrorist attacks which I think are baseless.
If reports are true and the navy are looking into hacking possibilitis clearly it's not just silly.
Unlikely and their could well be a simple explanation but I don't think the navy are silly to fully investigate such a cluster of accidents, I terms of time and place.
Look at the historic occurrences.. the hardline conservatives like Savage have been pushing terrorist attacks which I think are baseless.
If reports are true and the navy are looking into hacking possibilitis clearly it's not just silly.
Unlikely and their could well be a simple explanation but I don't think the navy are silly to fully investigate such a cluster of accidents, I terms of time and place.
1
In reply to Roadrunner5:
The timeline that you posted is definitely incomplete in that it doesn't include the USS Porter. There may well be others. In any case, even if there even if there is a cluster, that doesn't mean that a cluster of accidents with a more prosaic underlying cause isn't the overwhelmingly more likely explanation.
All they have said is that they would consider the possibility. That is a sensible attitude to take going into an investigation and the only thing that the could say under the circumstance. It is very different from saying that they are actively investigating the possibility or that it is an explanation that has any merit at all.
> Look at the historic occurrences.. the hardline conservatives like Savage have been pushing terrorist attacks which I think are baseless.
The timeline that you posted is definitely incomplete in that it doesn't include the USS Porter. There may well be others. In any case, even if there even if there is a cluster, that doesn't mean that a cluster of accidents with a more prosaic underlying cause isn't the overwhelmingly more likely explanation.
> If reports are true and the navy are looking into hacking possibilitis clearly it's not just silly.
All they have said is that they would consider the possibility. That is a sensible attitude to take going into an investigation and the only thing that the could say under the circumstance. It is very different from saying that they are actively investigating the possibility or that it is an explanation that has any merit at all.
In reply to Rob Naylor:
I do wonder how well 'stealth' naval craft and existing marine traffic will play together where radar is heavily used for collision avoidance. These don't appear to be state of the art 'stealth' vessels but presumably they carry and can employ some pretty sophisticated electronic countermeasures. I wonder if especially at times of heightened stress and in potentially hostile regions these ships aren't exactly where or perhaps the size they might appear on simple active radars?
Still, even with unreliable radar you do have to line up a few more unlikely seeming holes in the cheese to accidentally smash two ships together.
That or it's just a run of rotten luck.
jk
I do wonder how well 'stealth' naval craft and existing marine traffic will play together where radar is heavily used for collision avoidance. These don't appear to be state of the art 'stealth' vessels but presumably they carry and can employ some pretty sophisticated electronic countermeasures. I wonder if especially at times of heightened stress and in potentially hostile regions these ships aren't exactly where or perhaps the size they might appear on simple active radars?
Still, even with unreliable radar you do have to line up a few more unlikely seeming holes in the cheese to accidentally smash two ships together.
That or it's just a run of rotten luck.
jk
Post edited at 14:39
In reply to jkarran:
The one before happened miles off the coast.
I was playing golf with a very recently retired Canadian naval officer shortly after the Fitzgerald collision and he was amazed it could happen to a ship like that, ships he'd spent a few decades on.
He had no idea but predicted lots of high level jobs going and we're seeing that now.
It's an awful way to die. One of the young sailers was a student from the high school I taught at last year, 21-22 year old kid and friends with a lot of my ex students and colleagues. It just seems so avoidable, dying at war is one thing but the navy has had a terrible few months. A troop carrying plane crashed landing on an aircraft carrier killing 2-3 marines just last month too.
The one before happened miles off the coast.
I was playing golf with a very recently retired Canadian naval officer shortly after the Fitzgerald collision and he was amazed it could happen to a ship like that, ships he'd spent a few decades on.
He had no idea but predicted lots of high level jobs going and we're seeing that now.
It's an awful way to die. One of the young sailers was a student from the high school I taught at last year, 21-22 year old kid and friends with a lot of my ex students and colleagues. It just seems so avoidable, dying at war is one thing but the navy has had a terrible few months. A troop carrying plane crashed landing on an aircraft carrier killing 2-3 marines just last month too.
1
In reply to Roadrunner5:
It is silly to be taking it seriously as an explanation; even if it is a theoretical possibility. Given that steering and propulsion on these ships are direct mechanical linkages from the bridge (and that the bridge windows cannot be overridden by a computer), I'm not sure that it even counts as that.
For the most part, the argument seems to be that there is no way that the crew of a functioning warship could run into a large merchant vessel without some outside force acting. Given that exactly this has happened in the past, that argument falls at the first hurdle.
If this type of accident is becoming more common (and it may well be). Standards of training and seamanship are probably going to be the explanation. I guess we will have to wait for the investigation, but that certainly seems to be the case in the Fitzgerald collision.
Yes, I realise that you did. Sorry, not trying to paint you as a conspiracy theorist; I do understand the point you are making.
> So it's not silly..
It is silly to be taking it seriously as an explanation; even if it is a theoretical possibility. Given that steering and propulsion on these ships are direct mechanical linkages from the bridge (and that the bridge windows cannot be overridden by a computer), I'm not sure that it even counts as that.
For the most part, the argument seems to be that there is no way that the crew of a functioning warship could run into a large merchant vessel without some outside force acting. Given that exactly this has happened in the past, that argument falls at the first hurdle.
If this type of accident is becoming more common (and it may well be). Standards of training and seamanship are probably going to be the explanation. I guess we will have to wait for the investigation, but that certainly seems to be the case in the Fitzgerald collision.
> And I said it could be a random cluster..
