Page 5 of 5

Re: USS Fitzgerald collision

Unread postPosted: Sun 20 May 2018, 08:11:58
by Tanada
Newfie wrote:Tanada,

While all you say is true it misses the point.

That point being that the vessel was not maintained in a sea worthy state, broken equipment. It’s Captain and deck crew did not understand or adhere the fundamentals of navigation, more than doubling the normal speed and not obeying sea lanes. Standard operating procedures denied it the ability to use its most valuable asset in those conditions, not turning on AIS. The crew was over worked and fatigued, routine 20 hour wordays.

The design and intent of the AB is not in question. The point is that these expensive and complex pieces of equipment are being allowed to degrade through persistent long term equipment failure and the crew is not diligent and the command structure has not effect adequate management to correct these wrongs.

It’s not the ship; it’s the management. Appearances are they are only successful in set piece engagements in a no threat situation.

Unfortunately once can look across the Navy and find other similar incidents of mismanagement, particularly in procurement. But the other two AB incidents had similar characeristics. Broken or misused or unused systems, incompent staff, and failed procedures.

In short, the Navy is a mess, an expensive mess.

Indeed, much like the nearly worshiped President Carter the recently departed President Obama did not like the military and funding was at unprecedented lows for seven of his eight years in office. The Carriers were reporting in 2016 to have squadrons of aircraft at half strength for lack of spare parts and even training missions were severely curtailed. It wasn't just the navy or just the aircraft either, the US Army has a lot of expensive equipment that also lacked spare parts and don't even look at the USAF unless you want to get really ticked off. Twice in modern history the US Military qualified for its spouses and children to receive food assistance, care to guess which times that was?

If you are going to blame leadership you have to do a top down review, not bottom up. Poor leadership at the top is like rot, it spreads down layer by layer until the whole organization is listless and dying, or at least ineffective.

Re: USS Fitzgerald collision

Unread postPosted: Sun 20 May 2018, 08:59:02
by Newfie

That’s not a partisan statement, I feel our entire governmental structure has become corrupt.

Re: USS Fitzgerald collision

Unread postPosted: Sun 20 May 2018, 09:13:15
by KaiserJeep
You failed to give Clinton credit for his role. He laid off slightly more than one million of our military during his two terms, the largest decrease in US military strength since WW2. He called it the "Peace Dividend", and the money was all consumed - and then some - by a huge bump in "entitlements", enough so that Federal employment actually increased in spite of the million troop drawdown.

Carter and Clinton between them laid the groundwork for what we call "The Arab Spring", which fundamentally is a civil conflict between sectarian and non-sectarian groups in the ME. However, some people - including me - also believe it precipitated 9/11/2001.

On the positive side, Clinton briefly balanced the Federal budget. But many people, including me, believe that if NATO had remained stronger after the Cold War ended, we would have a different and more peaceful world today. Others do not believe that a strong military results in peace. It is the fundamentally akin to the gun control debate, at a national level versus a personal level.

Arguably, the two most transformative periods of the 20th Century were the post-WW2 period of the Cold War, which ushered in the Digital Age, and the Digital Age itself, at the tail end of the 20th Century, which spawned the early 21st Centrury cultural hybridization of man and mobile networked digital devices.

I recognize that my grandkids, who are being raised in a digital household, will be very different from their parents, our own kids. I believe that I and my kid will be astonished at the level of change, as were my parents, when their own kids - us - were transformed by multiple channels of broadcast television. My parents in turn were very different from their parents, who saw the pre-WW2 USA transform itself from a mostly rural world to an urban/suburban one.

Being an eternal optimist, I also believe that our technology will be our salvation in the end. I know some of you think that a new Dark Ages is being spawned by the end of cheap FF energy.

I very much prefer my version.

Re: USS Fitzgerald collision

Unread postPosted: Sun 20 May 2018, 14:05:46
by Outcast_Searcher
KaiserJeep wrote:Being an eternal optimist, I also believe that our technology will be our salvation in the end. I know some of you think that a new Dark Ages is being spawned by the end of cheap FF energy.

I very much prefer my version.

