• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Cargo ship hits tanker carrying jet fuel for the US military - March 10th, 2025

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
4,767
Points
1,160

According to this article in Defense News
A cargo ship hit a tanker carrying jet fuel for the U.S. military off eastern England on Monday, setting both vessels ablaze and sending fuel pouring into the North Sea.

All 37 crew members aboard the vessels were safe and accounted for, with one hospitalized, local lawmaker Graham Stuart said. The collision triggered a major rescue operation by lifeboats, coast guard aircraft and commercial vessels.
 
So.....a cargo ship hits an aircraft carrier, putting it in Souda for a few days of repairs and disrupting the Op Sched a bit. A few weeks later, a ship full of jet fuel (of a type probably used by said aircraft carrier's planes) gets bumped into and sunk...

Once is happenstance.

Twice is concerning...

If there's a third one, someone's going to think it's an enemy action...
 
So.....a cargo ship hits an aircraft carrier, putting it in Souda for a few days of repairs and disrupting the Op Sched a bit. A few weeks later, a ship full of jet fuel (of a type probably used by said aircraft carrier's planes) gets bumped into and sunk...

Once is happenstance.

Twice is concerning...

If there's a third one, someone's going to think it's an enemy action...
FWIW, looks like the ship that was on the move has transited this exact spot in the map a bunch of times on the same route in the recent past. I’m not a boatologist, but sounds like maybe a watch keeping issue added to excessive reliance on autopilot?

 
FWIW, looks like the ship that was on the move has transited this exact spot in the map a bunch of times on the same route in the recent past. I’m not a boatologist, but sounds like maybe a watch keeping issue added to excessive reliance on autopilot?

100% was negligence on the part of the Portuguese Flagged Vessel. Look at the AIS track, known Anchorage with a bunch of vessels at anchor in the area.


A likely Rule 5 violation

"Every vessel should maintain a proper lookout at all times by using sight, hearing and all available means appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions."

Unless they had a steering/mechanical issue that prevented them from altering course. That seems unlikely given MV Solong was allegedly doing 16 knots at the time of the collision.
 
The Solong was proceeding at 16 knots according to BBC TV yesterday.
 
100% was negligence on the part of the Portuguese Flagged Vessel. Look at the AIS track, known Anchorage with a bunch of vessels at anchor in the area.


A likely Rule 5 violation

"Every vessel should maintain a proper lookout at all times by using sight, hearing and all available means appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions."

Unless they had a steering/mechanical issue that prevented them from altering course. That seems unlikely given MV Solong was allegedly doing 16 knots at the time of the collision.
The arrow straight AIS track does seem to indicate that they didn't make any effort to avoid an allision, or waited until far to late.
 
100% was negligence on the part of the Portuguese Flagged Vessel. Look at the AIS track, known Anchorage with a bunch of vessels at anchor in the area.


A likely Rule 5 violation

"Every vessel should maintain a proper lookout at all times by using sight, hearing and all available means appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions."

Unless they had a steering/mechanical issue that prevented them from altering course. That seems unlikely given MV Solong was allegedly doing 16 knots at the time of the collision.
Is it like yelling “contact!” after you ND, where if the OOW yells “RAMMING SPEED!” in time they’re good?
 
Back
Top