Yes, I realise that you did. Sorry, not trying to paint you as a conspiracy theorist; I do understand the point you are making.
1
In reply to MarkJH:
Just listened the USS porter audio above - what utter chaos! If that's typical, I'm not surprised at these collisions.
Just listened the USS porter audio above - what utter chaos! If that's typical, I'm not surprised at these collisions.
1
1
In reply to MG:
MG, looking at the service records of the CO and XO of McCain (both coincidentally called Sanchez....and NO "dirty" comments thanks!) , both seem to have quite limited "at-sea" time, and of the time they did have at sea, very little of it was "bridge time". Not drawing any conclusions here, just making the point!
CDR Alfredo Sanchez. CO. Previously XO of McCain from April 2015 to July 2016 when he took over as CO. Two Department Head tours: USS Rentz (FFG-46) and USS Gettysburg (CG-64). Both as Chief Engineer (ie very little bridge time). Two Division Officer tours: USS Enterprise (CVN-65) as Third Division Officer and USS Bunker Hill (CG 52) as Damage Control Assistant. He attended the Naval War College, and obtained a Master of Arts Degree in National Security and Strategic Studies. He later served as the Aide to the Commander Navy Air and Missile Defense Command, Dahlgren, VA. Commander Sanchez most recently completed a tour on the Joint Staff as the Egypt Desk Officer in the Strategy and Policy (J5) Middle East directorate.
CDR Jess Sanchez, XO. Limited Duty Officer (Surface Ordnance). Enlisted billets onboard USS Belknap (CG-26) and USS Spruance (DD-963). Division Officer tours on USS Cowpens (CG-63) as System Test Officer and USS Halyburton (FFG-40) as Electronics Material Officer. Two Department Head tours on USS McCampbell (DDG-85) as Weapons Officer and then Combat Systems Officer. During his shore tours, he served as Commanding Officer for Mobile Mine Assembly Unit 10 in Okinawa, Officer-in-Charge of Navy Munitions Command East Asia Division Det. Okinawa, Officer-in-Charge of Center for Surface Combat Systems Det. Mayport, and Commanding Officer for Navy Operational Support Center in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Hmmm....Naval Ops Support in NEVADA!!! Must be something do to with Naval Aviation?). He holds an AAS in Electro-mechanical Technology, a BS in Liberal Arts, both from Excelsior College, and a MA in National Security and Strategic Studies from the Naval War College.
As I said above, neither of these guys seem to have had a lot of "Bridge time" on their CVs. People I know in the US navy say that sea time is actually looked down upon by many career naval officers and seen mainly as a necessary "ticket punch" en-route to flag rank rather than a naval officer's raison d'etre! Interesting too that although Alfredo Sanchez served 2 tours as Chief Engineer, he doesn't appear to have any Engineering (or indeed technical qualifications of any sort).
MG, looking at the service records of the CO and XO of McCain (both coincidentally called Sanchez....and NO "dirty" comments thanks!) , both seem to have quite limited "at-sea" time, and of the time they did have at sea, very little of it was "bridge time". Not drawing any conclusions here, just making the point!
CDR Alfredo Sanchez. CO. Previously XO of McCain from April 2015 to July 2016 when he took over as CO. Two Department Head tours: USS Rentz (FFG-46) and USS Gettysburg (CG-64). Both as Chief Engineer (ie very little bridge time). Two Division Officer tours: USS Enterprise (CVN-65) as Third Division Officer and USS Bunker Hill (CG 52) as Damage Control Assistant. He attended the Naval War College, and obtained a Master of Arts Degree in National Security and Strategic Studies. He later served as the Aide to the Commander Navy Air and Missile Defense Command, Dahlgren, VA. Commander Sanchez most recently completed a tour on the Joint Staff as the Egypt Desk Officer in the Strategy and Policy (J5) Middle East directorate.
CDR Jess Sanchez, XO. Limited Duty Officer (Surface Ordnance). Enlisted billets onboard USS Belknap (CG-26) and USS Spruance (DD-963). Division Officer tours on USS Cowpens (CG-63) as System Test Officer and USS Halyburton (FFG-40) as Electronics Material Officer. Two Department Head tours on USS McCampbell (DDG-85) as Weapons Officer and then Combat Systems Officer. During his shore tours, he served as Commanding Officer for Mobile Mine Assembly Unit 10 in Okinawa, Officer-in-Charge of Navy Munitions Command East Asia Division Det. Okinawa, Officer-in-Charge of Center for Surface Combat Systems Det. Mayport, and Commanding Officer for Navy Operational Support Center in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Hmmm....Naval Ops Support in NEVADA!!! Must be something do to with Naval Aviation?). He holds an AAS in Electro-mechanical Technology, a BS in Liberal Arts, both from Excelsior College, and a MA in National Security and Strategic Studies from the Naval War College.
As I said above, neither of these guys seem to have had a lot of "Bridge time" on their CVs. People I know in the US navy say that sea time is actually looked down upon by many career naval officers and seen mainly as a necessary "ticket punch" en-route to flag rank rather than a naval officer's raison d'etre! Interesting too that although Alfredo Sanchez served 2 tours as Chief Engineer, he doesn't appear to have any Engineering (or indeed technical qualifications of any sort).
Post edited at 10:03
2
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Fri Night Vid Finding Focus - Life Behind The Lens of a Climbing Photographer
This week's Friday Night Video is a portrait of a prolific climbing photographer from Wedge Climbing. Sam Pratt is well known in both the outdoor and competition scene but if you haven't heard of him, you've likely seen...
26 Apr
Loading Notifications...