| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Destroyer/Container ship collision
Saw the pictures of the USS Fitzgerald and the merchant container ship that were involved in a collision. The bow of the merchant ship obviously hit the destroyer on it's starboard side. Maritime rules say (if memory serves) a powered vessel crossing from right to left is the "stand on" vessel and the other is the "give way" vessel and is required to turn to starboard and pass astern of the other, stop or take other evasive action to avoid a collision. National Maritime College Rule: "When two power-driven vessels are in crossing situation on a collision course, give way to the vessel to starboard (right).The give way vessel must take early and obvious action to avoid a collision by either stopping or altering course to starboard." Based on the damage to the merchant ship's bow and the damage to the destroyer's starboard side, it appears the destroyer tried to cut across the bow of the merchant ship. There may have been other factors obviously, like other vessels in the area. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 2:01:54 PM UTC-7, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Saw the pictures of the USS Fitzgerald and the merchant container ship that were involved in a collision. The bow of the merchant ship obviously hit the destroyer on it's starboard side. Maritime rules say (if memory serves) a powered vessel crossing from right to left is the "stand on" vessel and the other is the "give way" vessel and is required to turn to starboard and pass astern of the other, stop or take other evasive action to avoid a collision. National Maritime College Rule: "When two power-driven vessels are in crossing situation on a collision course, give way to the vessel to starboard (right).The give way vessel must take early and obvious action to avoid a collision by either stopping or altering course to starboard." Based on the damage to the merchant ship's bow and the damage to the destroyer's starboard side, it appears the destroyer tried to cut across the bow of the merchant ship. There may have been other factors obviously, like other vessels in the area. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com Looking at the damage to the container ship on the port bow thats what it seems to be. AIS says it was doing 17+ knots when it happened. Captains quarters are always on the starboard side, and I'm gonna guess thats where he was when it occured, and why he was medivaced as well. Prayers to those missing. |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 17:01:29 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: Saw the pictures of the USS Fitzgerald and the merchant container ship that were involved in a collision. The bow of the merchant ship obviously hit the destroyer on it's starboard side. Maritime rules say (if memory serves) a powered vessel crossing from right to left is the "stand on" vessel and the other is the "give way" vessel and is required to turn to starboard and pass astern of the other, stop or take other evasive action to avoid a collision. National Maritime College Rule: "When two power-driven vessels are in crossing situation on a collision course, give way to the vessel to starboard (right).The give way vessel must take early and obvious action to avoid a collision by either stopping or altering course to starboard." Based on the damage to the merchant ship's bow and the damage to the destroyer's starboard side, it appears the destroyer tried to cut across the bow of the merchant ship. There may have been other factors obviously, like other vessels in the area. Any time you have damage on your starboard side the question of burdened vessel might come up. Was the freighter overtaking? This certainly looks like a 90 degree shot tho, not a glancing blow. |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 17:01:29 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Saw the pictures of the USS Fitzgerald and the merchant container ship that were involved in a collision. The bow of the merchant ship obviously hit the destroyer on it's starboard side. Maritime rules say (if memory serves) a powered vessel crossing from right to left is the "stand on" vessel and the other is the "give way" vessel and is required to turn to starboard and pass astern of the other, stop or take other evasive action to avoid a collision. National Maritime College Rule: "When two power-driven vessels are in crossing situation on a collision course, give way to the vessel to starboard (right).The give way vessel must take early and obvious action to avoid a collision by either stopping or altering course to starboard." Based on the damage to the merchant ship's bow and the damage to the destroyer's starboard side, it appears the destroyer tried to cut across the bow of the merchant ship. There may have been other factors obviously, like other vessels in the area. Any time you have damage on your starboard side the question of burdened vessel might come up. Was the freighter overtaking? This certainly looks like a 90 degree shot tho, not a glancing blow. Looked like an angle shot as the container ship bow is not caved in, but the front near the anchor is tore up. |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
On 6/18/2017 1:37 AM, Bill wrote:
wrote: On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 17:01:29 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Saw the pictures of the USS Fitzgerald and the merchant container ship that were involved in a collision. The bow of the merchant ship obviously hit the destroyer on it's starboard side. Maritime rules say (if memory serves) a powered vessel crossing from right to left is the "stand on" vessel and the other is the "give way" vessel and is required to turn to starboard and pass astern of the other, stop or take other evasive action to avoid a collision. National Maritime College Rule: "When two power-driven vessels are in crossing situation on a collision course, give way to the vessel to starboard (right).The give way vessel must take early and obvious action to avoid a collision by either stopping or altering course to starboard." Based on the damage to the merchant ship's bow and the damage to the destroyer's starboard side, it appears the destroyer tried to cut across the bow of the merchant ship. There may have been other factors obviously, like other vessels in the area. Any time you have damage on your starboard side the question of burdened vessel might come up. Was the freighter overtaking? This certainly looks like a 90 degree shot tho, not a glancing blow. Looked like an angle shot as the container ship bow is not caved in, but the front near the anchor is tore up. Sadly, they found the missing sailors dead in their flooded berthing compartment. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
On 6/18/17 7:06 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/18/2017 1:37 AM, Bill wrote: wrote: On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 17:01:29 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Saw the pictures of the USS Fitzgerald and the merchant container ship that were involved in a collision. The bow of the merchant ship obviously hit the destroyer on it's starboard side. Maritime rules say (if memory serves) a powered vessel crossing from right to left is the "stand on" vessel and the other is the "give way" vessel and is required to turn to starboard and pass astern of the other, stop or take other evasive action to avoid a collision. National Maritime College Rule: "When two power-driven vessels are in crossing situation on a collision course, give way to the vessel to starboard (right).The give way vessel must take early and obvious action to avoid a collision by either stopping or altering course to starboard." Based on the damage to the merchant ship's bow and the damage to the destroyer's starboard side, it appears the destroyer tried to cut across the bow of the merchant ship. There may have been other factors obviously, like other vessels in the area. Any time you have damage on your starboard side the question of burdened vessel might come up. Was the freighter overtaking? This certainly looks like a 90 degree shot tho, not a glancing blow. Looked like an angle shot as the container ship bow is not caved in, but the front near the anchor is tore up. Sadly, they found the missing sailors dead in their flooded berthing compartment. This is really sad...the assumption is the guys were asleep in their bunks when the collision happened? The inquiry should be interesting. I would have thought a modern warship would be able to sustain a heavy hit like it took without being so seriously damaged. |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