I continue to believe in the more moderate course as the likely outcome for the next 50 years or so. Technology will DEFINITELY make things very different. So different people, and different problems. But instead of being our "salvation", I think technology just skews things. Short term thinking persists and big problems, with plenty of can kicking as a "strategy" don't get solved, and are barely mitigated. Continued BAU growth continues to be a great detriment as far as solving fundamental problems, but it doesn't cause economic doom either -- which is a real testament to how well technology helps us mitigate problems.

It's a shame, but we weren't fundamentally evolved to think about long term problems, much less solve them. It's like flamingos. The one who ponders "why is everyone running?" instead of quickly running with the herd is the one who gets eaten, and then his/her genes aren't propagated. Speed and intuition is selected over thoughtfulness. That could change for humans in many thousands of years, but some big problems likely become intractable LONG before then.

Re: USS Fitzgerald collision

Unread postPosted: Sun 20 May 2018, 18:31:11
by Newfie
You might gut like this, I’m working my way through his stuff. ... -prob.html

Re: USS Fitzgerald collision

Unread postPosted: Tue 22 May 2018, 07:03:24
by Newfie

Re: USS Fitzgerald collision

Unread postPosted: Wed 06 Feb 2019, 20:48:54
by Newfie
More info and report about the destroyer collisions has been released. It ain’t pretty. They administered “rules of the road” test to bridge crew, almost all failed, including skipper. They tested another similar ship not involved in the collision and got similar results.

The reports describe a navy that is in total breakdown. Radar operators can’t operate the radars. Pissing matches between officers. Lack of general tidyness. Everything is lackadaisical. Better hope we don’t get into a war, we could have our ass handed to us. They could not get the radar to lock onto a huge slow moving target close by. The AIS computer had issues so it was stored. This is a complete joke. ... -collision

USS Fitzgerald Crash: No Physical Lookouts on Right Side of Ship Where Collision Happened

( - "The sky was dark, the moon was relatively bright" on the night of June 17, when the USS Fitzgerald, a Navy destroyer, collided with a Phillipines-flagged container ship in the waters off Japan.

That's according to the U.S. Navy, which on Tuesday released its report on both the Fitzgerald and the USS McCain collisions at sea.

Seven sailors died on the Fitzgerald, and collision of the USS McCain with a Libyan-flagged oil tanker two months later killed ten more sailors.

Both crashes were avoidable, the Navy concluded, and stemmed from failure to follow international nautical rules as well as various knowledge, training, and leadership deficiencies.

One glaring omission on the Fitzgerald:

“Watchstanders performing physical lookout duties did so only on Fitzgerald’s left (port) side, not on the right (starboard) side where the three ships were present with risk of collision.”

The container ship slammed into the Fitzgerald’s starboard side.

In general, the Navy noted that the commanding officer has “absolute” responsibility for his or her ship. “Many of the decisions made that led to this incident were the result of poor judgment and decision making of the Commanding Officer,” the report said, adding that “no single person bears full responsibility for this incident.”

The report said Fitzgerald officers “possessed an unsatisfactory level of knowledge of the International Rules of the Nautical Road,” and “watch team members were not familiar with basic radar fundamentals, impeding effective use.”


-- Fitzgerald was not operated at a safe speed appropriate to the number of other ships in the immediate vicinity.

-- Fitzgerald failed to maneuver early as required with risk of collision present.

-- Fitzgerald failed to notify other ships of danger and to take proper action in extremis.

-- Watch team members responsible for radar operations failed to

properly tune and adjust radars to maintain an accurate picture of other ships in the area.

-- Watchstanders performing physical lookout duties did so only on

Fitzgerald’s left (port) side, not on the right (starboard) side where the three ships were present with risk of collision.

-- Key supervisors were unaware of existing traffic separation schemes and the expected flow of traffic.

-- Supervisors did not utilize the Automated Identification System, which provides real time updates of commercial ship positions through use of the Global Positioning System.

The report also found problems with “leadership and culture,” including ineffective communication and information-sharing between the bridge team and Combat Information Center team.

(The Combat Information Center is where equipment and personnel combine to produce the most accurate picture of the operating environment.)

