1. Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
    Dismiss Notice
  2. There are no markets
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Week of 6/24/2017 Closing prices & Chg Over Last Wk---- Gold $1256.40 Silver $16.64 Oil $43.01 USD $96.94
  4. "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"
    Dismiss Notice

Navy question guys....

Discussion in 'Topical Discussions (In Depth)' started by latemetal, Jun 17, 2017.



  1. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Uglytruth and Weatherman like this.
  2. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
  3. 917601

    917601 Mother Lode Found Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    11,044
    Likes Received:
    8,969
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For the conspiracy types.....this theory advanced because the US ship's route is not being released and some say other US Naval ships were already advancing towards her indicating she was in trouble well before the collision. I am surprised Jsmineset posted this....( but do remember he was correct about the Valerie Plame CIA event). I do not believe it personally, but have fun seeing who jumps on it.

    www.jsmineset.com

    2017 at 2:48 PM (CST) by Bill Holter & filed under In The News.

    Bill Holter’s Commentary

    It smelled wrong when the news first came out. If this is true, the ramifications are horrifying.

    Chinese EMP Hit the Fitzgerald-Nimitz Racing to Scene As War Is Close
    June 23, 2017

    I publicly stated, on June 21, that the USS Fitzgerald was hit by an EMP. My belief is rooted in several factors which will be discussed by the end of the article. However, the foundation for my belief comes from a two-year-old declassified intelligence report.

    The Chinese Make EMP Weapons a Priority

    A 2015 declassified intelligence report, obtained by the private National Security Archive, provides details on China’s EMP weapons as well as the plans for their use.

    The report details how much of China’s military is developing EMP weapons that the Chinese plan to use against targeted U.S. aircraft carriers with regard to any future conflict over Taiwan. Parts of the National Ground Intelligence Center study on the lethal effects of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and high-powered microwave (HPM) weapons revealed that the arms are part of what China refers to as the “assassin’s mace”. This arsenal of EMP weapons allows a technologically inferior China to defeat U.S. military forces while leaving much of the surrounding infrastructure intact. It is like the neutron bomb of EMP weaponry.

    More…
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2017
  4. Lt Dan

    Lt Dan Gold Pirate Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    2,767
    Likes Received:
    2,852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    disabled veteran
    Location:
    VA Psych Ward
    Like I said earlier, I was in the Navy - that was a long time ago, a lot has changed. Any news reports we are getting are probably faked to a degree. To much speculation and conjecture just complicates the story. The more time goes by without learning the truth the more the conspiracy types come out of the woodwork and pump theories.

    I'll say this about that conspiracy thing, if the ship had been in some sort of trouble, the captain would probably have been on the bridge, and if there had been some real issues, the crew would probably have been at GQ, not sleeping. Lots of unanswered questions and until some things are better explained, I'll not believe most of what I read or see in the news.
     
    Cigarlover, Son of Gloin, Zed and 9 others like this.
  5. Uglytruth

    Uglytruth Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    Messages:
    3,893
    Likes Received:
    4,693
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I saw that earlier & don't believe it. If that was the case the Captain would have been on full alert not sleeping with lookouts posted everywhere & everyone on alert. The ship would have been tracked and continuous satellite phone communication with a radar station, another ship or something.....
     
    searcher, Glasgow and Lt Dan like this.
  6. Uglytruth

    Uglytruth Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    Messages:
    3,893
    Likes Received:
    4,693
    Trophy Points:
    113
    UN-FING BELIEVABLE............ maybe we need competence instead of diversity.

    http://news.trust.org/item/20170626101937-6xsul

    TOKYO, June 26 (Reuters) - A U.S. warship struck by a container vessel in Japanese waters failed to respond to warning signals or take evasive action before a collision that killed seven of its crew, according to a report of the incident by the Philippine cargo ship's captain.

    Multiple U.S. and Japanese investigations are under way into how the guided missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald and the much larger ACX Crystal container ship collided in clear weather south of Tokyo Bay in the early hours of June 17.

    In the first detailed account from one of those directly involved, the cargo ship's captain said the ACX Crystal had signalled with flashing lights after the Fitzgerald "suddenly" steamed on to a course to cross its path.