On 6/18/2017 8:20 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/18/17 7:06 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/18/2017 1:37 AM, Bill wrote: wrote: On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 17:01:29 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Saw the pictures of the USS Fitzgerald and the merchant container ship that were involved in a collision. The bow of the merchant ship obviously hit the destroyer on it's starboard side. Maritime rules say (if memory serves) a powered vessel crossing from right to left is the "stand on" vessel and the other is the "give way" vessel and is required to turn to starboard and pass astern of the other, stop or take other evasive action to avoid a collision. National Maritime College Rule: "When two power-driven vessels are in crossing situation on a collision course, give way to the vessel to starboard (right).The give way vessel must take early and obvious action to avoid a collision by either stopping or altering course to starboard." Based on the damage to the merchant ship's bow and the damage to the destroyer's starboard side, it appears the destroyer tried to cut across the bow of the merchant ship. There may have been other factors obviously, like other vessels in the area. Any time you have damage on your starboard side the question of burdened vessel might come up. Was the freighter overtaking? This certainly looks like a 90 degree shot tho, not a glancing blow. Looked like an angle shot as the container ship bow is not caved in, but the front near the anchor is tore up. Sadly, they found the missing sailors dead in their flooded berthing compartment. This is really sad...the assumption is the guys were asleep in their bunks when the collision happened? The inquiry should be interesting. I would have thought a modern warship would be able to sustain a heavy hit like it took without being so seriously damaged. It's amazing that the destroyer wasn't cut in half. The merchant container ship displaces 29,000 tons empty (without cargo) and was heavily loaded making it's displacement closer to 45,000 - 50,000 tons. The USS Fitzgerald only displaces a little over 8,000 tons. The merchant container ship was reportedly traveling at 12-15 knots as well. That's a lot of inertial force. Energy equals mass x velocity squared according to some famous genius. It was only due to the damage control training of the Navy sailors that kept the destroyer afloat. They fought the threat of sinking for over 16 hours. My daughter has a girlfriend who's son is serving on the USS Fitzgerald. We are all saddened by the loss of life but are hopeful he wasn't involved or hurt. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 08:20:45 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote: . I would have thought a modern warship would be able to sustain a heavy hit like it took without being so seriously damaged. The days of the armor clad dreadnought are gone. Ships are light and fast. Like Richard says, this was a sports car getting hit by a semi. It is amazing it did not sustain more damage. There was still something strange going on here to have this kind of crash. The plot I saw showed some unusual maneuvers but it was unclear if that was before or after the accident. |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
On 6/18/2017 10:37 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 08:20:45 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: . I would have thought a modern warship would be able to sustain a heavy hit like it took without being so seriously damaged. The days of the armor clad dreadnought are gone. Ships are light and fast. Like Richard says, this was a sports car getting hit by a semi. It is amazing it did not sustain more damage. There was still something strange going on here to have this kind of crash. The plot I saw showed some unusual maneuvers but it was unclear if that was before or after the accident. I still think there was a junior officer who had the conn on the bridge and he/she screwed up. The Navy has already acknowledged "human error". --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 11:45:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 6/18/2017 10:37 AM, wrote: On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 08:20:45 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: . I would have thought a modern warship would be able to sustain a heavy hit like it took without being so seriously damaged. The days of the armor clad dreadnought are gone. Ships are light and fast. Like Richard says, this was a sports car getting hit by a semi. It is amazing it did not sustain more damage. There was still something strange going on here to have this kind of crash. The plot I saw showed some unusual maneuvers but it was unclear if that was before or after the accident. I still think there was a junior officer who had the conn on the bridge and he/she screwed up. The Navy has already acknowledged "human error". Yup I agree. The OD was probably on the bridge and the rumor is the captain was in his quarters, right where the topside damage occurred. I doubt most people understand how seldom the captain actually has the "con". In the CG the quartermaster and a couple guys on the deck watch were actually driving the ship. The OD was somewhere nearby and the captain was wandering around or in his quarters most of the time. In the North Atlantic we could go weeks without ever seeing another ship so this kind of thing was not in the offing. When we were maneuvering around Norfolk, everyone was wide awake and the captain was on the bridge. |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 12:40:33 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 11:45:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/18/2017 10:37 AM, wrote: On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 08:20:45 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: . I would have thought a modern warship would be able to sustain a heavy hit like it took without being so seriously damaged. The days of the armor clad dreadnought are gone. Ships are light and fast. Like Richard says, this was a sports car getting hit by a semi. It is amazing it did not sustain more damage. There was still something strange going on here to have this kind of crash. The plot I saw showed some unusual maneuvers but it was unclear if that was before or after the accident. I still think there was a junior officer who had the conn on the bridge and he/she screwed up. The Navy has already acknowledged "human error". Yup I agree. The OD was probably on the bridge and the rumor is the captain was in his quarters, right where the topside damage occurred. I doubt most people understand how seldom the captain actually has the "con". In the CG the quartermaster and a couple guys on the deck watch were actually driving the ship. The OD was somewhere nearby and the captain was wandering around or in his quarters most of the time. In the North Atlantic we could go weeks without ever seeing another ship so this kind of thing was not in the offing. When we were maneuvering around Norfolk, everyone was wide awake and the captain was on the bridge. === One of the scarriest things I've ever done was to come in off the ocean to Norfolk harbor in the middle of the night. The amount of big ship traffic is incredible, and the shore lights are bright enough to obscure most of the nav lights on both ships and nav aids. It was mostly flying blind on radar and the GPS plotter all the way. It boggles my mind how that destroyer could have let the container ship get that close. We have good radar on our trawler but it is nothing compared to what the navy has. We would typically pick up a boat that size 15 miles away and start tracking the point of closest approach (CPA). Any CPA less than a mile gets my undivided attention until resolved. |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
