Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,934
- Points
- 1,160
An 2 part argument by G-Captain on the difficulties in dealing with US navy ships http://gcaptain.com/uss-fitzgerald-fault/
Rifleman62 said:Further down at the above link is: http://gcaptain.com/intense-bridge-conversation-porter/
The Most Intense Bridge Conversation EVER – USS Porter Collides With Supertanker [BRIDGE RECORDING AUDIO]
May 14, 2013 by John Konrad
On August 12, 2012, the U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Porter collided with a Mitsui OSK Lines’ supertanker M/T Otowasan near the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf. The collision tore a 3 by 3 meter (9.8 ft — 9.8 ft) hole in the starboard side of the destroyer, forcing it to Jebel Ali, Dubai for repairs. No one was injured however.
It sounded very confusing on the bridge. The OOD did not have a grasp on the situational picture and seemed to be unable to get his thoughts strait. The CO should have taken the conn when he said to the OOD "Don't do that again!". What ever "that" was, it was time to take over.Halifax Tar said:I don't have allot of bridge experience but that was an intense conversation... I can fully understand how things can get hectic and go bad fast...
tomahawk6 said:Interesting analysis of the financial liability that the Crystal may be facing.Which could be around $2b.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/philippine-container-ship-crashed-us-202436371.html
The USS Fitzgerald and the Philippine-flagged container ship MV ACX Crystal collided early in the morning on June 16.
The port bow of the containership, particularly its bulbous bow and its port anchor, came into contact with the starboard side of the destroyer opening three compartments to the sea and heavily damaging the deck structure aft of the bridge above the main deck.
The destroyer will require extensive and costly repairs over many months and tragically seven sailors were lost and three, including the commanding officer, were injured.
tomahawk6 said:Its rather suspicious already finding fault. I am thinking fake news. Wait for the final report.
tomahawk6 said:Not just the leaders were removed but up to 12 others will receive punishment. The pictures at the end of the report are stunning.It could have been very bad with the loss of the ship and alot more of the crew.
FSTO said:Of the 12, I would guess the Officer of the Deck (Officer of the Watch) the Navigation team and the senior personnel in the Combat Information Centre (Ops Room) are all going to be severely reprimanded.
Some of the seamanship capabilities of the USN is questionable and I always felt that their SWO's do not get enough training and mentorship to become good ship handlers. Heck, RCN standards have slipped quite a bit since I joined but at least as a MARS officer you only had to concentrate on ship handling and war fighting. The MSE and CSE (forget what the new name is) took care of the engineering side of the house. The USN SWO's on the other hand are swamped with their duties and responsibilities (IMHO of course) which unfairly affects their capabilities on the bridge.
tomahawk6 said:Perhaps the watch standers were preoccupied with their cell phones ? I noticed a comment to that effect on a forum. Can you even get cell coverage at sea ?
Lumber said:100% Agree. When I sailed on an Arleigh Burke, I couldn't believe how buys there subbies were. Junior SWOs were not only required to pursue getting their bridge watchkeeping ticket, but they held other primary duties, like being Strike Officer (in charge of Tomahawk missions). They never seemed to sleep, and no one seemed to care. The more senior JGs and Lts didn't have it much better. The NavO was also the UWWO. That makes no sense!