    The container ship steered hard to starboard (right) to avoid the warship, but hit the Fitzgerald 10 minutes later at 1:30 a.m., according to a copy of Captain Ronald Advincula's report to Japanese ship owner Dainichi Investment Corporation that was seen by Reuters.

    The U.S. Navy declined to comment and Reuters was not able to independently verify the account.

    The collision tore a gash below the Fitzgerald's waterline, killing seven sailors in what was the greatest loss of life on a U.S. Navy vessel since the USS Cole was bombed in Yemen's Aden harbour in 2000.

    Those who died were in their berthing compartments, while the Fitzgerald's commander was injured in his cabin, suggesting that no alarm warning of an imminent collision was sounded.

    A spokesman for the U.S. Navy's Seventh Fleet in Yokosuka, the Fitzgerald's home port, said he was unable to comment on an ongoing investigation.

    The incident has spurred six investigations, including two internal hearings by the U.S. Navy and a probe by the United States Coast Guard (USCG) on behalf of the National Transportation Safety Board. The Japan Transport Safety Board, the JCG and the Philippines government are also conducting separate investigations.

    Spokesmen from the Japan Coast Guard (JCG), U.S. Coast Guard and ship owner, Dainichi Invest, also declined to comment. Reuters was not able to contact Advincula, who was no longer in Japan.

    The investigations will examine witness testimony and electronic data to determine how a naval destroyer fitted with sophisticated radar could be struck by a vessel more than three times its size.

    Another focus of the probes has been the length of time it took the ACX Crystal to report the collision. The JCG says it was first notified at 2:25 a.m., nearly an hour after the accident.

    In his report, the ACX Crystal's captain said there was "confusion" on his ship's bridge, and that it turned around and returned to the collision site after continuing for 6 nautical miles (11 km).

    Shipping data in Thomson Reuters Eikon shows that the ACX Crystal, chartered by Japan's Nippon Yusen KK, made a complete U-turn between 12:58 a.m. and 2:46 a.m. (Reporting by Tim Kelly; Additional reporting by Nobuhiro Kubo; Editing by Alex Richardson)
     
  7. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Zed, Goldhedge and Hystckndle like this.
  8. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,028
    Likes Received:
    3,816
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    These two bits of information make no sense together, because if the ACX took evasive maneuvers in a failed attempt to avoid a collision, the ones running the ship obviously saw the Fitzgerald ahead of time and knew they hit it at the time of impact. So why the delay of nearly an hour to report the incident after steaming away from the scene?

    None of the info coming out about this incident makes a lick of sense.
     
    Mujahideen and Uglytruth like this.
  9. SilverCity

    SilverCity Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    2,794
    Likes Received:
    2,198
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired aerospace
    Location:
    New Babylon

    Electronic attack disables,....cargo ship attempts to sink by collision,....


    Navy Vessel Disabled! Cargo Vessel attacks! Bridge Audio begins around 9:30...collision at 12:40......

    Plenty of videos by this guy. Form your own conclusions--or don't.

    SC
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2017
  10. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,028
    Likes Received:
    3,816
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    ^^^^ Supposedly, that "bridge audio" is actually from the USS Porter during its collision.


    One thing I was wondering about, does anyone here know what height of the bridge is on the Fitzgerald?

    I ask because the damage seen in this pic of the ACX shows damage to the upper part of the side all the way up to deck level and the pic of the Fitzgerald only shows damage to the lower half of the above water portion of the ship. If the ACX is so much bigger than the Fitzgerald, shouldn't the damage pattern be reversed? Looking at these two pics, it would seem as though the bow of the ACX should have been at least at bridge level of the Fitzgerald, if not higher.

    I've never seen either type of ship up close, and perhaps the scale of the pics is deceiving, but it just looks like the ACX would had to have been riding fairly low in the water to produce the type of damage visible above the waterline. Yet there's a pic from right after the incident showing it riding fairly high in the water. I always thought you could only see the red part when a ship like that was empty. Based on the pic, it's obviously loaded.

    download-9.jpeg

    image.jpg
     
  11. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
  12. SilverCity

    SilverCity Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    2,794
    Likes Received:
    2,198
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired aerospace
    Location:
    New Babylon


    ~THE DESTROYER HAD A MISSION~WHAT WAS IT??? INVESTIGATION CONTINUES.....

