Posted on Dec 1, 2017
What do you think is to blame for all of the recent Navy accidents?
3.11K
20
26
2
2
0
USS John S. McCain, USS Antietam, USS FItzgerald, Air crashes, etc. The rise of naval incidents is alarming. What do you believe is the cause of these accidents? Please share any sea stories you have with any incidents.
Posted in these groups: 
7th Fleet
7th Fleet
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 7
2
2
0
Blame or responsibility? I put the major responsibility with Navy leadership. If you take people, train them halfway, put them in a stressful environment, work them 120+ hours a week, mess with their circadian rhythm, cut corners, etc. you guarantee yourself higher risks and a certain number of incidents. These conditions are the equivalent of drunk driving. I can remember a few of the near misses I had back in the day. So in maximizing OPTEMPO, we also maximize the likelihood of bad things happening. It's a known equation, hence I consider it an anticipated result. I call it the acceptable risk that you don't want to realize on your watch. So if the Navy is saying there's a zero incident goal, what they are doing is actively ensuring it will not be met. Major blame goes to Congress and the rest of the system that puts a huge pile of unfunded mandates on the Services. We do have some some acknowledgement of burning people out. Just look at the Blue/Gold (double crews) for the boomers.
(2)
(0)
LT Brad McInnis
Sir, I agree with you. I also would say, as a SWO, what I read combined with my own experience at sea, is that each and every one of these accidents was absolutely preventable with basic seamanship smarts. You don't need a fancy radar, radio, watch team to realize with the Mk1 Mod ) eyeball that a ship is going to hit you, or you it. There are only 2 courses of action: change course, change speed. That's it, nothing fancy. Unfortunately, we seem to have forgotten that, and sailors have paid for it with their lives.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
There are a lot of signs that point to some form of navigational spoofing through technical means. The Russians have reportedly been doing so in Moscow and near Sochi (where Putin has a dacha).
If so, it raises real questions about the capabilities of likely culprits, such as China or DPRK and how they are employing this and to what end.
Having said that, I am greatly vexed that in an age where Navy warships have a myriad of means to detect nearby contacts, that they are running into other vessels. Any technological explanations aside, a giant container ship isn't sneaking up on anybody. It is likely that beyond the men on sonar watch, the crew could hear the thing coming THROUGH THE HULL. Were there no lookouts on watch?
To this curmudgeon, it would appear to support my anecdotal observation that todays servicemembers are too reliant on technology, and figuring out things like navigation the old-fashioned way has become a lost art.
If so, it raises real questions about the capabilities of likely culprits, such as China or DPRK and how they are employing this and to what end.
Having said that, I am greatly vexed that in an age where Navy warships have a myriad of means to detect nearby contacts, that they are running into other vessels. Any technological explanations aside, a giant container ship isn't sneaking up on anybody. It is likely that beyond the men on sonar watch, the crew could hear the thing coming THROUGH THE HULL. Were there no lookouts on watch?
To this curmudgeon, it would appear to support my anecdotal observation that todays servicemembers are too reliant on technology, and figuring out things like navigation the old-fashioned way has become a lost art.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I agree completely 1SG. I've said the same thing about the use of GPS. It's a great asset to have but you'd better know how to use a map and compass. Plus, technology has bugs in it from time to time. So even if you're using something like a GPS, it's not a bad idea to pull the compass out and verify it.
(1)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
LTJG (Join to see) - Well, we need to get serious about finding the source, if we have not done so already. If my theory is correct, this has all sorts of ramifications for precision ordinance as well as general navigation. It also points to a vulnerability to EW or cyber that we have not yet defeated.
Meanwhile, for a service as steeped in maintaining traditions as the Navy is, I am flabbergasted that procedures broke down so much on multiple vessels that cumbersome civilian vessels on autopilot could come close with a destroyer that has double the speed and a fraction of the turning radius and be run down like they have. There is no excuse for that. And don't give me any jazz about how the waters are "congested". If we have tactical tracking systems that can monitor 100s of missiles in the air, as well as contacts on the surface and submerged, we can find something on a collision course in plenty of time to avoid it. This points to a cultural laxity in that destroyer squadron, and implies strongly that leadership should be accountable as well. The ocean is a really big place.
Training certifications and such aside, I can't fathom (see what I did there?) what the hell a lookout is doing if he/she does not see a giant mountain of steel and containers approaching.
Meanwhile, for a service as steeped in maintaining traditions as the Navy is, I am flabbergasted that procedures broke down so much on multiple vessels that cumbersome civilian vessels on autopilot could come close with a destroyer that has double the speed and a fraction of the turning radius and be run down like they have. There is no excuse for that. And don't give me any jazz about how the waters are "congested". If we have tactical tracking systems that can monitor 100s of missiles in the air, as well as contacts on the surface and submerged, we can find something on a collision course in plenty of time to avoid it. This points to a cultural laxity in that destroyer squadron, and implies strongly that leadership should be accountable as well. The ocean is a really big place.
Training certifications and such aside, I can't fathom (see what I did there?) what the hell a lookout is doing if he/she does not see a giant mountain of steel and containers approaching.
(1)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
LTJG (Join to see) - Sounds like most of them had let their qualification lapse already, due to some BS like there wasn't enough money or they were too operationally busy.
Like I said, there is plenty of accountability to go around, and the Rear Admiral commanding that unit was very correctly relieved, in my opinion. As were the OODs, Commanders, XOs, and CMCs of the vessels involved.
But the issue appears systemic, at least on the human side that the Navy has the most control over.
Like I said, there is plenty of accountability to go around, and the Rear Admiral commanding that unit was very correctly relieved, in my opinion. As were the OODs, Commanders, XOs, and CMCs of the vessels involved.
But the issue appears systemic, at least on the human side that the Navy has the most control over.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Simply put: the Navy asks too much of SWO's. They're ok with a lot of things and stellar at none. There needs to be dedicated ship-drivers, just like there's dedicated pilots, etc. At the very least, it should be required that SWO's sit for and pass the 3rd Mate's test with the Coast Guard. And can you f'n believe that the Navy doesn't teach ship-handling anymore? OR celestial navigation? They moved the focus away from driving ships to all the other boxes SWO's have to check. They simply don't have the time to be dedicated ship drivers. And this year, that rooster came home to roost.
(1)
(0)
LT Brad McInnis
SN Greg Wright I disagree... I was great at a lot of things, and I was stellar at being an a@@!!!! Just kidding, have a great weekend.
(1)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
LT Brad McInnis - I probably should have said jack of all trades, master of none. Sounds less pejorative.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google