SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - USS Fitzgerald Collision

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- Sub & Naval Discussions: World Naval News, Books, & Films (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=186)

- - USS Fitzgerald Collision (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=231913)

Must have been one of them stealth tankers sneaking up on the naval ship.

Forgive a lubber question but they still do have manned lookouts don't they?

I would have thought that someone would have casually mentioned that a almost 10,000 ton floaty thing was pretty close.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus (Post 2507974)

Another ship around a busy port? Chance in a million.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Von Due (Post 2507981)

Another ship around a busy port? Chance in a million.

I think it would be like the SH3 "Ship Sighted!" 'bug' when leaving a friendly harbor.

"Ship Sighted!"
"Yes I heard you already!"
"No, but sir, this ship is really...."
"Shut up already!"
"Yes sir... but..."

*boop*

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus (Post 2507974)

U.S. Navy does, not sure about merchant marine. As I recall from my active duty days, the ship needed enough lookouts to cover 360 degrees, which usually meant a minimum of 3 lookouts, Port, Starboard & Aft. ( the forward lookout was split between port and starboard lookouts). There were also times where we had more lookouts, for example; during low visibility, going through high traffic areas (straights of Gibraltar come to mind) or SAR ops, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus (Post 2507974)

Man, I really worry about our Navy if we get in a war and the enemy is trying to sneak up and hit us

Two important DDG's that could be used to shoot down NK missiles too ... :yep:

Submarines have lookouts and a orange flashing light and they don't sneak into these same ports. The submarine lookouts are subject to all of the elements. The OOD is right there with them ... maybe the USN surface craft ships need to learn from the Submarine Service.

Do other countries have this problem of warships hitting cargo/freighters/oil tankers?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro (Post 2508023)

.....Do other countries have this problem of warships hitting cargo/freighters/oil tankers?

I'm sure we'd hear, or see about it here.

CNN reports possible loss of steering on the Destroyer before the collision.

Top brass takes a hit as the feet commander gets the boot.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41020729

^ a convenient patsy imho:

Quote:

Vice Adm Aucoin, who has been its commander since 2015, was due to retire within weeks. His designated successor will replace him immediately.

:Kaleun_Salute:http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170822-why-its-not-surprising-that-ship-collisions-still-happen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aktungbby (Post 2508346)

^ a convenient patsy imho: :Kaleun_Salute:

I won't disagree there.

This is a link to a article on possible root causes behind these mishaps:

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proce...re-root-causes

Quote:

The history of training in the Navy is long and complex. Starting with World War II and continuing at an accelerating rate thereafter, technological advancements have exceeded the ability of commissioning programs to provide officers up to the task of operating upon arrival at their respective commands. The submarine and aviation communities, which since their respective inceptions had been confronted by advanced technologies beyond the scope of accession training, instituted professional courses of instruction to train and qualify their officers. This, however, was not the case for those officers serving in surface ships, who were increasingly challenged by the advent of advancing radar, sonar, gun, missile, and data link systems.
Eventually, it became apparent that additional professional training would be required by surface officers to maximize the operational capabilities of these new systems. In 1961, the Naval Destroyer Officers School, the forefather of the present Surface Warfare Officers School Command, was established. This was followed in 1970 by the first Surface Warfare Division Officer School (SWOSDOC) class. For the next 30 years, this was how division officers were trained for their first tours at sea.
In 2003, SWOSDOC was shuttered, largely for financial reasons, but also in a mistaken attempt to create efficiencies. SWOSDOC was replaced by computer-based training (CBT). Instead of attending SWOS and associated billet specialty programs for upward of 12-14 months of rigorous training prior to reporting on board their first ships, new officers went directly from commissioning sources to their ships with only a packet of computer disks. Now it was incumbent on the ship’s CO to replace a year’s worth of intensive dawn-to-dusk training, in addition to his or her other considerable responsibilities.

ring knockers are placed in position for the safe navigation of a ship by virtue of their office not experience or training. i still say they should be licensed by competent authority. as it stands now it appears the blind are leading the blind.

I think that is endemic to many systems in our brief computer age.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buddahaid (Post 2508599)

I think that is endemic to many systems in our brief computer age.

It takes a lot of time and money to train a competent watch officer and there are no end of bean counters and budget hawks from both sides of politics that have pushed to drastically cut both. This is the result.