    SC
     
  13. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
  14. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
  15. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Five (Or More) Short Blasts – On Sounding The Danger Signal

    July 3, 2017 by Grant Livingstone


    This is PART 3 of a series about the COLREGs. Scroll down for links to Part 1 & 2

    by Captain Grant H. Livingstone The Grand Daddy of COLREGs debate and interpretation among professional mariners may be Rule 34; traditionally called the ‘Danger Signal’ five short blasts on the ships whistle. I have sailed with professional mariners that would sound five short blasts at everything and those that would only sound five short blasts when they believed collision was eminent. Many times sounding five short blasts only confounds private boaters who do not understand its meaning. There are circumstances where professional mariners hesitate to sound any signal fearing the small boat will turn the wrong way.


    I used the term ‘Danger Signal’ on the bridge and when I sounded five short blasts that meant potential danger of collision in my mind. After conferring with esteemed colleagues who are expert, my view of Rule 34 has evolved and it may be worth discussion.

    Rule 34 (d) is clear. When vessels in sight of one another fail to understand the intentions or actions of the other, or is in DOUBT whether sufficient action is being taken by the other to avoid collision, the vessel in DOUBT shall immediately show such DOUBT by giving at least five short rapid blasts on the ships whistle.

    Failing to understand the actions or intentions of the other may arguably exist without risk of collision. Initially under that circumstance we have time to wait and assess after sounding five short blasts. Assuming we are the stand on vessel we maintain course and speed. After time to assess, if the other vessel does not appear to be taking sufficient action to give way or avoid collision and we are still in doubt Rule 7(a) directs us to consider that risk of collisions exits. This is when action to avoid collision, Rule 8, can become a sticky wicket. Time may be running out for proper and sufficient action to avoid collision. In many close quarters situations the mariner would need a crystal ball to know if the give way vessel was going to clear safely (avoiding a collision) before ‘crossing bows’. But Rule 8(e) is clear; if necessary to avoid collision or allow more time to assess the situation a vessel shall slacken her speed or take all way off by stopping and reversing her means of propulsion. “If necessary” is highly subjective and possibly very difficult to assess until after the fact. Perhaps there will be no collision and therefore no need to make large course alterations or slacken speed and take all way off. But if there is a collision after sounding five short blasts and the mariner did not take sufficient action to avoid collision they will be held at fault; severely so.

    In conclusion it may not be necessary to slacken speed or change course or take all way after sounding five short blasts when risk of collision is deemed to exit. But it is Prudent Seamanship to take some action and may, one time out of one thousand, save a professional mariners career and possibly live(s).

    Many thanks to Pacific Maritime Institute’s Bill Anderson Jr., Gregg Trunnell and Steve Burtchael for their invaluable advice on COLREGS.

    COLREGs Series by Captain Grant H. Livingstone
    Part 1: Are Ships The Careless Giants Of The Sea?

    Part 2: Give Way or Stand On

    http://gcaptain.com/five-short-blasts-sounding-danger-signal/
     
    917601 likes this.
  16. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
  17. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    U.S. Navy Temporarily Relieves USS Fitzgerald Commander

    July 11, 2017 by Reuters

    [​IMG]
    The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald, damaged by colliding with a Philippine-flagged merchant vessel, is towed by a tugboat upon its arrival at the U.S. naval base in Yokosuka, south of Tokyo, Japan June 17, 2017. REUTERS/Toru Hanai


    [​IMG]

    By Tim Kelly TOKYO, July 11 (Reuters) – The U.S. Navy on Tuesday said on Tuesday it has temporarily relieved, for medical reasons, the commander of a warship involved in a crash with a container vessel in Japanese waters that killed seven American sailors.

    The collision between the guided missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald and the Philippine-registered ACX Crystal on June 17 resulted in the greatest loss of life on a U.S. Navy vessel since the USS Cole was bombed by Islamist militants in Yemen’s Aden harbor in 2000.

    At least six investigations have been launched, including two U.S. Navy internal hearings and a probe by the United States Coast Guard (USCG).

    “Cmdr Bryce Benson, who is recovering from injuries sustained during Fitzgerald’s June 17 collision with the merchant vessel ACX Crystal was relieved temporarily,” the U.S. Navy Seventh Fleet said in a press release.

