SailNet Community banner

21 - 40 of 110 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
17,467 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,965 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
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.
 

·
Captain Obvious
Joined
·
2,326 Posts
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.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
9,014 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,018 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,161 Posts
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.
As an ex-Navy person, I think there are already enough paranoid conspiracy theories on the internet. You don't need to start flogging yet another one about evil gub'ment cover-ups and false flag operations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,181 Posts
Can you sue US Navy and individual commanders for wrongful death? Somebody should do that. Nothing teaches people responsibility better than huge fines and jail time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,965 Posts
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
AIS is GPS driven.. if the GPS signal is unreliable.... all AIS's in the area would be garbage in garbage out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,097 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
9,014 Posts
AIS is GPS driven.. if the GPS signal is unreliable.... all AIS's in the area would be garbage in garbage out.
That is my point. If the military version of GPS was distorted, which at least according to the article seemed to be comparatively easy to do, the Navy ships would see the positions of private vessels accurately since they would be on non-military GPS signals, but the naval ship would not see their position accurately because their GPS signal is not the same as the ships around them.

Jeff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
We are all entitled to our own opinions, Troy, but not our own facts. "Paranoid conspiracy theories"? Certainly there are many crazy ones afloat the ‘internets’ (GWB), but the incidents I mentioned, though all officially denied, are now proven to all with at least two neurons and a working synapse. If you'd like to debate any or all of them, game on! Do you deny the existence of false flag operations? Or is it that our 'evil gub'ment' (your term) is incapable of foisting them upon our oh-so gullible citizenry? Or both? I self-labeled as a conspiracy realist, and I stand by that term, because I live in the real world, not some fanciful creation I wish was true.
I originally said that I smelled a skunk after two of our destroyers inexplicably got t-boned in the last two months by freighters (first time in our ‘modern-day’ history??), and especially so, now that there is a fleet-wide stand-down/pause and the Fitzgerald's CO and some senior crew have been blamed and sanctioned so quickly (not unlike the Admiral who was officially blamed for allowing the Pearl Harbor attack to take place). Will they be exonerated or should they be? I don’t know. All I know is that it has happened in the past many times, usually long after the accusatory damage was done and innocent lives and careers were ruined. Others have previously opined that they question whether we’ll ever find out what really happened, and I stand with them, too. Please tell me, what is it exactly Troy, that got your panties twisted so tight?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,181 Posts
That is my point. If the military version of GPS was distorted, which at least according to the article seemed to be comparatively easy to do, the Navy ships would see the positions of private vessels accurately since they would be on non-military GPS signals, but the naval ship would not see their position accurately because their GPS signal is not the same as the ships around them.

Jeff
Jeff, it is not any new situation (2 GPS versions used) and the civilian GPS system is not distorted on purpose. It is merely not as accurate but the accuracy is in the range of 10' max. If you get within 20' of another vessel on purpose, you better have physical eye contact with it as well. And no, night is not an excuse for poor lookout. These folks have awesome night vision technology. Navy knows all these were clearly human error situations on their end - as the disciplinary pattern shows. Mind boggling human error situations.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
9,014 Posts
Jeff, it is not any new situation (2 GPS versions used) and the civilian GPS system is not distorted on purpose. It is merely not as accurate but the accuracy is in the range of 10' max. If you get within 20' of another vessel on purpose, you better have physical eye contact with it as well. And no, night is not an excuse for poor lookout. These folks have awesome night vision technology. Navy knows all these were clearly human error situations on their end - as the disciplinary pattern shows. Mind boggling human error situations.
I see your point.

I knew about the two versions of GPS from the time that GPS was first introduced. Originally the civilian version had variable accuracy built into it (something like 100 meters). At some point later on this variable accuracy was turned off. The article suggested that GPS signals can be spoofed and give false readings. I was merely conjecturing that perhaps with all of these nav. errors in one small area, the military GPS was giving false positioning.

But I see your point entirely. Thanks
 
21 - 40 of 110 Posts
Top