SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/21/world/asia/navy-ship-mccain-search-sailors.html
Search teams scrambled Monday to determine the fate of 10 missing Navy sailors after a United States destroyer collided with an oil tanker off the coast of Singapore, the second accident involving a Navy ship and a cargo vessel in recent months.
The guided-missile destroyer, the John S. McCain, was passing east of the Strait of Malacca on its way to a port visit in Singapore at 5:24 a.m. local time, before dawn broke, when it collided with the Alnic MC, a 600-foot vessel that transports oil and chemicals, the Navy said. The destroyer was damaged near the rear on its port, or left-hand, side.
Half a day after the crash, 10 sailors on the ship remained unaccounted for. Five others were injured, none with life-threatening conditions, a Navy official said. Ships with the Singapore Navy and helicopters from the assault ship America were rushing to search for survivors.
Also at Reuters.
Previously: U.S. Navy Destroyer Collides With Container Vessel
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Monday August 21 2017, @05:01PM (15 children)
This is the 4th incident this year! Two other ships have had collisions (one really serious, the other not so much), and one ran aground in Japan. What is going on in the Navy that they can't pilot boats in a minimally competent manner?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @05:11PM (13 children)
They've really dropped the bar regarding waiting until people are dead to christen naval vessels after them, huh?
Other notables: Jimmy Carter (a sub), George H.W. Bush (A carrier), anyone else have a list of others?
(Score: 5, Informative) by EvilSS on Monday August 21 2017, @05:16PM (1 child)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_John_S._McCain_(DDG-56) [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @05:30PM
So there is at least a valid reason for it, unlike many of the later ones.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Monday August 21 2017, @05:22PM (9 children)
The US Navy has an absolutely horrible track record for naming ships these days (post WWII). They used to have some pretty cool names, like the Wasp or Hornet (WWII aircraft carriers), and also names for historically significant places (Essex, Lexington). Subs used to be named after fish.
Now ship naming is done to curry favor with politicians so they can get more funding. That's the reason one carrier was named the John C. Stennis, after a Mississippi congressman, and likely why the McCain got its name. Carter, not being a big war-hawk, got stuck with a submarine instead of a carrier, though he was President and not some Congressman. Subs are now named after states and cities, even when those states or cities are completely land-locked and nowhere near anyplace a sub could travel. They name them after cities again to curry favor with politicians and get more funding.
The real masters of ship-naming are the British, with names like HMS Defiant and HMS Invincible. Those are names even the Klingons would be proud of (after translating of course).
(Score: 4, Informative) by Nuke on Monday August 21 2017, @07:02PM (5 children)
The USN used to call battleships after states (landlocked or not - they all paid taxes), cruisers after cities, submarines after fish and destroyers after men, usually naval captains. Actually they ran out of recognisable fish names so they started making them up. They first named carriers after battles but then also used fanciful names like "Enterprise" and "Independence", more like the British convention for battleships and carriers. After WW2 the USN also named carriers after presidents and admirals. The British did not distinguish between battleship and carrier names because some of the first carriers were converted from battleships and kept their names, like "Glorious" and "Courageous".
Trouble is with the USN that battleships are no more, and destroyers, once minor ships, have become their equivalent in firepower but still seem to keep the name tradition.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday August 21 2017, @07:11PM (4 children)
It was never a great system, but it was better in the past with at least the subs and carriers having some decent names. IMO, naming a ship after a person is just a stupid idea, living or dead. If they're alive, it looks like some kind of major butt-kissing, and if they're dead that person can still be controversial. Fish aren't controversial; no one's going to be offended that the ship they're serving on is named the "Barracuda", but someone who's a minority might be offended at serving on a ship named after a slave-owner or a supporter of racist policies. Naming things for natural things, or for fanciful names like "Enterprise", "Defiant", "Independence" avoids all this, plus those kinds of concepts are generally things we hold in high regard as humans.
And how can they run out of fish names? There's tons of fish in the sea, and many of them also have multiple common names. Plus, the Navy regularly reuses ship names, so they only need as many fish names as the number of submarines currently in service. Ok, I guess they might want to shy away from some of the names: it probably wouldn't go over that well if they named a submarine the "USS Clownfish"....