    None of the investigations has apportioned blame for the accident, or explained how an advanced U.S. warship with sophisticated radars and trained lookouts sailing in clear, albeit dark, conditions was struck by a vessel more than three times its size.

    In the first detailed account from one of those directly involved in the collision, the cargo ship’s captain, in a report seen by Reuters, said the ACX Crystal signaled the Fitzgerald with flashing lights about 10 minutes before the collision, but that it did not respond or alter course.

    The U.S. Navy has said it would not comment until the investigations were complete.

    The Fitzgerald is in dry dock at its home port in Yokosuka, Japan. Engineers are undertaking temporary repairs and will assess whether the damaged vessel can sail back to the United States.

    (Reporting by Tim Kelly; Editing by Robert Birsel; Editing by)

    (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2017.

    http://gcaptain.com/u-s-navy-temporarily-relieves-uss-fitzgerald-commander/
     
    Lt Dan and Zed like this.
  18. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    the_shootist likes this.
  19. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Damaged Destroyer USS Fitzgerald Moves to Dry Dock in Japan -PHOTOS

    July 12, 2017 by Mike Schuler

    [​IMG]
    The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62) sits in Dry Dock 4 at Fleet Activities (FLEACT) Yokosuka to continue repairs and assess damage sustained from its June 17 collision with a merchant vessel. U.S. Navy Photo

    The USS Fitzgerald has entered dry dock at a United States Navy base in Yokosuka, Japan to continue repairs and assess damage following its June 17 collision with a merchant vessel off the coast of Japan.

    The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62) entered dry dock July 11 at the Fleet Activities (FLEACT) Yokosuka base.

    “We used two of our yard tugboats and four pusher boats to move Fitzgerald from Berth 12 to the dry dock,” said FLEACT Yokosuka’s Harbor Movements Officer, Chief Warrant Officer Galo Moreira.

    “It usually takes three boats to “push” a DDG into dry dock,” said Moreira. “Today we used the additional boat as an extra safety boat to make sure we didn’t cause more damage to the Fitz.”

    [​IMG]
    U.S. Navy Photo

    Once the ship was delivered Dry Dock #4, it was the responsibility of Yokosuka’s Ship Repair Facility-Joint Region Maintenance Center (SRF-JRMC) professionals to get the ship lined up correctly in the dry dock and start pumping out the water from the dock.

    “Usually we can dock a ship in about seven hours,” said Lt. David Reinhardt, SRF-JRMC’s Docking Officer who oversaw the process. “Once the dock is dry, myself and the dockmaster and shop workers will go down and make sure that there is no abnormalities that we didn’t expect. The ship’s force will also do an inspection of the hull to make sure there is nothing there that we wouldn’t expect to see.”

    Out of water for the first time since the accident, the extent of the damage below the waterline became evident. USNI News obtained photos showing the steel plates that divers had welded to Fitzgerald’s hull to patch the hole:

    [​IMG]
    U.S. Navy photo by Daniel A. Taylor/Released by FLEACT Yokosuka Public Affairs Office)

    [​IMG]
    U.S. Navy photo by Daniel A. Taylor/Released by FLEACT Yokosuka Public Affairs Office

    Seven U.S. Navy Sailors were killed when the USS Fitzgerald collided with the ACX Crystal in the early morning hours of June 17, causing extensive damage to the ship, flooding compartments where the Sailors slept.

    The accident is subject to multiple investigations.

    Fitzgerald has been forward deployed to Yokosuka since September 2004 as part of U.S. 7th Fleet.

    Navy officials are still assessing if repairs will be done in Japan or if the destroyer will be brought back to the U.S. for repairs.

    Filed Under: Maritime News

    http://gcaptain.com/damaged-destroyer-uss-fitzgerald-moves-dry-dock-japan-photos/
     
    917601 and Lt Dan like this.
  20. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
  21. Uglytruth

    Uglytruth Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    Messages:
    3,893
    Likes Received:
    4,693
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One massive container ship on auto pilot with a skeleton crew......... one US Navy ship with 300 on board & all the highest technology that borrowed money can buy, well manned, lookouts etc......drives in front of the container ship.
    Who the heck do you think is at fault? Kinda like driving a car in front of a train. Someone's going to pay the price but sadly many already paid with their lives due to incompetence.
     