On 6/18/2017 3:33 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 12:40:33 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 11:45:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/18/2017 10:37 AM, wrote: On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 08:20:45 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: . I would have thought a modern warship would be able to sustain a heavy hit like it took without being so seriously damaged. The days of the armor clad dreadnought are gone. Ships are light and fast. Like Richard says, this was a sports car getting hit by a semi. It is amazing it did not sustain more damage. There was still something strange going on here to have this kind of crash. The plot I saw showed some unusual maneuvers but it was unclear if that was before or after the accident. I still think there was a junior officer who had the conn on the bridge and he/she screwed up. The Navy has already acknowledged "human error". Yup I agree. The OD was probably on the bridge and the rumor is the captain was in his quarters, right where the topside damage occurred. I doubt most people understand how seldom the captain actually has the "con". In the CG the quartermaster and a couple guys on the deck watch were actually driving the ship. The OD was somewhere nearby and the captain was wandering around or in his quarters most of the time. In the North Atlantic we could go weeks without ever seeing another ship so this kind of thing was not in the offing. When we were maneuvering around Norfolk, everyone was wide awake and the captain was on the bridge. === One of the scarriest things I've ever done was to come in off the ocean to Norfolk harbor in the middle of the night. The amount of big ship traffic is incredible, and the shore lights are bright enough to obscure most of the nav lights on both ships and nav aids. It was mostly flying blind on radar and the GPS plotter all the way. It boggles my mind how that destroyer could have let the container ship get that close. We have good radar on our trawler but it is nothing compared to what the navy has. We would typically pick up a boat that size 15 miles away and start tracking the point of closest approach (CPA). Any CPA less than a mile gets my undivided attention until resolved. Worst experience I had was on the Egg Harbor. I took a bunch of guys out cod fishing to my "secret" spot which is 32 miles out from Scituate Harbor, pretty much in the main shipping lane going into Boston. On clear days it's no problem drift fishing there but on this particular day it fogged up suddenly and visibility was down to about 20 feet in front of the bow. I started heading back to Scituate ... slowly ... and my brother helped monitor the radar. On two occasions we approached traffic crossing in front of us, some from port and some from starboard. I knew the ColRegs but you can't assume the operator of the other vessel knows or obeys them so you have to be very careful. I don't like navigating in heavy fog like that. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 15:33:36 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 12:40:33 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 11:45:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/18/2017 10:37 AM, wrote: On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 08:20:45 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: . I would have thought a modern warship would be able to sustain a heavy hit like it took without being so seriously damaged. The days of the armor clad dreadnought are gone. Ships are light and fast. Like Richard says, this was a sports car getting hit by a semi. It is amazing it did not sustain more damage. There was still something strange going on here to have this kind of crash. The plot I saw showed some unusual maneuvers but it was unclear if that was before or after the accident. I still think there was a junior officer who had the conn on the bridge and he/she screwed up. The Navy has already acknowledged "human error". Yup I agree. The OD was probably on the bridge and the rumor is the captain was in his quarters, right where the topside damage occurred. I doubt most people understand how seldom the captain actually has the "con". In the CG the quartermaster and a couple guys on the deck watch were actually driving the ship. The OD was somewhere nearby and the captain was wandering around or in his quarters most of the time. In the North Atlantic we could go weeks without ever seeing another ship so this kind of thing was not in the offing. When we were maneuvering around Norfolk, everyone was wide awake and the captain was on the bridge. === One of the scarriest things I've ever done was to come in off the ocean to Norfolk harbor in the middle of the night. The amount of big ship traffic is incredible, and the shore lights are bright enough to obscure most of the nav lights on both ships and nav aids. It was mostly flying blind on radar and the GPS plotter all the way. It boggles my mind how that destroyer could have let the container ship get that close. We have good radar on our trawler but it is nothing compared to what the navy has. We would typically pick up a boat that size 15 miles away and start tracking the point of closest approach (CPA). Any CPA less than a mile gets my undivided attention until resolved. One of the guys on the real boat board is analysing the track of the freighter and says it looks like it was on autopilot at the time of the crash and they may not have actually gone back to manual control for 15 or 20 minutes. There may not have been anyone on the bridge. The track from AIS is all over the internet right now and the supposition is the erratic movement was after the crash but there is some discrepancy about when the crash happened. It seems everyone is being pretty quiet about this right now. There is a black box on that ship and the navy should have accurate logs so somebody knows exactly what happened. |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 16:24:24 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 6/18/2017 3:33 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 12:40:33 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 11:45:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/18/2017 10:37 AM, wrote: On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 08:20:45 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: . I would have thought a modern warship would be able to sustain a heavy hit like it took without being so seriously damaged. The days of the armor clad dreadnought are gone. Ships are light and fast. Like Richard says, this was a sports car getting hit by a semi. It is amazing it did not sustain more damage. There was still something strange going on here to have this kind of crash. The plot I saw showed some unusual maneuvers but it was unclear if that was before or after the accident. I still think there was a junior officer who had the conn on the bridge and he/she screwed up. The Navy has already acknowledged "human error". Yup I agree. The OD was probably on the bridge and the rumor is the captain was in his quarters, right where the topside damage occurred. I doubt most people understand how seldom the captain actually has the "con". In the CG the quartermaster and a couple guys on the deck watch were actually driving the ship. The OD was somewhere nearby and the captain was wandering around or in his quarters most of the time. In the North Atlantic we could go weeks without ever seeing another ship so this kind of thing was not in the offing. When we were maneuvering around Norfolk, everyone was wide awake and the captain was on the bridge. === One of the scarriest things I've ever done was to come in off the ocean to Norfolk harbor in the middle of the night. The amount of big ship traffic is incredible, and the shore lights are bright enough to obscure most of the nav lights on both ships and nav aids. It was mostly flying blind on radar and the GPS plotter all the way. It boggles my mind how that destroyer could have let the container ship get that close. We have good radar on our trawler but it is nothing compared to what the navy has. We would typically pick up a boat that size 15 miles away and start tracking the point of closest approach (CPA). Any CPA less than a mile gets my undivided attention until resolved. Worst experience I had was on the Egg Harbor. I took a bunch of guys out cod fishing to my "secret" spot which is 32 miles out from Scituate Harbor, pretty much in the main shipping lane going into Boston. On clear days it's no problem drift fishing there but on this particular day it fogged up suddenly and visibility was down to about 20 feet in front of the bow. I started heading back to Scituate ... slowly ... and my brother helped monitor the radar. On two occasions we approached traffic crossing in front of us, some from port and some from starboard. I knew the ColRegs but you can't assume the operator of the other vessel knows or obeys them so you have to be very careful. I don't like navigating in heavy fog like that. === It takes a lot of practice with radar to get even halfway comfortable with using it as a substitute for good visibility. And then you go through a period of time when you question whether or not the radar is correct when there is some discrepency between what you think you are seeing with your eyes and what the radar is reporting. It's not a slam dunk. The latest thing in electronic nav aids is something called AIS which is like an electronic transponder that constantly reports a ships position, speed and course. It's a big help with sorting out complex situations and also gives you the ships name, size and destination. We've seen a lot of military vessels that do not broadcast an AIS position however for fairly obvious reasons. That could have been a factor in the collision if the destroyer was not broadcasting and the crew of the containership were overly reliant on AIS. |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
