Another Navy ship collision. 10 "missing" - Page 3 - SailNet Community
 83Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #21 of 110 Old 08-21-2017
Tartan 27' owner
 
CalebD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,236
Thanks: 10
Thanked 148 Times in 140 Posts
Rep Power: 12
 
Re: Another Navy ship collision. 10 "missing"

Depends on where you're sailing.
smackdaddy and Minnesail like this.

"The cure for anything is salt water~ sweat, tears, or the sea." ~Isak Denesen

Everybody has one:

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
CalebD is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 110 Old 08-21-2017
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 17,467
Thanks: 226
Thanked 227 Times in 216 Posts
Rep Power: 0
     
Re: Another Navy ship collision. 10 "missing"

Quote:
Originally Posted by UglyDuckling View Post
As an ex-navy person, I think that this is nonsense.
Forget being in stealth mode, so others can't electronically see you. The freighter was obviously not at fault. It's like a huge turtle running over a dysfunctional and totally disabled rabbit.
What about one's command responsibility to see others? Could all of the watch detail (I bet at least 4) been asleep?
What about one's responsibility not to cross the path of others?
Unless the navy has changed more than is imaginable (by me), there had to be people on watch who saw this coming, and alerted the bridge, especially if disabling ones own radars is part of being stealthy. Didn't sonar hear it bearing down/getting closer?
As a conspiracy realist who knew with certainty that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a false flag operation way back in 1966, I smell a skunk.
Given two deadly incidents in two months, both involving 'modern-day' digital destroyers, I'm guessing a 'hack' occurred, not unlike when our Navy vessels could not respond during 'enemy' fly-overs in the Black Sea and Baltic, even if they wanted to. And if any crew member mentions what actually happened, they'll likely know the Philly brig intimately, and/or lose all bennies forever.
There's a cover-up going on, be there no doubt.
I knew it back in 1966, and left the navy asap.
These dead sailors never had a chance, and unless this is made public, more will follow.
My condolences to all who care.
Now that's an interesting take. What would have been affected/disabled in such a hack?

If I recall, wasn't the Fitz the result of the OOD calling for them to cut in front of the oncoming traffic - misjudging the closing speed/distance?
smackdaddy is offline  
post #23 of 110 Old 08-21-2017
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 5
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 0
 
Re: Another Navy ship collision. 10 "missing"

What would have been affected/disabled in such a hack?
In a modern vessel like that, pretty much everything other than the ship's bell could have been disabled.

If I recall, wasn't the Fitz the result of the OOD calling for them to cut in front of the oncoming traffic - misjudging the closing speed/distance?
That might have been the initial story, or the 2nd, 3rd or 10th iteration of it, but remember--we were lied to about 9-11, the Gulf of Tonkin, the USS Liberty, and also about the Maine and who knew what and when before Pearl Harbor. Remember what Tolstoy taught us: history would be a wonderful thing, if it were only true.
What I know for certain, is I never would have joined had I known the truth, which is of course, why we aren't told it.
Including the speech earlier this evening.
MarkofSeaLife likes this.
UglyDuckling is offline  
 
post #24 of 110 Old 08-22-2017
Senior Member
 
SanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Northport, NY
Posts: 2,956
Thanks: 2
Thanked 79 Times in 79 Posts
Rep Power: 0
 
Re: Another Navy ship collision. 10 "missing"

Quote:
Originally Posted by UglyDuckling View Post
What would have been affected/disabled in such a hack?
In a modern vessel like that, pretty much everything other than the ship's bell could have been disabled.