    ArkWv, Lt Dan, Hystckndle and 3 others like this.
  22. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
  23. mtnman

    mtnman Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,365
    Likes Received:
    4,879
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired Shipyard Machinist
    Location:
    East Tennessee
    I built ships for 20 years and I just found another reason to hate Obama. That ship is a rust bucket! She hasn't had bottom service in YEARS! There's rust everywhere above the water line. This is all because Obama cut funding. I sure hope Trump changes the way we keep our Military in shape.
     
    Son of Gloin, Lt Dan and Mujahideen like this.
  24. Thecrensh

    Thecrensh Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2013
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    2,419
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you look at the markers on the hull of the ACX starting at the waterline, you'll be able to see that there are 1 meter increments from approximately 8m to 13m (measuring the draft of the ship from keep to waterline). Using that measure, I came up with approximately 10-11 meters from the waterline to the top of the damage. That's approximately 31 feet from the water to the top of the damage. If you look at the pic of the Fitz that you included and measure the man on the bow (assuming he is about 6 ft / 2m) I come up with approximately 10m from the water to the top of the damage. Seems consistent without exact measurements.
     
    Bottom Feeder and Joe King like this.
  25. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Son of Gloin likes this.
  26. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
  27. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
  28. 917601

    917601 Mother Lode Found Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    11,044
    Likes Received:
    8,969
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Had a conversation with my neighbor an ex sub guy, woman allowed on nuke subs awhile back, not a wise decision.....this naval event came to mind when I heard about the Air India gear down fiasco,.....

    "Air India flight on Saturday had to divert after both pilots apparently forgot to retract the landing gear, ... Apparently the pilots (both female) became aware that the gear was stuck down because of the ...
     
    Lt Dan and searcher like this.
  29. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Read that on some ships the Nav may be going to gender neutral bath rooms (heads.) If it's true there will be some interesting happenings on those boats.
     
    Mujahideen, Lt Dan and 917601 like this.
  30. 917601

    917601 Mother Lode Found Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    11,044
    Likes Received:
    8,969
    Trophy Points:
    113
    General Mad Dog Mattis is souring, and many vets and some in the Pentagon have lost trust in him....they ( and me) were expecting many of Nobama's immoral, PC and weakening military decrees and social engineering policies to be reversed by Mattis, but he has failed to do the job. I would love to wake up one fine morning and hear " you are fired". Make no mistake, the Pentagon is a large part of the Swamp- and Mattis needs to be fired.

    "
    Mattis, according to the Times, had been quietly lobbying Republicans for months to defeat a GOP-led amendment to the 2017 spending bill that would prevent the military from spending money on transition surgery or hormone therapy for transgender service members. The report states that Mattis initially resisted the policy allowing transgender Americans to serve in the armed forces, but accepted that the policy was to remain in place...."



    http://thehill.com/policy/defense/3...ts-announcing-transgender-military-ban-report
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2017
    Lt Dan likes this.
  31. Someone_else

    Someone_else Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,767
    Likes Received:
    1,952
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am getting tired of this worthless garbage. People have rights, and their "persuasion" does not affect those rights. Just shut the hell up, and you will have the same rights as anyone else. Elective surgery, like tattoos, body piercing, and "body modification" should be at the risk and expense of the person doing the procedure. It is wrong to force their neighbors to pay for their elective expenses.
     
    Cigarlover, Lt Dan and Hystckndle like this.
  32. latemetal

    latemetal Platinum Bling Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    4,322
    Likes Received:
    2,189
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is Viagra an elective expense? The medicine for quitting smoking? the drugs for diabetes?
     
    Someone_else likes this.
  33. Someone_else

    Someone_else Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,767
    Likes Received:
    1,952
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. Yes to all three.
     
  34. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A Possible Scenario for the USS Fitzgerald Collision

    [​IMG]
    USS Fitzgerald after collision

    By Matthew Harper, CDR USN (Ret.) 2017-07-29 20:02:33


    How could USS Fitzgerald allow itself to be hit by ACX Crystal in open water, in clear weather conditions and in relatively light traffic? I am as stunned as both experienced mariners and the average person alike and will not claim to know the answer. I hope that some mitigating factor comes to light, but I am afraid that it will be a relatively simple answer, human error.