Among other things, the Officer of the Deck, responsible for the safe navigation of the Fitzgerald, did not call the Commanding Officer on multiple occasions when required by Navy procedures.

In several instances, individual members of the watch teams identified incorrect information or mistakes by others, yet failed to proactively and forcefully take corrective action, or otherwise highlight or communicate their individual concerns.

The report also faulted the command leadership for allowing the crew to become fatigued.

USS John S McCain

The USS John McCain’s collision with and oil and chemical tanker in the Straits of Singapore on August 21 is blamed on three things:

-- Loss of situational awareness in response to mistakes in the operation of the steering and propulsion system;

-- Failure to follow the International Nautical Rules of the Road, a system of rules to govern the maneuvering of vessels when risk of collision is present.

-- Watchstanders operating the ship’s steering and propulsion systems had insufficient proficiency and knowledge of the systems.

Among other findings, the report noted that if the USS John S McCain “had sounded five short blasts” of its horn or made bridge-to-bridge contact with the tanker in a timely manner, a collision might not have occurred.

Also, “principal watchstanders, including the Officer of the Deck, in charge of the safety of the ship, and the Conning Officer on watch at the time of the collision did not attend the Navigation Brief the afternoon prior. The brief is designed to provide maximum awareness of the risks involved in a congested area that required a higher state of readiness.

Re: USS Fitzgerald collision

Unread postPosted: Fri 12 Apr 2019, 17:36:41
by Newfie
Seems the Navy can’t do much right at any level. ... stigation/

Richardson made investigating the accidents involving the Fitzgerald and the McCain a primary focus of his command of the Navy. He ordered multiple, in-depth examinations of the incidents. He promulgated reforms designed to put more sailors on ships based overseas and increase training in basic navigation skills.

But his pursuit of accountability for individual sailors has been deeply troubled, and the prosecutions of the men and women on the two destroyers are today in shambles. Indeed, Richardson, who holds the most senior uniformed position in the Navy, was found by a judge to have violated the protections against undue command influence, a stunning result in one of the most high-profile cases of military justice in years.

A ProPublica examination of the cases based on confidential Navy documents, emails among top officials, court records and interviews shows that the criminal prosecutions of the accidents involving the Fitzgerald and the McCain were marred by questionable decisions and egregious mistakes.

Late Wednesday, after ProPublica informed the Navy of its findings, the Navy told families of the fallen sailors that Richardson will announce that he is dismissing the cases against the captain of the Fitzgerald and a junior officer. Instead, both will receive letters of censure from Richard Spencer, the secretary of the Navy, a public finding of wrongdoing.

Re: USS Fitzgerald collision

Unread postPosted: Tue 06 Aug 2019, 16:39:21
by Newfie
NTSB came out with their report in the McCain collision.

The NTSB determined the probable cause of the collision was a lack of effective operational oversight of the destroyer by the U.S. Navy, which resulted in insufficient training and inadequate bridge operating procedures. Contributing to the accident were the John S McCain bridge team’s loss of situation awareness and failure to follow loss of steering emergency procedures, including the requirement to inform nearby vessel traffic of their perceived loss of steering.

That puts the root cause in Navy Brass with bridge personnel making “CONTRIBUTING” errors.

If it’s on the Navy Brass then it is a systemic issue, not just a ship, or a class-it’s the Navy.

Not an easy or quick fix.

Re: USS Fitzgerald collision

Unread postPosted: Sun 11 Aug 2019, 09:34:12
by Newfie ... tain-says/

By Samson Ellis and Adela Lin (Bloomberg) –The Taiwanese coast guard intervened to end an hour-long standoff between a freighter and an unidentified Chinese warship after the two vessels collided in the contested Taiwan Strait last week.

The Taiwanese-registered bulk carrier Yutai No. 1 collided with a Chinese naval vessel around 20 nautical miles southeast of Taiwan-controlled Kinmen Island late on July 31, Fu Shih-hour, the cargo ship’s captain, told Bloomberg News on Tuesday. Fu said he had called the Taiwanese coast guard for assistance after the captain of the Chinese warship tried to persuade him to divert to the mainland port of Xiamen.