If I recall, wasn't the Fitz the result of the OOD calling for them to cut in front of the oncoming traffic - misjudging the closing speed/distance?
That might have been the initial story, or the 2nd, 3rd or 10th iteration of it, but remember--we were lied to about 9-11, the Gulf of Tonkin, the USS Liberty, and also about the Maine and who knew what and when before Pearl Harbor. Remember what Tolstoy taught us: history would be a wonderful thing, if it were only true.
What I know for certain, is I never would have joined had I known the truth, which is of course, why we aren't told it.
Including the speech earlier this evening.
The issue is not always the lie but what is being concealed by it. PR, advertising and marketing are lies of one sort or another.

pay attention... someone's life depends on it
SanderO is online now  
post #25 of 110 Old 08-22-2017
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 5
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 0
 
Re: Another Navy ship collision. 10 "missing"

Quote:
Originally Posted by SanderO View Post
The issue is not always the lie but what is being concealed by it. PR, advertising and marketing are lies of one sort or another.
I agree that they often if not usually are concealing lies, but not always. If ones' product or service is good enough, there is no need to lie, exaggerate, obfuscate or tell anything but the truth. (It worked for me for 25 years, the last ten of which I had no need to advertise or self-promote, as I had more work than I could handle, and nothing to conceal.) Competition came and then fell by the wayside. Of course by today's standards, I was a terrible businessman, and retrospectively that also was true.
Sal Paradise likes this.
UglyDuckling is offline  
post #26 of 110 Old 08-22-2017
Captain Obvious
 
Sal Paradise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: New York
Posts: 2,159
Thanks: 25
Thanked 89 Times in 88 Posts
Rep Power: 7
 
Re: Another Navy ship collision. 10 "missing"

I went to Pratt, which was founded on industrial arts. Just like my grandfather 50 years before and he went on to a career building warships in the Brooklyn Navy Yard just down the street. I spent the most of my career in heavy commercial construction. There is no propaganda for the man who climbs way up and welds your girder. or bolts the steel frame together, same for the mason or the carpenter. The money spent on those things gives benefits for generations and creates wealth in the future. No propaganda needed. Unfortunately propaganda is way too effective.

None of that effects the real issue which is that the Navy owes the families of those dead servicemen a full explanation, and the swift assurance that everything possible is being done from now on to ensure safety. And 100% accountability for those who are responsible. I wouldn't count on it, but I hope so.
SanderO and MarkofSeaLife like this.

Sal Paradise - Armchair Circumnavigator

Senior Researcher - Dunning Kruger

Last edited by Sal Paradise; 08-22-2017 at 09:41 AM.
Sal Paradise is offline  
post #27 of 110 Old 08-22-2017
Administrator
 
Jeff_H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Posts: 8,636
Thanks: 28
Thanked 415 Times in 346 Posts
Rep Power: 10
     
Re: Another Navy ship collision. 10 "missing"

I am not sure that we will ever know all the facts on this, but one thing that has me troubled is that this is actually the fourth or fifth serious navigational error issue in the South China Sea in the past couple years (two groundings, two ship to ship collisions and a sinking of a fishing boat that had AIS). I recently read an article that the U.S. Military is thinking of going back to radio based navigation similar to Loran because the military has discovered that GPS can be too easy hacked and spoofed thereby providing inaccurate position information.

What makes this so suspicious is that even a ship running invisibly can track the movement of other ships using AIS and should have been able to avoid a collision. You have to think that any vessel in as crowded a sea land as this would have been at least minimally tracking AIS and had automated warning systems activated. But if their GPS is not giving them an accurate position, then it would be easy to think that a collision or grounding is unlikely when it fact you are in a spot where a collision is imminent. What the article said that to me made it plausible for these collisions to be the result of a distorted signal is that US military GPS operates in a different mode than the civilian version which allows the civilian version to be scrambled to reduce accuracy in times of war.