    I have endeavored to construct a scenario that could explain the chain of events that led to this catastrophe based solely on media reports and my experience on DDG-51 class destroyers. What differentiates this collision is the Commanding Officer (CO) being in his cabin.

    The U.S. Navy has extensive procedures to ensure the CO is in the right place at the right time with the right information. To many, this will seem an innocuous or even tragic detail, but for a Navy ship to collide at sea with the CO perhaps asleep, means there was an unbroken chain of events that included a massive and complete breakdown of the watchteams responsible for the safe navigation of the ship.

    Possible Scenario Part 1

    FITZ watchteams were set at the lowest readiness level possible. A watchteam is a group of officers and crew controlling the ship on behalf of the CO and the number of personnel on a watchteam fluctuates on a scale between peacetime and wartime (each step increases the condition of warfighting readiness, in U.S. Navy parlance Condition IV, III, and I).

    FITZ's watchteams, even in the best case, gave the CO only seconds indication of a collision. The readiness condition of the bridge watch would have had little discernable impact in this scenario. However, the readiness condition would dramatically impact the Combat Information Center (CIC), the operational heart of the ship and backup for safe navigation. Manned at the lowest condition of readiness, less senior and usually less experienced crew would be watching over the ship in CIC.

    This is not to say that a more senior watchteam could not also breakdown completely but I believe the eventual report will lay significant blame on the inexperience of both bridge and CIC watchteams.

    Possible Scenario Part 2

    ACX Crystal was in a relative position to FITZ for some period of time. ACX Crystal was steering on a set course and speed that paralleled that of USS Fitzgerald presumably on her starboard quarter (behind her to the right) at about two to three nautical miles, or closer.

    Over time, the bridge watchteam became comfortable with the ACX Crystal remaining in the same approximate position. At this location, being relatively close, CIC would have a harder time tracking the ACX Crystal on radar and could easily have shifted focus to ships further away. [This is not to write that CIC could not track the ACX Crystal at this range. but it is harder for a small watchteam in FITZ's CIC to continually track a ship at close range.]

    The other significant tool in CIC often used for tracking ships at close range is the "gun camera," but it was probably not being operated.

    Possible Scenario Part 3

    FITZ made a routine (for a Navy ship) maneuver. FITZ maneuvered, most likely contrary to the Nautical Rules of the Road, to meet a future operational Navy requirement. Navy ships are unpredictable, always going someplace and often in a hurry, not always easy to talk with on the radio and always training new and inexperienced crew, all to the consternation of the civilian mariners.

    While a Navy ship's operational tempo does not obviate them from following the Nautical Rules of the Road (an excellent breakdown of the requirements and difficulties are described here) it does perhaps explain why FITZ made an inexplicable turn to starboard in front of an oncoming ship. (An "inexplicable turn” and having the ACX Crystal off the starboard quarter is my best guess of the situation. There is always the possibility that both ships remained on the same course and were CBDR (Constant Bearing Decreasing Range) for some length of time. The problem with this supposition is that it strains believability.)

    In this scenario, FITZ was either in a "night steaming box," which is an imaginary box the CO keeps the ship in through the night to ensure the ship will be in the right position for the schedule the next morning or on a predetermined course. In this case for the readers understanding, imagine it was a 15nm by 15nm box drawn out on the chart (map). The FITZ could have either driven around the edge of the box or back and forth within the box at a slow speed to conserve fuel.

    There is also the possibility FITZ was "trailing a shaft." This is where one of the ship's two shafts and propellers are allowed to spin freely, with no power. This dramatically reduces fuel consumption but also changes the maneuvering characteristics of the ship. (When a DDG as a two shaft/propeller ship tries to turn against or away from its trailing shaft, it ceases to be corvette-like and maneuvers more like a ponderous merchant ship. This would play a significant factor during FITZ's turn or if the bridge crew was trying to maneuver to correct their mistake.)

    The other possibility was FITZ was driving a predetermined course or had a specific position she had to make in the morning and maneuvered to make the rendezvous.