On 6/18/2017 4:38 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 15:33:36 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 12:40:33 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 11:45:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/18/2017 10:37 AM, wrote: On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 08:20:45 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: . I would have thought a modern warship would be able to sustain a heavy hit like it took without being so seriously damaged. The days of the armor clad dreadnought are gone. Ships are light and fast. Like Richard says, this was a sports car getting hit by a semi. It is amazing it did not sustain more damage. There was still something strange going on here to have this kind of crash. The plot I saw showed some unusual maneuvers but it was unclear if that was before or after the accident. I still think there was a junior officer who had the conn on the bridge and he/she screwed up. The Navy has already acknowledged "human error". Yup I agree. The OD was probably on the bridge and the rumor is the captain was in his quarters, right where the topside damage occurred. I doubt most people understand how seldom the captain actually has the "con". In the CG the quartermaster and a couple guys on the deck watch were actually driving the ship. The OD was somewhere nearby and the captain was wandering around or in his quarters most of the time. In the North Atlantic we could go weeks without ever seeing another ship so this kind of thing was not in the offing. When we were maneuvering around Norfolk, everyone was wide awake and the captain was on the bridge. === One of the scarriest things I've ever done was to come in off the ocean to Norfolk harbor in the middle of the night. The amount of big ship traffic is incredible, and the shore lights are bright enough to obscure most of the nav lights on both ships and nav aids. It was mostly flying blind on radar and the GPS plotter all the way. It boggles my mind how that destroyer could have let the container ship get that close. We have good radar on our trawler but it is nothing compared to what the navy has. We would typically pick up a boat that size 15 miles away and start tracking the point of closest approach (CPA). Any CPA less than a mile gets my undivided attention until resolved. One of the guys on the real boat board is analysing the track of the freighter and says it looks like it was on autopilot at the time of the crash and they may not have actually gone back to manual control for 15 or 20 minutes. There may not have been anyone on the bridge. The track from AIS is all over the internet right now and the supposition is the erratic movement was after the crash but there is some discrepancy about when the crash happened. It seems everyone is being pretty quiet about this right now. There is a black box on that ship and the navy should have accurate logs so somebody knows exactly what happened. Regardless of what was going on on the freighter or who was officially to blame the CO of the Fitgerald's career is over assuming he recovers from his injuries. Groundings and collisions are two things that result in loss of command and usually a court-martial in the US Navy. Doesn't matter if the CO was on the bridge, sleeping in his rack or taking a dump in the head. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
On 6/18/2017 5:30 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 16:24:24 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/18/2017 3:33 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 12:40:33 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 11:45:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/18/2017 10:37 AM, wrote: On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 08:20:45 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: . I would have thought a modern warship would be able to sustain a heavy hit like it took without being so seriously damaged. The days of the armor clad dreadnought are gone. Ships are light and fast. Like Richard says, this was a sports car getting hit by a semi. It is amazing it did not sustain more damage. There was still something strange going on here to have this kind of crash. The plot I saw showed some unusual maneuvers but it was unclear if that was before or after the accident. I still think there was a junior officer who had the conn on the bridge and he/she screwed up. The Navy has already acknowledged "human error". Yup I agree. The OD was probably on the bridge and the rumor is the captain was in his quarters, right where the topside damage occurred. I doubt most people understand how seldom the captain actually has the "con". In the CG the quartermaster and a couple guys on the deck watch were actually driving the ship. The OD was somewhere nearby and the captain was wandering around or in his quarters most of the time. In the North Atlantic we could go weeks without ever seeing another ship so this kind of thing was not in the offing. When we were maneuvering around Norfolk, everyone was wide awake and the captain was on the bridge. === One of the scarriest things I've ever done was to come in off the ocean to Norfolk harbor in the middle of the night. The amount of big ship traffic is incredible, and the shore lights are bright enough to obscure most of the nav lights on both ships and nav aids. It was mostly flying blind on radar and the GPS plotter all the way. It boggles my mind how that destroyer could have let the container ship get that close. We have good radar on our trawler but it is nothing compared to what the navy has. We would typically pick up a boat that size 15 miles away and start tracking the point of closest approach (CPA). Any CPA less than a mile gets my undivided attention until resolved. Worst experience I had was on the Egg Harbor. I took a bunch of guys out cod fishing to my "secret" spot which is 32 miles out from Scituate Harbor, pretty much in the main shipping lane going into Boston. On clear days it's no problem drift fishing there but on this particular day it fogged up suddenly and visibility was down to about 20 feet in front of the bow. I started heading back to Scituate ... slowly ... and my brother helped monitor the radar. On two occasions we approached traffic crossing in front of us, some from port and some from starboard. I knew the ColRegs but you can't assume the operator of the other vessel knows or obeys them so you have to be very careful. I don't like navigating in heavy fog like that. === It takes a lot of practice with radar to get even halfway comfortable with using it as a substitute for good visibility. And then you go through a period of time when you question whether or not the radar is correct when there is some discrepency between what you think you are seeing with your eyes and what the radar is reporting. It's not a slam dunk. The latest thing in electronic nav aids is something called AIS which is like an electronic transponder that constantly reports a ships position, speed and course. It's a big help with sorting out complex situations and also gives you the ships name, size and destination. We've seen a lot of military vessels that do not broadcast an AIS position however for fairly obvious reasons. That could have been a factor in the collision if the destroyer was not broadcasting and the crew of the containership were overly reliant on AIS. Sounds similar to a transponder on an aircraft. But still, it's pretty much a given that a powered ship or boat that is hit on it's starboard beam when in a crossing situation is at fault. It is required to give way, stop or take action to avoid the collision. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
On 6/18/17 12:40 PM, wrote:
On 6/18/2017 10:37 AM, wrote: On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 08:20:45 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: . I would have thought a modern warship would be able to sustain a heavy hit like it took without being so seriously damaged. The days of the armor clad dreadnought are gone. Ships are light and fast. Like Richard says, this was a sports car getting hit by a semi. It is amazing it did not sustain more damage. There was still something strange going on here to have this kind of crash. The plot I saw showed some unusual maneuvers but it was unclear if that was before or after the accident. Well, I'm not a metallurgist and I don't play one on the internets (!), but it seems to me that in the age of missiles, a lightly built warship is an invitation to disaster. |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
