Another Navy ship collision. 10 "missing" - Page 5 - SailNet Community
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #41 of 110 Old 08-22-2017
Senior Member
hpeer's Avatar
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Onboard
Posts: 1,158
Thanks: 12
Thanked 37 Times in 37 Posts
Rep Power: 15
Re: Another Navy ship collision. 10 "missing"

Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
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?
I think you are confusing the Fitz with the Porter. Both Arleigh Burke destroyers. There is a leaked bridge voice tape of the Porter that sounds much like you describe. Google it.

33' Brewer, Murray 33, steel cutter
44' Pape, Steelmaid, cc steel cutter
hpeer is offline  
Sponsored Links
post #42 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"

Cnn has reported that the destroyer lost steering just before the collision and turned in front of the tanker.

Hacking has not been ruled out.

Sal Paradise - Armchair Circumnavigator

Senior Researcher - Dunning Kruger
Sal Paradise is offline  
post #43 of 110 Old 08-22-2017
Senior Member
krisscross's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,058
Thanks: 40
Thanked 219 Times in 218 Posts
Rep Power: 7
Re: Another Navy ship collision. 10 "missing"

Originally Posted by Sal Paradise View Post
Cnn has reported that the destroyer lost steering just before the collision and turned in front of the tanker.
Was an alarm sounded as to the imminent collision coming, alerting the crew? If not, I see it as another most likely fake news or fabricated excuse.

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.
krisscross is online now  
post #44 of 110 Old 08-23-2017
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 2,261
Thanks: 10
Thanked 55 Times in 52 Posts
Rep Power: 15
Re: Another Navy ship collision. 10 "missing"

Here's an article (from a few years ago) that may have some relevance to the "big" picture, from Naval Institute Proceedings:
UglyDuckling likes this.
nolatom is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to nolatom For This Useful Post:
UglyDuckling (08-23-2017)
post #45 of 110 Old 08-23-2017
Senior Member
RichH's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 5,021
Thanks: 54
Thanked 326 Times in 310 Posts
Rep Power: 20
Re: Another Navy ship collision. 10 "missing"

Here's another article (from the MSM so hold your nose when reading):

Aug 23, 2017
Fears of cyber-attack as Navy fires 7th Fleet commander after collisions
By Rick Moran

The Navy announced that Vice Admiral Joseph Aucoin has been dismissed as commander of the Seventh Fleet following the second fatal collision of a U.S. naval warship with a civilian vessel in the last three months.

USA Today:
Adm. Scott Swift, commander of U.S. Pacific Fleet, dismissed Aucoin "due to a loss of confidence in his ability to command," the U.S. Pacific Fleet said in a statement.

It said Rear Adm. Phil Sawyer will assume command of the 7th Fleet immediately.

Aucoin had expected to retire this year, but his superiors decided to push his departure date due to concerns over his leadership skills, the New York Times reported. Aucoin has commanded the Japan-based fleet since September 2015. ...

The collision came two months after USS Fitzgerald was badly damaged in a collision on June 17 that killed seven sailors off the coast of Japan.

In lesser incidents that caused no reported injuries, the USS Lake Champlain was involved in a collision with a South Korean fishing boat near the Korean Peninsula in May, and in January the USS Antietam ran aground while attempting to anchor in Tokyo Bay.

"While each of these four incidents is unique, they cannot be viewed in isolation," Swift said.

The Navy's top officer on Monday ordered a pause in operations around the world.

Not only does the rash of incidents call into question the leadership skills of Aucoin, but the collisions have also stoked fears of some kind of cyber-attack on the electronics of U.S. Navy ships.

The Pentagon won't yet say how the USS John S. McCain was rammed by an oil tanker near Singapore, but red flags are flying as the Navy's decades-old reliance on electronic guidance systems increasing looks like another target of cyberattack.

The incident – the fourth involving a Seventh Fleet warship this year – occurred near the Strait of Malacca, a crowded 1.7-mile-wide waterway that connects the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea and accounts for roughly 25 percent of global shipping.