    Possible Scenario Part 4

    The Captain was not called for a "routine" maneuver. This scenario accounts for the CO being asleep and perhaps the reason the CIC watchteam didn't wake him up (1). In this scenario, the FITZ watchteam had already called the CO to report the ACX Crystal in its position on the starboard quarter, and the CO understood there was no risk of collision and then went back to sleep.

    Over time the watchteam grew comfortable with the position of the ACX Crystal and then forgot about her. At some point, the bridge team needed to maneuver the ship to either stay in their night position box or to get to a prescribed position in the morning. This maneuver took the ship to starboard (right) and into the path of the ACX Crystal (2). The CIC team also lost track of the ACX Crystal, because she was so close and perhaps even concurred with the maneuver to starboard also not remembering the merchant ship off the starboard quarter.

    Possible Scenario Part 5

    ACX Crystal was on autopilot. On board the ACX Crystal, I believe initial analysis based on AIS data that she was on autopilot with no one on the bridge. This is explained well here. I also do not believe the very time late report from the Captain of the ACX Crystal (to the owner of his ship, not the Japanese coast guard) that he used flashing light to attempt contact with the FITZ, maneuvered and then collided 10 minutes later. This makes absolutely zero sense.

    All of these proposed events attempt to explain the massive breakdown on board the USS Fitzgerald in her collision with ACX Crystal. As with most maritime collisions or groundings, this chain of events relies on series of failures in which none of them by themselves would lead to collision. Every Navy investigation reveals is numerous places where the chain of events could be broken by any number of people on board. In the case of USS Fitzgerald, this disastrous chain was never broken.

    U.S. Navy Standards

    Finally, I write this article merely to bridge the huge divide between the public and what the U.S. Navy does at sea every day since the end of World War II. Navy ships and specifically U.S. Cruisers and Destroyers are, I argue, the most complex and overused pieces of hi-technology steel sitting in salt water found anywhere, ever. With crew sizes of approximately 250-325 they are expected to be experts in multiple areas (Surface, Air, Subsurface, Tomahawks, Seamanship, Navigation, Small- Arms Security, International Law, Cyber Security, Gunfire Support Ashore, Command of groups of ships, Engineering and Maintenance and perhaps most alarming in the 21st century significant rust control) with little to no room for error.

    If anyone questions the standard Navy ships are held just compare the firings of Navy ship Captains (O5s and O6s) to O5s and O6s in any other service. Ships in the U.S. Navy 7th Fleet will train to fight in support of the peninsula, then sail through the South China Sea to exercise in Southeast Asia, before meeting up with Marines to train in Okinawa to finally make it back home to Yokosuka for an abbreviated maintenance period before they do it all again. The ships of the 7th Fleet meet all their requirements exceptionally well 99.9 percent of the time…

    Notes

    (1) In my opinion, both the CIC Watch Officer (usually a junior officer) and CIC Watch Supervisor (usually a 1st Class Petty Officer) should have called the CO if the bridge was putting the ship in extremis. At a minimum, the CIC team should have logged in the official CIC record a maneuvering recommendation that the bridge did not follow. I am afraid based on the scenario above there will be no recommendation and or record in the CIC log.

    (2) The after lookout. Similar to the watchteams, the aft lookout would have been comfortable with the ACX Crystal's continued position on the starboard quarter. When the FITZ started her turn to starboard taking her in the path of the ACX Crystal the lookout would have eventually noticed (depending on the quality this could have taken a while) and then probably had to call into CIC. This communication path to CIC and then within CIC to get to the bridge watchstander is an entirely different issue but not unbelievable that this did not happen correctly or quickly.

    [​IMG]About the Author

    Matthew Harper, Commander, U.S. Navy (Ret) was a Surface Warfare Officer who served on three DDG 51 class destroyers, USS Cole (DDG 67), USS Shoup (DDG 86) and most recently as Executive Officer on USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG 54) a sister ship of USS Fitzgerald also permanently forward deployed to Yokosuka, Japan. In addition to having done three days of damage control after a terrorist attack on USS Cole, he holds a Masters in Public Administration from Harvard Kennedy School and is an award winning author for Chinese Missiles and the Walmart Factor published in Naval Institute Proceedings.