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @08:22PM
Dunno man, it would be bad for the enemy's morale to learn they got sunk by a clownfish.
I say: instead of naming military gear after predators and big game, name them after small and cuddly animals!
Your boat got sunk by USNS Titmouse, your 14th wing was taken out by the Baby Gecko Strike Group & your mobile missile command was gobbled up by our Obese Panda special forces.
(Score: 3, Funny) by mhajicek on Monday August 21 2017, @08:56PM
USS Bloater
USS Slimehead
USS Spiny Lumpsucker
USS Slippery Dick
Plenty of fish names left...
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1) by dwilson on Tuesday August 22 2017, @05:36AM (1 child)
Oh my god, somebody might be -offended-?
Good. Fuck 'em. The world is a big, complicated place. Feelings take last place when you are serving on a ship of war, ready to kill or be killed for your country.
- D
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @07:26AM
That might not work so well when you realize that "your" country is actually a bunch of racist assholes.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Monday August 21 2017, @10:42PM
Don't forget HMS Thunder Child!
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Monday August 21 2017, @10:44PM
Or HMS Polyphemus [wikipedia.org]
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23 2017, @03:50PM
To be fair to the Navy, they were probably not trying to slight President Carter. I think it is more likely they put his name on a submarine because he served on a nuclear submarine when he was in the Navy.
I do agree that using peoples name for ships is both boring and somewhat inappropriate. It seems particularly inappropriate when the namesake is currently living.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @05:27PM
I'd counter that you've really dropped the bar on knowing what the fuck you're talking about to comment, but I'd imagine it was always pretty abysmally low.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @07:18AM
"We're the USA, we brake for nobody".
Not for an oil tanker than takes miles to change course, not for an island. Everybody must get out of our way.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by EvilSS on Monday August 21 2017, @05:04PM (19 children)
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Monday August 21 2017, @05:13PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @05:29PM (6 children)
Do container ships like the ones involved in these incidents use GPS? I remember a story just last month about how Pokemon Go players could never get near the certain government buildings in some countries because there was jamming in place to cause their phones to register as being at a location hundreds or thousands of meters away.
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Monday August 21 2017, @05:41PM (5 children)
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Monday August 21 2017, @07:53PM (4 children)
All ships are also required to carry transponders and receivers linked to Automatic Identification System (AIS).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_identification_system [wikipedia.org]
You can actually see this online and can monitor ship traffic anywhere in the world: https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-12.0/centery:25.0/zoom:4 [marinetraffic.com]
It seems as if the McCain made a course change to port not long before the collision. I wonder if it was a preset navigation change trusted to the auto-pilot and just as in the case of the Fitzgerald, the crew failed to maintain a proper watch. Even if the McCain had their AIS transponder turned off (as the NYTimes article indicates) they should still have an active receiver turned on not to mention the very best radar system for tracking nearby ships, especially as they were entering Strait of Malacca which is the busiest lane of shipping traffic on the planet.
It may be possible that there is some kind of systemic mechanical or electrical failure on this class of destroyer, but one would think it would have turned up in the Fitzgerald investigation if there was. My thinking is that it is more likely a systemic failure of training and staffing protocols at the fleet levels. More than just the officers of the two destroyers may well see their naval careers sunk.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Monday August 21 2017, @08:25PM (3 children)
All ships are also required to carry transponders and receivers linked to Automatic Identification System (AIS).
Not true. US Navy ships routinely keep these off so people can't track them so easily.
See here:
http://heavyliftnews.com/news/the-uss-fitzgerald-is-at-fault--this-is-why- [heavyliftnews.com]
You can actually see this online and can monitor ship traffic anywhere in the world
Yeah, this is why the Navy keeps their off most of the time.
My thinking is that it is more likely a systemic failure of training and staffing protocols at the fleet levels.
According to the article I linked above, it's likely a systemic failure of the way the US Navy operates. It intentionally hides by not using AIS, it uses conventions and jargon completely different from the rest of the planet (e.g., distances in yards instead of meters, relative bearing instead of absolute bearing, "left" and "right" instead of port and starboard, etc.), and it has a ridiculous communications chain between the captain and those actually steering the ship, and foreign captains can't just call up the captain and talk about their intentions like they can with other merchant captains.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @08:55PM (2 children)
You obviously have no direct experience with bridge procedures on naval ships, and just spout bullshit.
The conning officer (the "Conn") gives direct verbal orders to the helmsman doing the steering. No one but the Conn has authority to do that, there is no ridiculous chain as you so ignorantly put it. Even the Captain, should he wish to conn the ship personally, first assumes the the conn with the verbal announcement to all bridge personnel "This is the Captain, I have the Conn."
Bridge-to-bridge comms between merchies and naval ships is easy and common. It's the undermanned merchies who don't have "their ears on".
You are a phony, and your "news article" is bullshit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @11:51PM (1 child)
Looks like the Navy doesn't have to follow COLREGs:
http://navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/navRules/navrules.pdf [uscg.gov]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @11:55PM
*COLREGS
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @05:41PM (10 children)
Basic seamanship and military discipline in the Navy have been in a steady decline for decades. It's a general degradation over time not attributable to any single cause or person.
Over-reliance on whiz-bang tech gadgets, high operational tempos, shifting training time and emphasis toward touchy-feely crap, and personnel retention problems all contribute to the situation.
The answer is to get back to basics. Operating a warship in real-world conditions is not a video game or social gathering.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Monday August 21 2017, @06:59PM (9 children)
Over-reliance on whiz-bang tech gadgets, high operational tempos, shifting training time and emphasis toward touchy-feely crap, and personnel retention problems all contribute to the situation.
The answer is to get back to basics. Operating a warship in real-world conditions is not a video game or social gathering.
I think there's a bit of a problem here. The "touchy-feely crap" is likely not done just because of politics, it's done for those personnel retention problems you cite: the Gen-Z kids who the Navy is trying to recruit aren't going to put up with it for long if they run it the old-fashioned way, full of sexism. That's one big reason they've probably become so friendly to having women aboard, as well as LGBTetc. The Navy has to draw from society, and especially from the 18-25 year old subset of the society, and there just aren't that many kids these days who want to go into the Navy and spend 9 months of the year at sea doing drudge-work and not being allowed to have a relationship. And unlike days past when young Americans really did believe that going into the military was something honorable and serving the greater good, no one with half a brain thinks that the military is doing some kind of valuable work these days; it's just a job whoring yourself out, no different from working in any other industry where you're really just working to make the rich richer and hoping to catch a little bit of the benefit. So the Navy has had to expand its potential pool of candidates.
As for "high operational tempos", if you mean long deployments (leading to my comment above about spending 9 months at sea), that again is from being understaffed, for the reasons I stated above. It also doesn't help that the compensation package is pretty expensive, when you count the free education and early retirement and free housing and everything else that's included. If young people were all chomping at the bit to go into the Navy and risk their lives for corporate interests and didn't expect free education and all, things would be different.
Maybe we shouldn't expect to draw our military from our citizenry, and should just use foreign mercenaries. I hear that worked out really well for some past societies...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @07:21PM
Yes but in a democracy, the population will simply decide one day to vote that these foreign mercenaries are in fact terrorists. Then they will expect the real armed forces to go kill them.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tangomargarine on Monday August 21 2017, @07:56PM (5 children)
It's actually illegal according to the Geneva Convention. I don't really understand why.
So it sounds like the obvious loophole is in (c):
So all you have to do is either get rid of your regular military and only employ mercenaries, or pay mercenaries the same as your regular military? What's the difference between mercenaries and private military contractors?
Great. And here I was almost starting to think I understood the words.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday August 21 2017, @08:18PM (1 child)
Sounds like a bunch of BS to me. There's no obvious difference between a mercenary and a "private military contractor" (like Blackwater), except naming.
Moreover, the US military has had foreigners in its ranks for quite some time now, usually with a fast-track to citizenship being part of the compensation offer. The French have had foreigners in their military for ages; they call them the "Foreign Legion".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @09:10PM
At least in the US they are paid the same.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday August 21 2017, @11:59PM (1 child)
Probably because it adds a layer of hand-washing outsourcing.
"Hello and tank you for calling the US government department of war crime complaints. How may I help you today? I'm sorry our contractors troops lost their shit and slaughtered a hundred innocents in your village? Whats that... you want reprimands and justice? I'm sorry but the US government outsourced their oil war to $CongressDonor. You need to speak with the contractor who has an automated answering system which stores voicemails in /dev/null. Have a nice day and thank you for calling the US government."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @06:03AM
> Hello and tank you for calling
More like drone you, amirite?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @07:29AM
Seems e is even easier:
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict;
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @08:58PM
You are so full of shit your eyes are brown.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Monday August 21 2017, @09:47PM
Another field where a dearth of willing and qualified workers will drive a more rapid adoption of automation. I recall one of the big design requirements of the Zumwalt class was to dramatically reduce personnel requirements.
Robots don't question orders.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by nobu_the_bard on Monday August 21 2017, @05:09PM (5 children)
The first report I read about this the other day said there were 10 dead, that crewmen on both ships that should have been on visual spotting duty had reported nothing, and that neither ship apparently responded to anything on radar. At the time, implying responsibility for the crash was carefully avoided. I think I had read that at Reuters not sure.
I'll have to read around and see if that was just the first article jumping the gun or what.
(Score: 4, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Monday August 21 2017, @05:44PM (1 child)
What about the alt-port that came charging at the alt-starboard? Do they have any semblance of guilt? You also had some very fine people on both sides. On both ships. They're not heroes. They're heroes because they collided. I like sailors who didn't collide. 🇺🇸
(Score: 3, Funny) by NewNic on Monday August 21 2017, @06:48PM
That's too bad.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @07:25PM (1 child)
Fault in position plotting software?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @12:09AM
Probably written in node.js using warship.io which was deprecated the day it was released for navyshipfactory.io which was also obsolete before it got off the drawing board but was developed anyway by a bunch of retarded hipsters who mistakenly thought they were programmers. I hear it is to be replaced by an android app using web sockets and ten other NIH protocols and frameworks which will be ported to Google Fuchsia after the Torvals vs Tennanbaum debate is finally settled via a gentleman's duel.
Oh, this is the military? Well the story is similar but replace node.js with bloated military contractor code base written in Ada, tears, feces, and blood.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Monday August 21 2017, @09:50PM
Philadelphia Experiment. The ship was invisible.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2, Informative) by pTamok on Monday August 21 2017, @06:28PM (1 child)
It's worth giving some time to understanding the rules concerning navigation of ships that are at risk of collision (COLREGS, or "International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea" )
This describes a previous incident.
https://warontherocks.com/2017/06/how-could-this-happen-the-fitzgerald-the-u-s-navy-and-collisions-at-sea/ [warontherocks.com]
And this gives useful background:
http://gcaptain.com/uss-fitzgerald-fault/ [gcaptain.com]
http://gcaptain.com/uss-fitzgerald-fault-part-2-questions-answers/ [gcaptain.com]
http://heavyliftnews.com/news/the-uss-fitzgerald-is-at-fault--this-is-why- [heavyliftnews.com]
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Tuesday August 22 2017, @08:27AM
There is a good diagram and text in the warontherocks link above, which explains what might have happened.
https://warontherocks.com/2017/06/how-could-this-happen-the-fitzgerald-the-u-s-navy-and-collisions-at-sea/ [warontherocks.com]
If the John S. McCain were the yellow vessel in the 'Rules of the Road' diagram, it is entirely possible the merchantman believed he was being overtaken, and not in a crossing situation. When it became clear that the John S. McCain was actually crossing, it was too late for the merchantman to slow down sufficiently or change course sufficiently to prevent a collision - which would give damage on the John S. McCain's port quarter. In conditions of constrained manoeuvrability, however, it is incumbent on the more manoeuvrable vessel to give way to the less manoeuvrable vessel - e.g. laden oil tankers navigating a dredged channel do not change course for sailing vessels or speedboats, because they can't. I'm not saying this is what happened, but it gives a plausible reason for damage being where it is.
Even if the Navy vessel technically did not have to give way, it makes sense not to put your vessel deliberately in a position where a misunderstanding by the other party could lead to a collision, especially if you don't have to.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Monday August 21 2017, @06:44PM (3 children)
FTFA :
Is it really so hard for landlubbers to dispense with the explanation that "port" is on the left looking forward? To help, here is a ditty to remember it, and the colour of the navigation light too :- "There is some red port left to drink". Perhaps it would be too much to replace "near the rear" with "quarter". The damage looks like it was on the port quarter.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @07:05PM (2 children)
Out of curiosity, what benefit do you see in the added layer of obfuscation? Left/right and back/front are well defined since most would understand the back to be the side with the engine.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Nuke on Monday August 21 2017, @07:19PM (1 child)
"Side with the engine" ??? Your statement has confused me straight away.
When you are in a ship, say in the engine room (where I have spent many hours on watch as it happens) saying "left" and "right" to anyone, as in "check the oil pump on the left" is completely ambiguous if you happen to be facing aft (the back, or blunt end for you) at the time. The "port oil pump" is unambiguous OTOH.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday August 22 2017, @03:04PM
OK, so when people who aren't on a ship but reading this article from their living rooms are at the same time in the engine room of a ship....
um...what?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @07:00PM (4 children)
Consider that this might be sabotage or other such happenings? Finding anything in the ocean is not easy. Finding something and crashing into it is vastly harder. Beaching a military vessel is similarly bizarre. The first time is a freak accident, the second time is incredibly bizarre, the 4th time (in 8 months) is.. well it seems hard to keep seeing these as accidents.
I see three options:
- Lightning striking once, twice, thrice, and err fourice in the exact same spot.
- Very poor training of the individuals manning the ship.
- Some sort of nonchance related failure of hardware or manpower. Sabotage, hacking, electronic disruption, etc.
I find the chance argument to be increasingly unlikey and I think the lack of training is also unlikely. Are there other viable options?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Nuke on Monday August 21 2017, @07:12PM (2 children)
It was not in "the ocean" (implying wide open spaces) it was in or just emerging from the Strait of Malacca which is an extremely busy waterway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @07:06AM (1 child)
The width of the Strait of Malacca ranges from 40km at the narrowest to 320km. If our destroyer decided to cruise at max speed in our "extremely busy waterway", it would take it somewhere from 30 minutes to 4 hours to get from one side to the other. Again, even in [most] waterways the ocean is a really really big place.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Tuesday August 22 2017, @09:41AM
According to Wikipedia, the Strait of Malacca is 2.8 km at it's narrowest point (the Phillips Channel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Malacca [wikipedia.org]
There's a chart here: http://oceanring.com/images/page24map.jpg [oceanring.com] or bigger, here: http://oceanring.com/images/page36map.jpg, [oceanring.com] which shows the shipping lanes. By eye, from the scale, at the narrowest point, the two shipping lanes (one for each direction) occupy a total of 1 1/2 minutes of latitude, which is roughly 1.5x1.85 km, or 2.8km, so each lane has a width of about 1.4 km (although they are probably different widths).
To be fair, I don't know the location of the collision - it probably wasn't at the narrowest point. As far as I can make out, it was pretty much where the symbol for a Straitrep Reporting Point is printed, just north of the Horsburgh Light. The shipping lanes are still quite narrow there - about 3 minutes of latitude.
You get a better view of the intensive use of sea area in the Strait by looking at this chartlet of anchorages around Singapore: http://www.mpa.gov.sg/web/wcm/connect/www/6e290f3d-d3c5-435b-ae5a-8f734451feba/anchorages12.jpg?MOD=AJPERES [mpa.gov.sg]
The actual area is well mapped by British Admiralty Chart 2403 "Singapore Strait and Eastern Approaches".
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday August 21 2017, @07:12PM
Not so hard anymore?
WORLDWIDE SHIP TRAFFIC UP 300 PERCENT SINCE 1992 [agu.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]