Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Problems plagued U.S. Navy destroyer Fitzgerald before fatal collision

navytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 143 posts

Re: Problems plagued U.S. Navy destroyer Fitzgerald before fatal collision

#31

Post by dba7dba »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #30

So they're publishing a Navy report on the issue, they withheld publishing until the Pentagon gave them the OK, and the report seems to place as much blame as possible on the sailors. But it's not blatant propaganda because the Navy really doesn't want this public! If the Navy feels understaffed and overworked, they can stop illegally blockading countries.

Umm, the Navy has do what they are told, even if they feel they don't have enough people/equipment.

Also, which countries is US actively blockading illegally?

Re: Problems plagued U.S. Navy destroyer Fitzgerald before fatal collision

#32

Post by icebraining »

arethuza wrote: post #27
avar wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't most of the point of military training and operations to always run an operation as if though it was wartime? Otherwise if there's a war what are these crews going to be doing? Pissing themselves on the bridge, or have a bottle in one hand and their dick in the other while trying to man their station, possibly while undergoing hard maneuvers? This seems to be some fundamental failure of crew management. Crews s…

Presumably they don't run realistic exercises all the time - that sounds like a military equivalent of always being in crunch mode and we all know how well that works out!

Wartime can last years, you can't rely on only being able to withstand that for a couple of weeks or months.

I can't say I have any experience with the military, but from listening to "Life and Work on HMS Enterprise"[1], they are constantly running realistic exercises (in their case, mostly simulating fires and people overboard, since it's a research vessel).

[1] http://omegataupodcast.net/277-life-and-work-on-hms-enterpri...

Re: Problems plagued U.S. Navy destroyer Fitzgerald before fatal collision

#33

Post by Haga »

PhantomGremlin wrote: post #6
doodliego wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After reading the article, no, the Navy probably does not need more overpaid business consultants with powerpoints full of easy answers. It needs to do something about inexperienced, undertrained, overworked crews in its ships. The CO and XO shouldn't be sleeping while their ship is crossing a busy sealane full of behemoth freighters driving on autopilot in the dark.

The CO and XO shouldn't be sleeping while their ship is crossing a busy sealane Why aren't these people "the best of the best", to quote the trite line from Top Gun? According to Wikipedia, the US Navy has 282 deployable combat vessels. It employs a total of 325,673 active duty personnel plus 270,265 civilian employees. So out of those 600,000 people, they can't find a few thousand who are willing, able, and capable…

Office job never got somebody stuck in the middle of the ocean for a month

Re: Problems plagued U.S. Navy destroyer Fitzgerald before fatal collision

#34

Post by sametmax »

GeekyBear wrote: post #17

According to retired officers, the issue stems from training cuts. >For nearly 30 years, all new surface warfare officers spent their first six months in uniform at the Surface Warfare Officer’s School in Newport, Rhode Island, learning the theory behind driving ships and leading sailors as division officers. But that changed in 2003. The Navy decided to eliminate the “SWOS Basic” school and simply send surface fleet…

And yet, the US had no problem spending 600 billions of dollar for the war in Irak. And after that, elect a second time the president that started it.

I have a hard time feeling compassion.

Re: Problems plagued U.S. Navy destroyer Fitzgerald before fatal collision

#35

Post by patrickg_zill »

They will not tell you the truth: that having incompetent women in leadership positions, promoted due to political considerations and not merit, is objectively the underlying cause of the fatal accident.

Women do not belong in combat facing roles in the military. Full stop.

Source : actual reality, and observation of women in the military, including family members. Plus reading between the lines of the report.

Re: Problems plagued U.S. Navy destroyer Fitzgerald before fatal collision

#36

Post by jacobush »

GeekyBear wrote: post #17

According to retired officers, the issue stems from training cuts. >For nearly 30 years, all new surface warfare officers spent their first six months in uniform at the Surface Warfare Officer’s School in Newport, Rhode Island, learning the theory behind driving ships and leading sailors as division officers. But that changed in 2003. The Navy decided to eliminate the “SWOS Basic” school and simply send surface fleet…

Ok, I don't like these bastards who attacked Cole, but how can they be terrorist? They attacked a military target. Is it because they masqueraded as civilians - didn't follow the laws of war?

Re: Problems plagued U.S. Navy destroyer Fitzgerald before fatal collision

#37

Post by chopin »

kittiepryde wrote: post #23
chopin wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was more shocked of the pee-filled bottles on the bridge. This hints to deep cultural problems being present and an utterly incompetent upper management.

That's pretty normal. You get people on watch for 4 to 6 hours at a time. They can't leave. The bottle is sometimes the only option. You can try and get a relief so you can go to the head, but it's generally frowned upon if your that guy that always needs a head break, and in the middle of the night, no one wants to wake up so you can go pee.

As I said, that's poor management. You will loose to an enemy who does it properly. The US was once envied for their officers training and education.

Edited to add: Also, what will people do? They will drink less than they should to avoid the humiliation. On top of a tired crew you will get also a dehydrated one. This is a surefire recipe for bad things to happen.

Re: Problems plagued U.S. Navy destroyer Fitzgerald before fatal collision

#38

Post by cf141q5325 »

jacobush wrote: post #36
GeekyBear wrote: post #17

According to retired officers, the issue stems from training cuts. >For nearly 30 years, all new surface warfare officers spent their first six months in uniform at the Surface Warfare Officer’s School in Newport, Rhode Island, learning the theory behind driving ships and leading sailors as division officers. But that changed in 2003. The Navy decided to eliminate the “SWOS Basic” school and simply send surface fleet…

Ok, I don't like these bastards who attacked Cole, but how can they be terrorist? They attacked a military target. Is it because they masqueraded as civilians - didn't follow the laws of war?

They were part of a group that is classified as a terrorist organization.

Re: Problems plagued U.S. Navy destroyer Fitzgerald before fatal collision

#39

Post by mattmanser »

Animats wrote: post #15
nowarninglabel wrote: post #2

They should get Captain Marquet of "Turn the Ship Around!" to go get them ship shape. The book has some really good lessons on how shifting leadership style and culture can produce dramatically better results.

"It's Your Ship"[1] is more directly applicable. That's by a captain who turned around a troubled US Navy surface warship. I'm amazed that serving naval officers flunked a quiz on the Rules of the Road, and even more amazed that the XO of the ship refused to take such a quiz. That's so basic. It's the driver's handbook for ships. See rules 11-19, which are about How Not To Run Into Other Ships. These are simple right…

To be fair on the captain, he was facing a court-martial, why would you willingly give them more rope?

Re: Problems plagued U.S. Navy destroyer Fitzgerald before fatal collision

#40

Post by jacobush »

cf141q5325 wrote: post #38
jacobush wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, I don't like these bastards who attacked Cole, but how can they be terrorist? They attacked a military target. Is it because they masqueraded as civilians - didn't follow the laws of war?

They were part of a group that is classified as a terrorist organization.

Ok, I can buy that - it's not perfect, but the world is messy. :-/
Post reply on HN