    The opinions expressed herein are the author's and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executive.

    http://maritime-executive.com/editorials/a-possible-scenario-for-the-uss-fitzgerald-collision
     
  35. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    USS Fitzgerald to Be Hauled Back to U.S. for Repairs
    August 8, 2017 by Reuters

    [​IMG]
    The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62) sits in dry dock at the U.S. Navy’s Fleet Activities (FLEACT) Yokosuka base showing damages from its June 17 collision with a merchant vessel. Picture taken July 11, 2017. U.S. Navy Photo

    By Tim Kelly TOKYO, Aug 8 (Reuters) – The U.S. Navy on Tuesday said it will haul the guided missile destroyer severely damaged in a collision with a freighter in Japanese waters back to the United States for repairs as soon as September.

    The collision killed seven sailors aboard the USS Fitzgerald and ripped a hole below the vessels waterline. Naval engineers in Japan have patched up the destroyer but extensive damage that nearly sank the warship means it is unable to sail under its own steam.

    SEE ALSO: Dry Dock Photos Reveal Damage to USS Fitzgerald

    “The Fitzgerald may be moved in September but it could be later than that,” a spokesman for the U.S. Seventh Fleet said.

    The U.S. Navy plans to hire a commercial heavy lift ship to carry the destroyer. In the tender for the contract it has said that the furthest possible journey could be as far as to naval dockyards in Maine on the U.S. east coast.

    The collision in the early hours of June 17 with a Philippine-registered cargo ship in waters close to Tokyo Bay resulted in the greatest loss of life on a U.S. Navy vessel since the USS Cole was bombed in Yemen’s Aden harbour in 2000. It has sparked multiple investigations by U.S., Japanese and Philippine authorities.

    In the first detailed account from one of those directly involved in the collision, the cargo ship’s captain in a report seen by Reuters said it signalled the Fitzgerald with flashing lights around 10 minutes before the collision, but that it did not respond or alter course. (Reporting by Tim Kelly; Editing by Nick Macfie)

    (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2017.

    Filed Under: News Tagged With: Heavy Lift, USS Fitzgerald

    http://gcaptain.com/uss-fitzgerald-to-be-hauled-back-to-us-for-repairs/
     
  36. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
  37. Cigarlover

    Cigarlover Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    2,579
    Likes Received:
    3,156
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What waste of money. The latest and greatest gadgets money can buy but they cant get out of the way of another ship? The entire navy should be brought home and made to secure US coastlines. In fact I don't even think we need them to do that.
    The US militaries' mission should be the defense of this country. Period. With todays technology in both satellite and missile capabilities there really is nothing that can sneak up on the US. That includes subs. Not sure if we could hit a sub and at what depths under water so maybe anti sub subs would be needed but not much else.

    Of course these nato agreements are nothing more than a smokescreen to keep the MIC well funded.
    We also wouldn't need nukes anymore of the world would just work together to create a fail safe anti missile technology which is probably already pretty close.

    I'm not saying these navy ships are anything short of amazing. No question they are and the people that run them I have huge respect for. With our other technology, I just dont see any reason for them except for offensive purposes.
     
  38. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    917601 likes this.
  39. Bottom Feeder

    Bottom Feeder Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,201
    Likes Received:
    1,491
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Seattle
    USS Fitzgerald's leadership removed from their duties over June collision

    The commanding officer, executive officer and senior non-commissioned officer of the USS Fitzgerald have been removed from their duties for cause amid the fallout surrounding the deadly collision between the USS Fitzgerald and a cargo ship off the coast of Japan on June 17.

    "We've lost trust and confidence in their ability to lead in those positions and they will not return to the ship," Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. William Moran told reporters at the Pentagon late Thursday. The 7th Fleet also said several junior officers were relieved of duty.
    While the final investigation into the collision is ongoing, Moran said: "We do not have to have the investigation complete to start the process."
    The Fitzgerald's commanding officer, Cdr. Bryce Benson, and the executive officer, Cdr. Sean Babbiit, were both sleeping, and the master chief petty officer, Brice Baldwin, were not on the bridge at the time of the collision, according to the Navy.

    One additional sailor has already undergone the captain's mast. Several other sailors are due to go through the process, including the people who were on watch that night.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/17/politics/uss-fitzgerald-leadership-removed/index.html

    BF
     
    searcher and Uglytruth like this.
  40. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113

Share This Page