"When you are going through the Strait of Malacca, you can't tell me that a Navy destroyer doesn't have a full navigation team going with full lookouts on every wing and extra people on radar," said Jeff Stutzman, chief intelligence officer at Wapack Labs, a New Boston, New Hampshire, cyber intelligence service.

"There's something more than just human error going on because there would have been a lot of humans to be checks and balances," said Stutzman, a former information warfare specialist in the Navy.

Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. John Richardson, did not rule out cyber intrusion or sabotage as a cause of the fatal collision. "No indications right now ... but review will consider all possibilities," Richardson said in a tweet on Monday.

A cyber-attack would explain why radar and guidance systems on the ship failed to detect the other vessels in time. But what about the human element? There are supposed to be lookouts on deck to alert senior officers of a threat. It's hard to believe that on both the McCain and the Fitzgerald, the watch collectively fell asleep.

Unless there was lax discipline and poor leadership at the top. That appears to be the conclusion reached by the Navy, who dismissed the Fitzgerald's senior officers – twelve sailors in all. You would expect similar disciplinary measures taken against the officers of the McCain.

Given the horrific consequences of an enemy being able to penetrate the U.S. Navy's electronic navigation systems, a cyber-attack cannot be ruled out. If it were an enemy government responsible, it would appear that during war, they could exploit a vulnerability that could cost many lives and ships.

If the McCain and Fitzgerald were victimized by a hack, I doubt very much we'll ever hear about it through official channels. The Navy is not in the habit of announcing how vulnerable it is to cyber-warfare.
RichH is offline  
post #46 of 110 Old 08-23-2017
Senior Member
joebeach's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Pass-A-Grille, FL & Isle La Motte, VT
Posts: 135
Thanks: 4
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Rep Power: 8
Re: Another Navy ship collision. 10 "missing"

Reading this thread with interest. There appear to be two main potential explanations for these recent collisions that have been discussed here:

1 - US sailors being pushed to and over the brink physically, resulting in increases in human error with tragic consequences; and

2 - Tech hacks of navigational systems on US warships - in Asia - resulting in false data and obscuring imminent danger of collisions.

As a life-long civilian without a technological background, I can't speak to the details of either of these proffered explanations in an insightful way. And the recent collisions could have resulted from some combination of these and other factors.

But as an informal student of geo-politics who has done my share of spadework in matters civilian, there is certainly a potential suspect with both the political motivation and the technological means to wreak havoc with US military ships in Asian waters.


China sees it self as a rival of the US for regional and eventually (soon) global dominance. It views the US as an unwelcome competitor in China's backyard, which it considers its natural sphere of influence. In particular, China is very unhappy with the US Navy challenging China's growing hegemony in the South China Sea, where China has recently been building artificial islands and installing military equipment and airfields.

What better way than these seagoing "accidents" to show the world (especially to the US military brass) China's increasingly military and technological prowess, and also to show to the world the US's corresponding technological and military decline, and therefore its increasingly unreliability as a military protector in Asia?

And now, the US has temporarily suspended naval operations in Asia while the latest collision is investigated?

My surmise is that there is much satisfaction, and perhaps self-congratulation, with all of this in Beijing. :/
Sal Paradise likes this.

Beneteau First 265, VT
joebeach is offline  
post #47 of 110 Old 08-24-2017
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"

@joebeach --
You might well be correct--I don't know--but having viewed the video of the same class destroyer accelerate and turn sharply at speed that someone else earlier posted a link to, I suspect it might be even worse than that.
It was reported on MSM (yeah, 'fake news'--I know) that the destroyer had 3 minutes 'warning' prior to the collision to prevent it. If I recall correctly, the destroyer in the video did a 180 degree turn in about half that time, plenty of time to take evasive action if capable of doing so, and easily enough time to avoid being t-boned.
That suggests that it was incapable, or in other words, was somehow temporarily incapacitated in many, if not all functions. That the destroyer was then able to get to port on its own power, suggests that it was a temporary and reversible condition. To me, that suggests the destroyer was somehow electronically hijacked, but who knows by whom?
As per Sherlock Holmes (and also as a self-acknowledged conspiracy realist) I wouldn't rule out ANY of the technologically capable suspects, no matter how chillingly unlikely. #sittingducks
Lastly, concerning the recent firings, I consider them to be the equivalent of sacrificial anodes, to prevent the badly corroded superstructure from failing completely and sinking, if you get my drift. #sacrificiallambs
Obviously, itís just my speculation, and I welcome othersí points of view. I'm waiting for the verbal barrage and/or better explanation, fellow sailors, and I live to learn.
Sal Paradise likes this.
UglyDuckling is offline  
post #48 of 110 Old 08-24-2017
Senior Member
SanderO's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Northport, NY
Posts: 2,968
Thanks: 2
Thanked 79 Times in 79 Posts
Rep Power: 0
Re: Another Navy ship collision. 10 "missing"