On 6/19/2017 7:38 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/18/17 12:40 PM, wrote: On 6/18/2017 10:37 AM, wrote: On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 08:20:45 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: . I would have thought a modern warship would be able to sustain a heavy hit like it took without being so seriously damaged. The days of the armor clad dreadnought are gone. Ships are light and fast. Like Richard says, this was a sports car getting hit by a semi. It is amazing it did not sustain more damage. There was still something strange going on here to have this kind of crash. The plot I saw showed some unusual maneuvers but it was unclear if that was before or after the accident. Well, I'm not a metallurgist and I don't play one on the internets (!), but it seems to me that in the age of missiles, a lightly built warship is an invitation to disaster. That's because you don't understand the capabilities of the Aegis system that all the Arleigh Burke class destroyers and the few cruisers we have are equipped with. The Aegis system can track 100 or missiles simultaneously, target those that threaten the ship while transmitting targeting data to other Aegis equipped ships for targeting purposes. It can create a "web" of missile targeting data, designed to defend and protect not only itself but also other ships (like aircraft carriers) that may be targeted. No ship is designed to be rammed by another ship that is 6 times it's displacement traveling at 15 knots. In combat situations an enemy ship wouldn't get close to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Combat_System --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 07:38:50 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 6/18/17 12:40 PM, wrote: On 6/18/2017 10:37 AM, wrote: On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 08:20:45 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: . I would have thought a modern warship would be able to sustain a heavy hit like it took without being so seriously damaged. The days of the armor clad dreadnought are gone. Ships are light and fast. Like Richard says, this was a sports car getting hit by a semi. It is amazing it did not sustain more damage. There was still something strange going on here to have this kind of crash. The plot I saw showed some unusual maneuvers but it was unclear if that was before or after the accident. Well, I'm not a metallurgist and I don't play one on the internets (!), but it seems to me that in the age of missiles, a lightly built warship is an invitation to disaster. === A well placed missle can destroy a heavily built battleship just as easily as a lightly built destroyer. A good defense against missles and small, fast surface craft is key for any kind of warship these days. Look at what an outboard powered skiff did to the USS Cole as an example of that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/19/2017 7:38 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/18/17 12:40 PM, wrote: On 6/18/2017 10:37 AM, wrote: On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 08:20:45 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: . I would have thought a modern warship would be able to sustain a heavy hit like it took without being so seriously damaged. The days of the armor clad dreadnought are gone. Ships are light and fast. Like Richard says, this was a sports car getting hit by a semi. It is amazing it did not sustain more damage. There was still something strange going on here to have this kind of crash. The plot I saw showed some unusual maneuvers but it was unclear if that was before or after the accident. Well, I'm not a metallurgist and I don't play one on the internets (!), but it seems to me that in the age of missiles, a lightly built warship is an invitation to disaster. That's because you don't understand the capabilities of the Aegis system that all the Arleigh Burke class destroyers and the few cruisers we have are equipped with. The Aegis system can track 100 or missiles simultaneously, target those that threaten the ship while transmitting targeting data to other Aegis equipped ships for targeting purposes. It can create a "web" of missile targeting data, designed to defend and protect not only itself but also other ships (like aircraft carriers) that may be targeted. No ship is designed to be rammed by another ship that is 6 times it's displacement traveling at 15 knots. In combat situations an enemy ship wouldn't get close to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Combat_System --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com I am underwhelmed by the technology you describe. Some of a flood of incoming missiles may well get through. I appreciate the physics of the latest collision. -- Posted with my iPhone 7+. |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
On 6/19/2017 8:24 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/19/2017 7:38 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/18/17 12:40 PM, wrote: On 6/18/2017 10:37 AM, wrote: On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 08:20:45 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: . I would have thought a modern warship would be able to sustain a heavy hit like it took without being so seriously damaged. The days of the armor clad dreadnought are gone. Ships are light and fast. Like Richard says, this was a sports car getting hit by a semi. It is amazing it did not sustain more damage. There was still something strange going on here to have this kind of crash. The plot I saw showed some unusual maneuvers but it was unclear if that was before or after the accident. Well, I'm not a metallurgist and I don't play one on the internets (!), but it seems to me that in the age of missiles, a lightly built warship is an invitation to disaster. That's because you don't understand the capabilities of the Aegis system that all the Arleigh Burke class destroyers and the few cruisers we have are equipped with. The Aegis system can track 100 or missiles simultaneously, target those that threaten the ship while transmitting targeting data to other Aegis equipped ships for targeting purposes. It can create a "web" of missile targeting data, designed to defend and protect not only itself but also other ships (like aircraft carriers) that may be targeted. No ship is designed to be rammed by another ship that is 6 times it's displacement traveling at 15 knots. In combat situations an enemy ship wouldn't get close to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Combat_System --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com I am underwhelmed by the technology you describe. Some of a flood of incoming missiles may well get through. I appreciate the physics of the latest collision. Of course you are underwhelmed. I doubt anything would impress you, militarily, mainly because you have little or no knowledge of the systems, how they work and what they are capable of. You also have to realize that the smaller destroyer type ships in a task force are considered to be "expendable" in combat (as a last resort) compared to the much more expensive capital ships like aircraft carriers. |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
On 6/19/17 8:40 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/19/2017 8:24 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/19/2017 7:38 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/18/17 12:40 PM, wrote: On 6/18/2017 10:37 AM, wrote: On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 08:20:45 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: . I would have thought a modern warship would be able to sustain a heavy hit like it took without being so seriously damaged. The days of the armor clad dreadnought are gone. Ships are light and fast. Like Richard says, this was a sports car getting hit by a semi. It is amazing it did not sustain more damage. There was still something strange going on here to have this kind of crash. The plot I saw showed some unusual maneuvers but it was unclear if that was before or after the accident. Well, I'm not a metallurgist and I don't play one on the internets (!), but it seems to me that in the age of missiles, a lightly built warship is an invitation to disaster. That's because you don't understand the capabilities of the Aegis system that all the Arleigh Burke class destroyers and the few cruisers we have are equipped with. The Aegis system can track 100 or missiles simultaneously, target those that threaten the ship while transmitting targeting data to other Aegis equipped ships for targeting purposes. It can create a "web" of missile targeting data, designed to defend and protect not only itself but also other ships (like aircraft carriers) that may be targeted. No ship is designed to be rammed by another ship that is 6 times it's displacement traveling at 15 knots. In combat situations an enemy ship wouldn't get close to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Combat_System --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com I am underwhelmed by the technology you describe. Some of a flood of incoming missiles may well get through. I appreciate the physics of the latest collision. Of course you are underwhelmed. I doubt anything would impress you, militarily, mainly because you have little or no knowledge of the systems, how they work and what they are capable of. You also have to realize that the smaller destroyer type ships in a task force are considered to be "expendable" in combat (as a last resort) compared to the much more expensive capital ships like aircraft carriers. I see too much emphasis on high-tech technology. |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
FWIW, I picked this up from a French gentleman in FB.
"In France whe have more informations ... It's a japanese container carrier boat but With a Philippine flag and crew. And this boat at the Last moment abruptly changed his direction ... Investigation is underway With this crew..." |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
On 6/19/17 9:20 AM, Tim wrote:
FWIW, I picked this up from a French gentleman in FB. "In France whe have more informations ... It's a japanese container carrier boat but With a Philippine flag and crew. And this boat at the Last moment abruptly changed his direction ... Investigation is underway With this crew..." NPR has a pretty decent early analysis of what might have gone wrong...it includes this about a previous incident on a similar high-tech ship: Sailors in the Fitzgerald's combat information center and on its bridge are responsible for using the ship's sensors to plot the location of each one, as well as the directions they're headed and the speed at which they're sailing. Officers and sailors must at all times keep what the Navy calls good "situational awareness" about not only what their own ship is doing, but about what might be ahead in the next patch of ocean where the Fitzgerald wants to sail. In 2012 a sibling of the Fitzgerald, the destroyer USS Porter, was in a congested, high-traffic seaway called the Strait of Hormuz — the ribbon of water that connects the Persian Gulf with the Arabian Sea — when it collided with an oil tanker. The Navy's investigation later found that as sailors tried to keep track of the traffic all around them, including those ships headed the other direction, they lost focus on their own immediate course ahead. Ergo, the high technology doesn't always promote good seamanship. Training as careful sailors may be more important than training as operators of computer consoles. |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
On 6/19/2017 9:00 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/19/17 8:40 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/19/2017 8:24 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/19/2017 7:38 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/18/17 12:40 PM, wrote: On 6/18/2017 10:37 AM, wrote: On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 08:20:45 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: . I would have thought a modern warship would be able to sustain a heavy hit like it took without being so seriously damaged. The days of the armor clad dreadnought are gone. Ships are light and fast. Like Richard says, this was a sports car getting hit by a semi. It is amazing it did not sustain more damage. There was still something strange going on here to have this kind of crash. The plot I saw showed some unusual maneuvers but it was unclear if that was before or after the accident. Well, I'm not a metallurgist and I don't play one on the internets (!), but it seems to me that in the age of missiles, a lightly built warship is an invitation to disaster. That's because you don't understand the capabilities of the Aegis system that all the Arleigh Burke class destroyers and the few cruisers we have are equipped with. The Aegis system can track 100 or missiles simultaneously, target those that threaten the ship while transmitting targeting data to other Aegis equipped ships for targeting purposes. It can create a "web" of missile targeting data, designed to defend and protect not only itself but also other ships (like aircraft carriers) that may be targeted. No ship is designed to be rammed by another ship that is 6 times it's displacement traveling at 15 knots. In combat situations an enemy ship wouldn't get close to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Combat_System --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com I am underwhelmed by the technology you describe. Some of a flood of incoming missiles may well get through. I appreciate the physics of the latest collision. Of course you are underwhelmed. I doubt anything would impress you, militarily, mainly because you have little or no knowledge of the systems, how they work and what they are capable of. You also have to realize that the smaller destroyer type ships in a task force are considered to be "expendable" in combat (as a last resort) compared to the much more expensive capital ships like aircraft carriers. I see too much emphasis on high-tech technology. As opposed to what? Making a ship indestructible? |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
On 6/19/2017 9:20 AM, Tim wrote:
FWIW, I picked this up from a French gentleman in FB. "In France whe have more informations ... It's a japanese container carrier boat but With a Philippine flag and crew. And this boat at the Last moment abruptly changed his direction ... Investigation is underway With this crew..." I wonder what they mean by "abruptly changed direction". A ship like that, loaded as it was, can't "abruptly change direction". --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
On 6/19/2017 9:26 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/19/17 9:20 AM, Tim wrote: FWIW, I picked this up from a French gentleman in FB. "In France whe have more informations ... It's a japanese container carrier boat but With a Philippine flag and crew. And this boat at the Last moment abruptly changed his direction ... Investigation is underway With this crew..." NPR has a pretty decent early analysis of what might have gone wrong...it includes this about a previous incident on a similar high-tech ship: Sailors in the Fitzgerald's combat information center and on its bridge are responsible for using the ship's sensors to plot the location of each one, as well as the directions they're headed and the speed at which they're sailing. Officers and sailors must at all times keep what the Navy calls good "situational awareness" about not only what their own ship is doing, but about what might be ahead in the next patch of ocean where the Fitzgerald wants to sail. In 2012 a sibling of the Fitzgerald, the destroyer USS Porter, was in a congested, high-traffic seaway called the Strait of Hormuz — the ribbon of water that connects the Persian Gulf with the Arabian Sea — when it collided with an oil tanker. The Navy's investigation later found that as sailors tried to keep track of the traffic all around them, including those ships headed the other direction, they lost focus on their own immediate course ahead. Ergo, the high technology doesn't always promote good seamanship. Training as careful sailors may be more important than training as operators of computer consoles. It will probably please you to know that Navy ships do not rely only on computer consoles for situational awareness. Ask any sailor who has stood watches while underway. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
Mr. Luddite
On 6/19/2017 9:20 AM, Tim wrote: FWIW, I picked this up from a French gentleman in FB. "In France whe have more informations ... It's a japanese container carrier boat but With a Philippine flag and crew. And this boat at the Last moment abruptly changed his direction ... Investigation is underway With this crew..." I wonder what they mean by "abruptly changed direction". A ship like that, loaded as it was, can't "abruptly change direction". - show quoted text - ..... Beats me, Rich. That's why I put the FWIW in my post... |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
On 6/19/17 9:39 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/19/2017 9:26 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/19/17 9:20 AM, Tim wrote: FWIW, I picked this up from a French gentleman in FB. "In France whe have more informations ... It's a japanese container carrier boat but With a Philippine flag and crew. And this boat at the Last moment abruptly changed his direction ... Investigation is underway With this crew..." NPR has a pretty decent early analysis of what might have gone wrong...it includes this about a previous incident on a similar high-tech ship: Sailors in the Fitzgerald's combat information center and on its bridge are responsible for using the ship's sensors to plot the location of each one, as well as the directions they're headed and the speed at which they're sailing. Officers and sailors must at all times keep what the Navy calls good "situational awareness" about not only what their own ship is doing, but about what might be ahead in the next patch of ocean where the Fitzgerald wants to sail. In 2012 a sibling of the Fitzgerald, the destroyer USS Porter, was in a congested, high-traffic seaway called the Strait of Hormuz — the ribbon of water that connects the Persian Gulf with the Arabian Sea — when it collided with an oil tanker. The Navy's investigation later found that as sailors tried to keep track of the traffic all around them, including those ships headed the other direction, they lost focus on their own immediate course ahead. Ergo, the high technology doesn't always promote good seamanship. Training as careful sailors may be more important than training as operators of computer consoles. It will probably please you to know that Navy ships do not rely only on computer consoles for situational awareness. Ask any sailor who has stood watches while underway. Well, that certainly explains the infallibility of our naval ships. |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 09:54:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 6/19/17 9:39 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/19/2017 9:26 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/19/17 9:20 AM, Tim wrote: FWIW, I picked this up from a French gentleman in FB. "In France whe have more informations ... It's a japanese container carrier boat but With a Philippine flag and crew. And this boat at the Last moment abruptly changed his direction ... Investigation is underway With this crew..." NPR has a pretty decent early analysis of what might have gone wrong...it includes this about a previous incident on a similar high-tech ship: Sailors in the Fitzgerald's combat information center and on its bridge are responsible for using the ship's sensors to plot the location of each one, as well as the directions they're headed and the speed at which they're sailing. Officers and sailors must at all times keep what the Navy calls good "situational awareness" about not only what their own ship is doing, but about what might be ahead in the next patch of ocean where the Fitzgerald wants to sail. In 2012 a sibling of the Fitzgerald, the destroyer USS Porter, was in a congested, high-traffic seaway called the Strait of Hormuz — the ribbon of water that connects the Persian Gulf with the Arabian Sea — when it collided with an oil tanker. The Navy's investigation later found that as sailors tried to keep track of the traffic all around them, including those ships headed the other direction, they lost focus on their own immediate course ahead. Ergo, the high technology doesn't always promote good seamanship. Training as careful sailors may be more important than training as operators of computer consoles. It will probably please you to know that Navy ships do not rely only on computer consoles for situational awareness. Ask any sailor who has stood watches while underway. Well, that certainly explains the infallibility of our naval ships. I am still waiting for more information before I start jumping to conclusions. I have seen the track of the freighter but I have not seen that laid down over the track of the destroyer. There is a lot of chatter out there but not much that has been confirmed. As for the ship itself, WWII pretty much proved big heavily armored "battleships" were just bigger targets. They were really only useful for shore bombardment. Light and fast is better than slow and tough because armor seldom actually stood up to a large naval rifle in the first place. Most naval museums seem to show a piece of armor over a foot thick with a bullet hole in it. These days the hole is likely to be through the deck anyway, even from a missile. |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
Tim wrote:
Mr. Luddite On 6/19/2017 9:20 AM, Tim wrote: FWIW, I picked this up from a French gentleman in FB. "In France whe have more informations ... It's a japanese container carrier boat but With a Philippine flag and crew. And this boat at the Last moment abruptly changed his direction ... Investigation is underway With this crew..." I wonder what they mean by "abruptly changed direction". A ship like that, loaded as it was, can't "abruptly change direction". - show quoted text - .... Beats me, Rich. That's why I put the FWIW in my post... The AIS shows a couple off course maneuvers shortly before the crash. Maybe defective autopilot and nobody on bridge. |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
|
Destroyer/Container ship collision
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:41:05 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote: Tim wrote: Mr. Luddite On 6/19/2017 9:20 AM, Tim wrote: FWIW, I picked this up from a French gentleman in FB. "In France whe have more informations ... It's a japanese container carrier boat but With a Philippine flag and crew. And this boat at the Last moment abruptly changed his direction ... Investigation is underway With this crew..." I wonder what they mean by "abruptly changed direction". A ship like that, loaded as it was, can't "abruptly change direction". - show quoted text - .... Beats me, Rich. That's why I put the FWIW in my post... The AIS shows a couple off course maneuvers shortly before the crash. Maybe defective autopilot and nobody on bridge. It is still unclear exactly when the crash happened. The first erratic turn was to starboard. The question is which way was the Fitz going and when did that turn occur. I am sure everything that happened on both bridges was recorded. The freighter had AIS so it was pretty modern. The Navy logs everything. The question is what that reveals. I imagine this will be a battle of the lawyers long before anything gets released. Unfortunately the mere fact that the destroyer was hit on the starboard side makes it pretty hard to say they are not at fault to some extent. |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:00:00 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 6/19/17 12:05 PM, wrote: I am still waiting for more information before I start jumping to conclusions. I have seen the track of the freighter but I have not seen that laid down over the track of the destroyer. There is a lot of chatter out there but not much that has been confirmed. As for the ship itself, WWII pretty much proved big heavily armored "battleships" were just bigger targets. They were really only useful for shore bombardment. Light and fast is better than slow and tough because armor seldom actually stood up to a large naval rifle in the first place. Most naval museums seem to show a piece of armor over a foot thick with a bullet hole in it. These days the hole is likely to be through the deck anyway, even from a missile. Well, I'm betting on lack of knowledge of what happens or can happen at sea, too much dependence on computer monitors, and not enough time on ship operations simulators, assuming the navy uses them. There may be too much dependence on technology but unless things have really changed there was no shortage of drills and actual experience on a ship. I doubt there are any simulators. There may be a shortage of experienced sailors tho as turnover is a big problem in all of the services. |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
On 6/19/17 1:09 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:00:00 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/19/17 12:05 PM, wrote: I am still waiting for more information before I start jumping to conclusions. I have seen the track of the freighter but I have not seen that laid down over the track of the destroyer. There is a lot of chatter out there but not much that has been confirmed. As for the ship itself, WWII pretty much proved big heavily armored "battleships" were just bigger targets. They were really only useful for shore bombardment. Light and fast is better than slow and tough because armor seldom actually stood up to a large naval rifle in the first place. Most naval museums seem to show a piece of armor over a foot thick with a bullet hole in it. These days the hole is likely to be through the deck anyway, even from a missile. Well, I'm betting on lack of knowledge of what happens or can happen at sea, too much dependence on computer monitors, and not enough time on ship operations simulators, assuming the navy uses them. There may be too much dependence on technology but unless things have really changed there was no shortage of drills and actual experience on a ship. I doubt there are any simulators. There may be a shortage of experienced sailors tho as turnover is a big problem in all of the services. Hmm. The U.S. maritime trades unions have big time ships operation simulators for training. So do some European nations. Some years ago, I got to "drive" (and crash) a tanker on one of the union simulators. |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
On 6/19/2017 2:20 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/19/17 1:09 PM, wrote: On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:00:00 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/19/17 12:05 PM, wrote: I am still waiting for more information before I start jumping to conclusions. I have seen the track of the freighter but I have not seen that laid down over the track of the destroyer. There is a lot of chatter out there but not much that has been confirmed. As for the ship itself, WWII pretty much proved big heavily armored "battleships" were just bigger targets. They were really only useful for shore bombardment. Light and fast is better than slow and tough because armor seldom actually stood up to a large naval rifle in the first place. Most naval museums seem to show a piece of armor over a foot thick with a bullet hole in it. These days the hole is likely to be through the deck anyway, even from a missile. Well, I'm betting on lack of knowledge of what happens or can happen at sea, too much dependence on computer monitors, and not enough time on ship operations simulators, assuming the navy uses them. There may be too much dependence on technology but unless things have really changed there was no shortage of drills and actual experience on a ship. I doubt there are any simulators. There may be a shortage of experienced sailors tho as turnover is a big problem in all of the services. Hmm. The U.S. maritime trades unions have big time ships operation simulators for training. So do some European nations. Some years ago, I got to "drive" (and crash) a tanker on one of the union simulators. The helmsman on a Navy ship follows the orders of the Officer of the Deck or the Captain if he/she is on the bridge. The helmsman isn't making unilateral decisions. Line officers who are qualified to "have the con" are well trained and versed in navigation rules ... unless they screw up and make the wrong decision or don't make a timely decision. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/19/2017 2:20 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/19/17 1:09 PM, wrote: On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:00:00 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/19/17 12:05 PM, wrote: I am still waiting for more information before I start jumping to conclusions. I have seen the track of the freighter but I have not seen that laid down over the track of the destroyer. There is a lot of chatter out there but not much that has been confirmed. As for the ship itself, WWII pretty much proved big heavily armored "battleships" were just bigger targets. They were really only useful for shore bombardment. Light and fast is better than slow and tough because armor seldom actually stood up to a large naval rifle in the first place. Most naval museums seem to show a piece of armor over a foot thick with a bullet hole in it. These days the hole is likely to be through the deck anyway, even from a missile. Well, I'm betting on lack of knowledge of what happens or can happen at sea, too much dependence on computer monitors, and not enough time on ship operations simulators, assuming the navy uses them. There may be too much dependence on technology but unless things have really changed there was no shortage of drills and actual experience on a ship. I doubt there are any simulators. There may be a shortage of experienced sailors tho as turnover is a big problem in all of the services. Hmm. The U.S. maritime trades unions have big time ships operation simulators for training. So do some European nations. Some years ago, I got to "drive" (and crash) a tanker on one of the union simulators. The helmsman on a Navy ship follows the orders of the Officer of the Deck or the Captain if he/she is on the bridge. The helmsman isn't making unilateral decisions. Line officers who are qualified to "have the con" are well trained and versed in navigation rules ... unless they screw up and make the wrong decision or don't make a timely decision. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com So if the officer is texting and the helmsman sees an imminent collision, he just ignores it because he has no permission to change course, eh? :) -- Posted with my iPhone 7+. |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
On 6/19/2017 2:57 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/19/2017 2:20 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/19/17 1:09 PM, wrote: On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:00:00 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/19/17 12:05 PM, wrote: I am still waiting for more information before I start jumping to conclusions. I have seen the track of the freighter but I have not seen that laid down over the track of the destroyer. There is a lot of chatter out there but not much that has been confirmed. As for the ship itself, WWII pretty much proved big heavily armored "battleships" were just bigger targets. They were really only useful for shore bombardment. Light and fast is better than slow and tough because armor seldom actually stood up to a large naval rifle in the first place. Most naval museums seem to show a piece of armor over a foot thick with a bullet hole in it. These days the hole is likely to be through the deck anyway, even from a missile. Well, I'm betting on lack of knowledge of what happens or can happen at sea, too much dependence on computer monitors, and not enough time on ship operations simulators, assuming the navy uses them. There may be too much dependence on technology but unless things have really changed there was no shortage of drills and actual experience on a ship. I doubt there are any simulators. There may be a shortage of experienced sailors tho as turnover is a big problem in all of the services. Hmm. The U.S. maritime trades unions have big time ships operation simulators for training. So do some European nations. Some years ago, I got to "drive" (and crash) a tanker on one of the union simulators. The helmsman on a Navy ship follows the orders of the Officer of the Deck or the Captain if he/she is on the bridge. The helmsman isn't making unilateral decisions. Line officers who are qualified to "have the con" are well trained and versed in navigation rules ... unless they screw up and make the wrong decision or don't make a timely decision. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com So if the officer is texting and the helmsman sees an imminent collision, he just ignores it because he has no permission to change course, eh? :) Funny. |
Destroyer/Container ship collision
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 14:57:37 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/19/2017 2:20 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/19/17 1:09 PM, wrote: On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:00:00 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/19/17 12:05 PM, wrote: I am still waiting for more information before I start jumping to conclusions. I have seen the track of the freighter but I have not seen that laid down over the track of the destroyer. There is a lot of chatter out there but not much that has been confirmed. As for the ship itself, WWII pretty much proved big heavily armored "battleships" were just bigger targets. They were really only useful for shore bombardment. Light and fast is better than slow and tough because armor seldom actually stood up to a large naval rifle in the first place. Most naval museums seem to show a piece of armor over a foot thick with a bullet hole in it. These days the hole is likely to be through the deck anyway, even from a missile. Well, I'm betting on lack of knowledge of what happens or can happen at sea, too much dependence on computer monitors, and not enough time on ship operations simulators, assuming the navy uses them. There may be too much dependence on technology but unless things have really changed there was no shortage of drills and actual experience on a ship. I doubt there are any simulators. There may be a shortage of experienced sailors tho as turnover is a big problem in all of the services. Hmm. The U.S. maritime trades unions have big time ships operation simulators for training. So do some European nations. Some years ago, I got to "drive" (and crash) a tanker on one of the union simulators. The helmsman on a Navy ship follows the orders of the Officer of the Deck or the Captain if he/she is on the bridge. The helmsman isn't making unilateral decisions. Line officers who are qualified to "have the con" are well trained and versed in navigation rules ... unless they screw up and make the wrong decision or don't make a timely decision. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com So if the officer is texting and the helmsman sees an imminent collision, he just ignores it because he has no permission to change course, eh? :) Most of the time war ships are operating pretty far away from the regular shipping lanes but when you are close aboard another vessel (we are still talking miles away) you will have an officer on the bridge and there is usually a senior noncom there too, who usually has a lot more bridge time than the OD. At least that is the way it worked in the puddle pirate navy, I wouldn't count on the helmsman actually seeing a collision happening in time to do much about it anyway, particularly if you are getting T boned from 090. That is what Radar and lookouts are for. As an aside, I would not be surprised if there are simulators for aircraft carriers but these smaller ships are pretty nimble and the CO usually prides himself in being able to wave off the tugs and dock them without help. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:51 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com