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

51–60 of 143 posts

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

#51

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

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

#52

Post by yardie »

kevinskii wrote: post #14
rectang wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The CO and XO shouldn't be sleeping The Navy deliberately understaffs their vessels to meet unrealistic budgets. Overwork, fatigue, mistakes, and catastrophe are the inevitable consequence. The only thing more predictable is the scapegoating of ship personnel and the untouchability of those who create the conditions which guarantee eventual disaster.

My experience in the navy was the opposite: Ships were typically crewed with about 1.5X the number of sailors that were actually needed. I always suspected this was partly because lots of sailors means a big navy base, and a big navy base means a booming local economy in that congressional district.

My anecdote: enlisted and officers sleeping in hallways. Not enough time to sleep much less walk to their rack.

If you don’t believe a warship needs that many personnel on duty, that is different. Most of the crew aren’t there to sail. Cargo ships, for example, have a dozen crew at most. And their duty is to sail the ship from one port to another.

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

#53

Post by dmurray »

drblast wrote: post #12
PhantomGremlin wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The top grads of the academy get their pick of jobs and most of them pick aviation or nuclear surface/subs. Surface warfare officer is not the most desireable job for most people. And it sucks so bad most people have much better options and leave after the initial five year commitment.

Why is that? Battleships are badass and you don't have to spend the whole time in a tiny metal box underwater. If you're joining the Navy, don't you want to be in command of a big ship in the open seas?

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

#54

Post by adventured »

chopin wrote: post #37
kittiepryde wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> You will loose to an enemy who does it properly.

I agree with the need to always keep training in top shape.

There is no naval enemy on earth that is even remotely competitive with the US in any regard.

Iran? North Korea? ISIS? What enemy?

Russia has no global naval projection, it can barely sustainably push beyond the Black Sea with its surface ships. Their sub fleet is a medium threat. The US is also not at war with Russia, they aren't actually an enemy. There is no war coming with the Russians, they're only good for boogeyman status. They've got a perma stagnant economy (Australia will surpass it soon) and melting social-economic position (see: pension cuts making Putin unpopular), crimping their ability to continue to spend on anything military (most of their military is badly dilapidated, so they've taken to focusing very narrowly because they can't field a high quality force across the board any longer; this is also why Putin puts so much effort into screaming about his magic super weapons that are unstoppable, their conventional military is rotting).

Could China one day be a naval enemy? Sure. At some point in the next 20 years there could be a naval conflict near Chinese territory. The US isn't winning that near-shore conflict short of going to a WW2 level output of ships. The dumbest thing the US could do from a navy perspective is get into a naval conflict with China close to their shores 10-20 years from now. It wouldn't matter how well trained the officers are, it's an inherently losing position.

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

#55

Post by dexen »

0xffff2 wrote: post #16
kevinskii wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My experience in the navy was the opposite: Ships were typically crewed with about 1.5X the number of sailors that were actually needed. I always suspected this was partly because lots of sailors means a big navy base, and a big navy base means a booming local economy in that congressional district.

You're literally the only person I've ever seen make this claim. Why do we get so many stories of sleep deprived sailors if ships are over-crewed?

Possible explanation: a navy ship runs on rotation of three watches, each in turn taking control of the ship for 8 hours. Thus a ship ought to have a crew of 3x the manpower needed to run it. So by "crewed with about 1.5X the number of sailors that were actually needed", GP means a very understaffed vessel.

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

#56

Post by eesmith »

dba7dba wrote: post #31
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?

I think the OP refers to the (de facto) blockade of Yemen - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Yemen .

Quoting from that link, "The United States had joined the blockade in October 2016" and "According to the international law of naval blockade the naval measures conducted by the coalition led by Saudi Arabia do not amount to a naval blockade in the legal sense" and "Due to the devastating famine in Yemen and supply shortage of essetinal goods, which are caused by the enforcement measures, the naval operations off the coast of Yemen are criticized as a violation of international humanitarian law."

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

#57

Post by zakki »

austincheney wrote: post #43
sametmax wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't see the relation between any of the things you mentioned. I gave you downvote because I believe your comment seeks to inflame and distract from the conversation at present.

Related to the war, maybe he wanted to say don’t go to war, use (some of) the money for the training.

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

#58

Post by roenxi »

kevinskii wrote: post #14
rectang wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The CO and XO shouldn't be sleeping The Navy deliberately understaffs their vessels to meet unrealistic budgets. Overwork, fatigue, mistakes, and catastrophe are the inevitable consequence. The only thing more predictable is the scapegoating of ship personnel and the untouchability of those who create the conditions which guarantee eventual disaster.

My experience in the navy was the opposite: Ships were typically crewed with about 1.5X the number of sailors that were actually needed. I always suspected this was partly because lots of sailors means a big navy base, and a big navy base means a booming local economy in that congressional district.

If the crew is the same crew that is deployed in wartime, there is a reasonable chance that there will be casualties but the the ship has to keep going as best it can. It would be very sensible if naval doctrine had the ships somewhat over crewed as a routine measure.

If that also helps politically that is a bonus.

Source: I once talked to some dude who was both important and in a Navy.

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

#59

Post by whatshisface »

dba7dba wrote: post #28
cschep wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't underestimate how effective a bureaucracy can be at making the best of the best.. completely mediocre.

From my readings of US Navy of WW2 and personal experience in modern day tech companies, I think it's not just the bureaucracy that's at fault. Rather, the organization (actually any organization) by default favors those who manage their superiors well for more/faster promotions. So a lot of times, the best of the best doesn't necessarily rise to the top, but rather those who are good at self promoting. 1. IN WW2, US…

The trouble with that advice is that people on the receiving end of smooth talking don't think, "this guy is smooth talking me so I should promote him," instead they feel a mysterious attraction and then promote the guy for a reason they can't really explain but can come up with a justification for.

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

#60

Post by wbl »

dmurray wrote: post #53
drblast wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The top grads of the academy get their pick of jobs and most of them pick aviation or nuclear surface/subs. Surface warfare officer is not the most desireable job for most people. And it sucks so bad most people have much better options and leave after the initial five year commitment.

Why is that? Battleships are badass and you don't have to spend the whole time in a tiny metal box underwater. If you're joining the Navy, don't you want to be in command of a big ship in the open seas?

Top Gun vs Master and Commander.
Post reply on HN