Peak Oil News and Message Boards

pstarr wrote:

vtsnowedin wrote:

pstarr wrote:Here we have a multi-million-dollar state-of-art battle ship driving in around circles . .

Get your terminology correct. The USS John McCain -DDG-56 is a destroyer not a battle ship.
A battle ship like the USS Missouri (BB-63) had a crew of 2700 and displaced 57,450 tons of water while the McCain has a crew of 281 and displaces just 8885 tons.
Crew moral is no excuse for what happened here or with the Fitzgerald.

I was aware as I wrote the post that a prissy such as yourself would jump on that technical detail. There is a spelling (not to mention a grammatical difference) between the the noun battleship and the modifier noun combination battle ship.

Not an excuse but an explanation. The gross incompetence will continue as long as the mission is suspect.

A 48,000 ton difference is not a technicality or a grammar error.
When calling other vessels by radio they both identify themselves as US War-ships. In that usage size doesn't matter and as both carry cruise missiles one is just as able to wage war as the other.
But again being sent out on suspect mission does not create incompetence and certainly does not excuse it.
Edit to add:
You calling me prissy is the biggest laugh I've had this week.

Battleships have been mothballed for decades. Last time one was used in war was in 1991.

Edwin,

I have a theory about what happened. Without going into all the evidence and my logic I think the McCain was running dark very close to the lead vessel, Team Oslo, trying to get into Singapore without being detected on the Vessle Traffic radar. She lost steerage and went broadside across the bows of the Alnico. Wham!

We will see if that holds up. Not a lot of support for it from others following closely, but they don't have any better ideas. Everyone is just mystified including professional Captians, exNavy officers, and professional marine accident investigators.

What would be the purpose of arriving undetected into port? Its not like you are going to hide a US warship tied up at the dock.

Cog wrote:What would be the purpose of arriving undetected into port? Its not like you are going to hide a US warship tied up at the dock.

The purpose wold be to go undetected "at will" not just approaching a port. The fear today is that an enemy will launch swarms of drones at our ships and they need targeting information to guide them. the best defense is to go undetected.
Why that negates a lookout on the bridge and the man at the wheel having a window looking forward is the question.

I understand doing so in time of war but we aren't at war. Right now the biggest threat to our ships are their own crew. Want to practice going stealthy, go do it out in the middle of the ocean not in the shipping lanes. Right now, I would bathe the ship in lights and send up fireworks so people know I'm around.

Cog wrote:I understand doing so in time of war but we aren't at war. Right now the biggest threat to our ships are their own crew. Want to practice going stealthy, go do it out in the middle of the ocean not in the shipping lanes. Right now, I would bathe the ship in lights and send up fireworks so people know I'm around.

If you don't constantly prepare for war you will be unprepared for it when it comes. You must train and drill and drill using conditions as close to wartime conditions as possible so lights and fireworks are out of the question. In the middle of a busy shipping lane on the other hand was a poor command choice at first glance but if you end up at war in say the strait or Hormuz you will have to fight in one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world with your enemies coast within sight to your north.
It will be interesting to see what they say if anything about what they were doing exactly but the real question remains why did they fail at what ever it was so badly?

I'm quite familiar with training as if you are going to war. If you are killing your people due to negligence, you aren't doing the training right. The 7th fleet has a systemic problem somewhere in what they are doing. All training involves some level of risk. Helicopters crash, cables break, rounds get fired out of a safe area. There is simply no excuse for this level of incompetence.

It has been said that Rommel when asked why the Germans were being push back by the allied forces said. "Battle is chaos and the Americans practice chaos every day".

I lost the link but today's NY Times has an article where an admiral is saying the root cause is the why keeps shrinking but they have to keep more deployments so they are relaxing maintenance and personnel certification standards.

Sounds like they are saying "we need more money".

Also sounds like a fair amount of BS, if the crews are on long deployments then they should be well versed in seamanship.

Newfie wrote:I lost the link but today's NY Times has an article where an admiral is saying the root cause is the why keeps shrinking but they have to keep more deployments so they are relaxing maintenance and personnel certification standards.

Sounds like they are saying "we need more money".

Also sounds like a fair amount of BS, if the crews are on long deployments then they should be well versed in seamanship.

I quite agree on that being BS. There is no excuse for what happened here.

This does not involve any military vessels, but there has been another collision off Singapore.

Five sailors are missing after two ships collided in the waters off Singapore, port authorities have said.

The collision took place between an Indonesian-registered tanker and a Dominican-registered dredger.

A total of 12 crew - 11 Chinese nationals and one Malaysian - were onboard the dredger. Seven of the Chinese nationals have been rescued and taken to hospital.

The tanker's 26 Indonesian crew members were not injured.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41250150