Live data from Hacker News

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

navytimes.com

61–70 of 143 posts

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

#61
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

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

Ship to ship maneuverability and tactics, even? How can you be so sure? Do you think that it's impossible for a US ship to lose a "dogfight" at sea in Asia as tensions escalate? If the lack of training is as bad as they say, I have a hard time imagining them winning one.

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

#62
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

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

I find this hilarious in the context of the incident,

Who would win: the greatest navel power on earth operating a highly sophisticated and technologically advanced destroyer, or one container ship?

Just because there isn't an enemy now doesn't mean that you can just forgo training. They shouldn't sink to a lowest common denominator, but rather strive for a higher standard. They're hardly in top shape according to the report

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

#63
The most amazing things to me is that all of the non-military vessels in the area at the time were transmitting AIS. Isn't a warship supposed to be able to navigate in a combat environment, with the presence of jammers, based only on its radar data?

Having precise AIS data flowing in for every ship in the area is navigating on "easy mode".

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

#64
post #7

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 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.

Any mention if this was a reserve (TAR) ship? The last ship I was on (FFG-19, 1995-1997) was ship designated for training reservists. We had 2/3 of the normal crew as active duty sailors and on weekend a month we would spend the weekend at sea with the full crew (complimented by reservists). We still deployed (on counter-narcotics operations) just like the rest of the ships on the waterfront even though we were 33% short on personnel.

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

#65
post #47

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 full of behemoth freighters driving on autopilot in the dark. That was certainly how it worked 40 years ago aboard the USS Enterprise (the aircraft carrier, not the starship). Day or night, the CO would always come to the bridge whenever another ship got to within about two- to four miles and was predicted to come within one mile. And i…

It makes you wonder if this is a Nasa / Challenger situation, wherein the captain decided not to come to the bridge during one incident, nothing happened, and so that rapidly became SOP on this ship.

Or, as the broader lesson goes, taking a risk without it blowing up doesn't necessarily mean the risks are less. It might just mean you were lucky.

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

#66
post #53
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?

Not sure if it's true, but I heard that smaller than aircraft carrier surface vessels feature microwaved meals instead of a full mess (cost savings).

This was from a younger Navy guy and older Navy guy swapping stories. The older guy was horrified.

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

#67
I was stationed on a Destroyer from 2015-2017 and subsequently deployed with them as an IT in the radio shack. CIC looks like something out of a movie (and really the only part of the ship that does) - it's very dark, has lots of glowing monitors covered in charts, surveillance feeds, and a whole lot of people. In the radio shack, we worked 12 on, 12 off, 7 days a week. I cannot remember CIC's watch rotation exactly but it was similar. On that deployment CIC had one sailor who went up to captain's mast for falling asleep at his station. I remember emphasising with him - sitting in a chair, in the dark, for hours on end while monitoring a feed that never changes. That being said, it was our only incident in CIC and our captain "Hammerin Hank" took care of the incident appropriately. There are several things in this article id like to speak on:

>He saw kettlebells on the floor and bottles filled with pee.

Peeing in bottles is something i have only heard of engineering doing - in engineering spaces. You will get labeled a nasty-mothafucka if anyone catches you regardless. To fill a bottle in CIC (with the exception of a few curtained off spaces) would require the complicity of several watchstanders. Where was chief? Where was LT? The kettlebells are really not a big deal - we all would "borrow" things from the gym to get a little pump on watch because there is a LOT of downtime. I can imagine sitting at a CIC station just knocking out some curls to stay awake. We did pull-ups on light fixtures in radio.

>Some radar controls didn’t work and he soon discovered crew members who didn’t know how to use them anyway.

HA! Most of the equipment on ships is ancient. Things are ALWAYS breaking. How we treat the topside steel is analogous to how we treat equipment - prime and paint over it! When something breaks you submit a casualty report to let Big Navy know. If you need a part you have to wait to hit port or receive it at-sea replenishment. Troubleshooting consists of tribal knowledge and talking over the IP phone to a shore station. Watchstanders not knowing how to use the equipment is completely UNSAT (there is of course an "A" team and a "B" team on every ship, but the basic knowledge should be there). While there are a lot of useless bodies on a ship, you should not be sitting a watch station unless you have completed your personal qualification standard which needs to be signed off by someone who is qualified. Some of them even require you sit a board and get quizzed. That also being said, i have traded dip for signatures before.

We had this poster in our chow line that talked about when the exception becomes the rule (wish i could find the quote). Basically, all the little "exceptions" you make to the rules start to become normal and then new and junior sailors think these exceptions are actually rule. These all build and build until you are so far from baseline you don't even remember what baseline was. The fitz and mccain no doubt were a result of this phenomenon. Failures on every level from junior enlisted to the Captain. It breaks my heart these sailors lost their life as the result. I really loved my time in the Navy (and miss it!) but the operation tempo in the current climate is just not healthy and i imagine this won't be the last tragedy to happen unless something changes.

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

#68
post #45

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?

The word "terrorist" has been reappropriated, possibly because "guerilla warfare", "asymmetric warfare" etc sound too glamorous. In the US it mostly means any military action by non-state actors against the US and its allies.

It was re-appropriated because it is easy to get the American people on board with spending bucket loads of money on it. It's a trillion dollar industry, terrorism is. People are getting wealthy off of it. Forget that almost no attacks happen. Forget that more people die each year choking on food. Let's spend money like it's free!

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

#69
post #19

> The probe exposes how personal distrust led the officer of the deck, Lt. j.g. Sarah Coppock, to avoid communicating with the destroyer’s electronic nerve center — the combat information center, or CIC — while the Fitzgerald tried to cross a shipping superhighway. I was shocked to read above. You don't personally trust someone or people in CIC so you just don't communicate with CIC when you are crossing the most con…

> What is this? High school??

According to most of the ex-Navy people I've met, it's high school part 2. None of them had been officers, and I'm a tiny bit surprised it extends to the officer class, but only a tiny bit.

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

#70
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why the post you replied to is suggesting "a few thousand" competent people in these slots for 282 ships. The question isn't why one person is asleep, it's why there's nobody filling the role.

There is exactly one CO and one XO for ship.

If most of their subordinates are on a 12-on/12-off schedule, two people who don't do physical work can be on the bridge whenever necessary.
Post reply on HN