Skip to comments.US Navy ship collides with oil tanker in Gulf
Posted on 08/12/2012 8:40:19 AM PDT by JerseyanExile
An oil tanker collided with a U.S. Navy destroyer near the Strait of Hormuz on Sunday but no one was hurt and shipping traffic in the waterway, through which 40 percent of the world's seaborne oil exports pass, was not affected, officials said.
"Both vessels are okay and the Strait of Hormuz is not closed, and business is as usual there," an Oman coast guard official told Reuters, declining to be named under briefing rules.
The collision nevertheless left a gaping hole in the starboard side of USS Porter, a guided-missile destroyer suffered, but no one was injured on either vessel, the U.S. Navy said in a statement. The collision with the Panamanian-flagged bulk oil tanker M/V Otowasan occurred at approximately 1 a.m. local time.
The cause of the incident is under investigation, the Navy said, adding that there were no reports of spills or leakages from either the USS Porter or the Otowasan.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnews.nbcnews.com ...
In Nam, in 1965, we ran our Swift Boat aground on a sand spit...the Navy acted like it was an aircraft carrier.
The boat commander wasn’t sacked, but was the only officer who did not receive promotion in the entire year.
It ain’t just third world. I would invite you to visit some of the bars near Cherry Point in Washington state where the tanker crews hang. I’ve heard a number of conversations that go something like this:
“Hey Billy, what time is it?”
“What time do we shove?”
“How far’s the refinery?”
“’Bout ten miles.”
“Hey honey! Me and my bud got time for two more apiece - then we gotta take off. We’re sailin’ with the tide...”
All that aside, given the location of the damage and the ships’ relative manuverability, it’s hard to see how the tanker isn’t the stand-on vessel.
Makes sense. Thanks.
Can you tell me what “a “stand-on vessel” is?
The more-maneuverable vessel is supposed to give way to the less-maneuverable vessel, I think. Tankers do not turn on a dime. The destroyer captain was responsible for ensuring that he did not collide with anything. he is toast.
That changes in extremis, or where collision appears unavoidable. By then, though, if you're in a supertanker you're pretty much hosed.
Maybe he let it go turtle and then ran it aground?
It’s just common sense to avoid being “dead right”.
No harm, no foul on sand as long as nothing gets bent.
on that whole story. No CO these days or even 20 years ago can just "hide" from higher authority by going silent for a couple of days. The entire chain of command would freak unless it was part of a planned EMCON exercise. Additionally, every grounding generates a lessons learned message that we QMs would get for training. I'm not going to say my memory is perfect, but I don't recall anything about a Nicholson grounding in the early-mid '90s, nor can I find anything mention of it on the net.
Although there are situations where that is applicable, in general it's not that simple. Here are the rules if you care to peruse them Navigation Rules International-Inland.
The destroyer captain was responsible for ensuring that he did not collide with anything. he is toast.
That statement is correct.
I was thinking more in terms of practicality than formal rules. When I'm driving, I don't insist on right-of-way with large trucks.
It’s a different situation at sea. Here we have two power driven vessels in open waters. One ship is the give-way vessel, required to maneuver to avoid collision and the other is the stand-on vessel, required to maintain its course and speed. And the determination of which vessel is which all has do with how the two ships are meeting, crossing or overtaking. It has nothing to do with the size or speed or maneuverability of either vessel.
While the stand-on vessel is not required to maintain course and speed until the the give-way vessel hits it, unnecessary maneuvering by the stand-on vessel can easily turn what could have a straight forward situation into a total charlie foxtrot.
Depends on circumstances. Ltjg Chester Nimitz grounded his destroyer in Caviti before WWI. At his courts martial, he proved the Navy provided navigation charts were inaccurate.
He was exonerated of any wrong doing and we know how his career turned out.
Dont forget Frank Evans
Nope. It's forward. You can see the octagonal SPY-1D radar array at the top of the picture, which is on the forward superstructure.
So forward, starboard side, making the tanker the stand-on vessel, two ways (Three if you count manouverability)
The OOD and CO’s worst nightmare. As a former SWO, my worst fears were running aground and collision. You have to been pretty careless to hit a tanker, unless there were extenuating circumstances.
Right so far.
My read. The captain was attempting to emulate the Ady Gil and harass the tanker. With even less justification, as the Ady Gil could techically argue it was the stand on vessel.
How does it feel to know that a USN destroyer driver is a bigger screw-up than Sea Shepherd?
Anything that comes ram-speed towards our ships should be sunk first and ask questions later, especially in hostile zones.
Exactly where on the ColRegs does it state that US flag ships have right of way?
In a bit of irony the Kennedy/Belknap collision occurred on the 12th anniversary of JFK’s assassination.