It's still hard to tell what happened in both the recent Aegis incidents. The troubling aspect to both is that how could these huge ships be so damn close and on potential collision courses?

Either their equipment showing traffic around the vessel for BOTH the commercial bridge AND the Navy bridge were both not working properly...


the bridges were not communicating and this could be done and in place from miles away from close approach


watch standers were not performing their jobs on BOTH vessels

I find the hacking of software / hardware had to understand. This would mean that the bad guys had the positions and courses etc for the vessels which they wanted to crash... and could with precision hack the software / hardware on one or both vessels to cause a T both collision.

There are MULTIPLE and redundant systems to fix position and identify vessels etc in proximity to the navy ship and presumably for the tankers involved. Are we to believe that all systems failed? Or maybe one system failed and was dismissed as an outlier?

I am not familiar with this region but understand that there is a traffic separation zone. T bone sound like vessels navigated "outside" the separation zone into crossing courses. This seems very odd.

We need to know HOW the condition developed? This takes TIME.

Very curious.

pay attention... someone's life depends on it

Last edited by SanderO; 08-24-2017 at 06:20 AM.
SanderO is online now  
post #49 of 110 Old 08-24-2017
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,362
Thanks: 198
Thanked 172 Times in 168 Posts
Rep Power: 3
Re: Another Navy ship collision. 10 "missing"

Edit: not sure what was going on on the destroyer.

However, if you look at the AIS replay, you can see the tanker was operating within the VTS, in the correct lane. The tanker had multiple targets in close proximity on the starboard side, presumably all transmitting AIS signals. If there had been a single, target amongst those targets, with a poor RADAR signature (by design), not transmitting AIS, it could have been pretty hard to pick out from the noise. It could easily have appeared to be clutter, noise or a false signal off of one of those other vessels, especially if it was navigating at high speeds or in an extremely unconventional fashion (after all, it is a VTS zone).

The OOW on the tanker might only have had a quartermaster on the bridge with him for a look out (visual), while he divided his time between 2 RADARs, ECDIS, AIS, radio comms, navigation etc.

I wouldn't be to quick to say the chemical tanker should easily have been able to pick out a blacked out warship, possibly over taking, not transmitting AIS in high density traffic, that's a pretty heavy work load for one OOW and his quarter master.

Last edited by Arcb; 08-24-2017 at 07:33 AM.
Arcb is offline  
post #50 of 110 Old 08-24-2017
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Narragansett Bay
Posts: 19,255
Thanks: 82
Thanked 541 Times in 518 Posts
Rep Power: 11
Re: Another Navy ship collision. 10 "missing"

There are and probably should be a lot of covert things going on in the South China Sea, which are out of our sight. Sometimes single pieces become visible, but you're not going to get the full story and shouldn't. Not even a single member of the military could possibly know the whole story.

Cover ups are obviously bad, when they are concealing malfeasance. More often than not, they are concealing things they can't say, which is what makes the lie obvious or frustrates everyone with the lack of a full story.

Whatever is finally revealed or discovered here is very likely not to be the correct or full story anyway. I'm okay with that. Seeing a scrambled egg at the Admiral rank lose their job, implies to me that more than standard operational procedures went wrong. There is a cyber war going on and we're not on the sidelines.
RichH and SanderO like this.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Jeanneau 54DS

In the harsh marine environment, something is always in need of repair. Margaritas fix everything.
Minnewaska is offline  

Quick Reply

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


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

Email Address:


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