Jeff
joebeach and UglyDuckling like this.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Curmudgeon at Large- and rhinestone in the rough, sailing my Farr 11.6 on the Chesapeake Bay
Jeff_H is online now  
post #28 of 110 Old 08-22-2017
Captain Obvious
 
Sal Paradise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: New York
Posts: 2,159
Thanks: 25
Thanked 89 Times in 88 Posts
Rep Power: 7
 
Re: Another Navy ship collision. 10 "missing"

U.S. Navy Announces Fleet-Wide Probe In Wake of Major Accidents ? gCaptain


"Ben Stewart, commercial manager of Maritime Asset Security and Training in Singapore, said early indications suggested the warship may have turned across the front of the tanker."

Sal Paradise - Armchair Circumnavigator

Senior Researcher - Dunning Kruger

Last edited by Sal Paradise; 08-22-2017 at 10:57 AM.
Sal Paradise is offline  
post #29 of 110 Old 08-22-2017
Senior Member
 
roverhi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Kona, Hawaii
Posts: 847
Thanks: 5
Thanked 69 Times in 66 Posts
Rep Power: 6
 
Re: Another Navy ship collision. 10 "missing"

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkofSeaLife View Post
Rich, have you sailed Singapore Straits and Malacca Straits? (or the English Channel that I did for the first time a few weeks ago).

They are too busy for old fashioned hairy eyeballs. These navy ships have disruptive radar signatures built into their topsides design, let alone their electronic disrupters. Plus not tx'ing the AIS position... And the other shipping is flat out reading the host of other clear signatures how the hell can they divert?

When I crossed the English channel a few weeks ago, at night, I had to select one break in the traffic and hammer it to do the 5 miles at right angles. At the end of that hour I could see I would have 5 (Five) ships abreast bearing down on me. But they could "SEE" me... And divert if I screwed up.

No one can see Navy ships if they refuse to transmit AIS is busy areas. (or a virtual radar signal)

When a navy ship is on patrol up North Korea way its fine to be full tactical... But the busy shipping lanes off Japan and Singapore has shown twice the folly of this insanity.

No man can do these areas just by being old fashioned. They must use electronics nowadays
The Navy ships should stay out of the way of the civilian traffic in accord with COLREGS, PERIOD, unless involved in a real life military situation. The civilian traffic is typically ponderous ships with limited maneuverability and couldn't avoid a Navy combatant ship that wanted to play chicken if they wanted to. Doubt that there is any cloaking or stealth technology on the typical Destroyer other than outright jamming of radar. Jamming would be irresponsible in a non threat situation as it would wipe out the radar of all the ships in the area. Stealth technology is only now coming into the fleet, in limited numbers and doubt if it is
effected in this type of vessel. In short, the ability of the civilian traffic to see the military is immaterial. A Navy ship should have no issues with seeing traffic, both electronically and visually, and avoiding it. Somebody screwed up big time and their careers will be ending. Little consolation for those that were killed.
roverhi is online now  
post #30 of 110 Old 08-22-2017
Freedom Chip Counter
 
scubadoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: South, FL
Posts: 246
Thanks: 24
Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts
Rep Power: 6
 
Re: Another Navy ship collision. 10 "missing"

two words - diversionary tactics

modern day 3 Shell Monte...

Tartan 31
scubadoo is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

By choosing to post the reply above you agree to the rules you agreed to when joining Sailnet.
Click Here to view those rules.

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the SailNet Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
Please note: After entering 3 characters a list of Usernames already in use will appear and the list will disappear once a valid Username is entered.


User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Disapointment with Polar Navy Customer "service" tschmidty Electronics 8 06-27-2016 09:41 PM
That's not going to buff out... "collision" mdbee Seamanship & Navigation 6 08-15-2012 07:58 PM
C270 Main Sail "stack Pack", Quick Cover", "lazy Bag" Install randy22556 Catalina 1 02-28-2007 11:53 AM
Quintess Yacht Tragedy - "The Essence" Sinks In Fatal Collision - Helium Report NewsReader News Feeds 0 09-26-2006 01:20 AM
"Discover" Ship Docked at Owensboro (14 WFIE Evansville) NewsReader News Feeds 0 09-07-2006 05:19 PM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome