Skip to comments.Reports on Collisions of USS FITZGERALD (DDG 62) and USS JOHN S MCCAIN (DDG 56)
Posted on 06/15/2018 2:47:33 PM PDT by Retain Mike
The collisions were avoidable between USS FITZGERALD (DDG 62) and Motor Vessel ACX CRYSTAL, and between USS JOHN S MCCAIN (DDG 56) and Motor Vessel ALNIC MC. Three U.S. Navy investigations concerning each of these incidents are complete. Command and Admiralty investigations in each case retain legal privilege to protect the interests of the United States Government in future litigation.
As Chief of Naval Operations, I have determined to retain the legal privilege that exists with the command Admiralty investigations in order to protect the legal interests of the United States Government and the families of those Sailors who perished. At the same time, it is paramount that the Navy be transparent as to the causes and lessons learned to the families of those Sailors, the Congress and the American people, and to make every effort to ensure these types of tragedies do not happen again. With these competing interests at hand, I authorized the preparation and release of reports on each collision, enclosed with this memorandum.
(Excerpt) Read more at navy.mil ...
Oh I agree that someone needs to be watching outside for those elusive and hard to see 1000’ long cargo ships. Still, it seems odd to me that the warships don’t have a proximity warning system like aircraft have these days. Meaning I expect that they DO have such a system and then I wonder why it didn’t work? Was it being blinded or tampered with?
Exactly the question many were asking back when the collisions happened.
There were some who felt it was very unlikely both just happened not to work (supporting your Chinese hacking theory).
Or there was partying and sex going on at the time and those who should have been taking care of business were ‘distracted’ for an extended period of time.
Some who currently serve in the Navy have told me that ever since women and homosexuals populated the military, sex and partying are not uncommon at all.
Either one - or both - could be accurate.
Well I read the whole report and I come away with a COMPLETE lack of leadership from the top down. Complete lack of following normal operating procedures and I am not going to pin in only on the ladies. They too, were in the wrong, but the whole Navy appears to need a reshaping to good seamanship, since we had three of these happen in less than a year.
That is utter BS because the first sensor and last sensor any competent OOD uses his his eyeball. In between he will check the radar plot, which he will keep himeself - in addition to the plot in CIC - and if the radar is telling him something different from his eyeball he will first believe his own eyes.
Also, he will call the CO and tell him that he needs to come to the bridge.
YEP! And the first thing a good leader would have done is ensured that his OOD knew how to drive their ships which he would have done by spending a lot of time doing man overboard drills which you do by throwing a bunch of life preservers and/or junk overboard all tied together while steaming at full of flank speed and then practice maneuvering to pick it up, over and over and over again until the OOD can do it by eyeball unaided by CIC.
It's like teaching someone to drive a $2B car.
And, I'm amazed at the track the Navy plots for the Fitzgerald!! However, it does seem to make some sense -- based on her last-reported position, well to the north...
Their "positions at collision" are the exact same as mine -- but, to get in that position, the Fitz would have to had to make a >>90 degree turn to port at the last instant.
Your take on it?
That’s the way it should be done.
They too, were in the wrong, but the whole Navy appears to need a reshaping to good seamanship, since we had three of these happen in less than a year.
I agree to your statement about shared blame from the top down and not pinning it ALL on the ladies. But, the “ladies” are the NYT front page, 50 pt bold print headline of what the over arching problem is. Namely, too many legislators and too many presidents aided by too many weak, career obsessed, generals and admirals have allowed too much Political Correctness to take root in our military and sadly “good seamanship” is like a minnow in the sea in contrast to the big picture of politically correct problems about the Navy and our military that have to be rooted out one at a time.
Hopefully, Trump will get around to fixing the military, at least partially, before he leaves office.
Thanks TXnMA...I will check it out tonight!
Inconceivable! (And, yes, that does mean what I think it means...)
At night -- on a course crossing heavily traveled traffic lanes -- no lookouts were posted on the bridge wings!
Worse -- they were having RADAR [operation] problems. One would think that definitely was time to rely on "Mark One Eyeball" situational assessment.
I was preparing a rant based on the fact that I have been unable to ascertain that the Navy provides Night Vision Optics for seamen who are posted as lookouts at night.
But -- in the Fitzgerald's case -- that point is moot.
If you're stupid enough to not post lookouts, having NVDs aboard is just more ballast...
USS Fitzgerald: Score one for the junior officers... :-(
I am not defending the constant push of having more women on ships. Far from it, I do NOT agree with it at all. I was only commenting that the issue in these three accidents are more a deeper long term failure of the Navy in training and other fundamentals.
I agree. Three incidents means that the rot is deep in the Navy and needs to be excised.
I am not here going to debate the issue of women on warships because it is irrelevant.
The problem here is poor seamanship on the part of the JOs which reflects poor training, which reflects poor leadership.
Women are just as capable of navigating a ship as are men. I grew up racing sailboats and knew a lot of fine women sailboat racers. And it you can sail a sailboat on a crowded race course without hitting anyone, you can navigate a warship without hitting other ships. The former is a lot harder than the latter, in fact, which only becomes problematic when the other guy is shooting at you.
And this isn't about diversity. The poor minority sailors who were killed deserved to have competent officers navigating their ships.
Sir, with the utmost respect for your opinions, I disagree on pretty much everything you said. Let me make one point on “the ladies”
Your position on women’s presence on a warship being “irrelevant” turns the absolutely necessary “physical” attraction between the male and female, that is essential for humanity to survive on this earth, on it’s head.
Feminists love to say to the man and legislators... “control your self!!!”... and legislatures buy into that fantasy and men die. Why? because we know all women, like all men, DON”T control themselves and don’t and won’t behave and so, on a warship, “fooling around” does happen and can be fatal. One only need to check the shipboard pregnancy tally to confirm this.
So, obviously, the “control yourself” mantra of The Left does not work but PC is all about “living a lie” so so far The Left has gotten away with this outrage.
Granted our PC Navy leadership won’t tell us what “really” happened but one cannot be blamed for suspecting “fooling around”. Having worked many hours in CIC (Combat Information Center) and as a lookout on the bridge of a US Navy Destroyer, I have some basis to make these comments. In any event, I appreciate your comments.
Lot's of fooling around goes on, but I find it unimaginable that it was going on on the bridges of these ships. Too many people.
. .I think where we are is that we have to “agree to disagree”... ..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.