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

111–120 of 143 posts

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

#111

Post by kevinskii »

stoolpigeon wrote: post #48
0xffff2 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In my time on a ship we were always undermanned. All the development I've seen in new systems to replace those I worked on (arresting gear and catapults) focus heavily on reducing required manning. We never did busy work or work that was unnecessary when we were under way and flying aircraft. In port - yeah sometimes. Most current sailors I talk to are overworked, training gets gundecked, following safety procedures…

I was on a nuclear sub from 1996-1999, so it's possible that my observations are no longer valid or don't apply to surface ships. But I suspect that my assessment would be the same even today. I worked with enough surface sailors to see that the amount of bullshit work they did was comparable to ours, and they didn't have nearly the physical space limitations that a submarine does.

It's not so much that we were doing "unnecessary" work, but rather that many tasks which required a dedicated person were so trivial that any reasonably competent sailor could easily handle two or three of them at once, or the task could be even more reliably automated.

One quick example is the fathometer operator: When we were sailing in shallow or uncharted waters, a sailor had to spend hours doing absolutely nothing but watching the depth gauge so he could give a verbal warning if we were in danger of running aground. This is not a job that requires a person's full attention even in the most challenging undersea terrain.

To some extent it's necessary to break jobs down into simple repetitive tasks so that they can reliably be done in a high-stress environment, but the navy really took it to an extreme. The end result was the overwork and fatigue that others are referring to.

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

#112

Post by ams6110 »

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?

This was a destroyer though. Pretty small compared to a battleship or a carrier. Not really a high prestige command.

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

#113

Post by kevinskii »

dexen wrote: post #55
0xffff2 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I accounted for the three watches in my comment.

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

#114

Post by Dylan16807 »

watwut wrote: post #49
Dylan16807 wrote: post #13

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.

That's why I said "the role" instead of specifically that job title.

Either they're slacking or there aren't enough, and you can fix either problem with 10 quality candidates per ship.

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

#115

Post by gpm »

doodliego wrote: post #4
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.

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 ...

If the CO and XO are so critical that the ship needs one of them during normal operations I think there is a bigger problem.

What happens in a conflict that lasts more than 24 hours? They alternate schedules and just don't talk to eachother much?

What happens if one of them is incapacitated? The ship is ineffective for half of every day?

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

#116

Post by jcranmer »

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?

The US Navy doesn't own any battleships. After fleet carriers, the next level is going to be destroyers and missile cruisers.

According to Wikipedia, the US decommissioned its last battleship in 1992. Even then, the US Navy largely forswore battlehsips after WWII, and battleships were decommissioned and recommissioned twice during the Cold War. The last time two battleships ever fired at one another was the Battle of Surigao Strait 74 years ago.

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

#117

Post by JohnBooty »

dctoedt wrote: post #47
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 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…

Would that have been feasible (in terms of the captain being a human being that needs rest) on a ship like the Fitzgerald that operates pretty much 24/7/365 in busy waters?

I'm not asking rhetorically -- honest question.

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

#118

Post by rthomas6 »

jessaustin wrote: post #91
da_chicken wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a term for it. "Act of war".

The war media and armaments lobbyists don't like using the actual word "war" much. That tends to highlight the fact that none of the military actions currently underway have been sanctioned by Congress as required by the Constitution. The last legal declaration of war occurred in 1942. "Terrorism" has been a useful catch-all for some time now, but when it wears out through overuse they'll come up with something else.

That's not strictly true. The recent wars weren't "declarations of war", but most (not all) were authorized by Congress. Congress voted on military action against those countries and it passed both chambers, but they didn't "declare war". To be honest I don't understand the difference, other than the words used.

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

#119

Post by JohnBooty »

ams6110 wrote: post #112
dmurray wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This was a destroyer though. Pretty small compared to a battleship or a carrier. Not really a high prestige command.

Battleships were phased out decades ago.

Really, the advent of military aviation made them more or less obsolete in WWII.

There were almost no ship-to-ship battles involving battleships in WWII; they were used almost exclusively to shell inland targets close to shorelines, but there are much more efficient ways to do that and those ways aren't limited to striking targets within gun range of the shoreline.

So it's pretty much carriers and destroyers as far as combat ships on the surface these days. (Not sure the term "destroyer" is used much these days, but the non-carrier surface combat ships are roughly comparable in size to what would have been called a destroyer in the old days)

And then of course you have the many amphibious assault ships, support ships, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_currently_active_Unite...

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

#120

Post by gnu8 »

alasdair_ wrote: post #102
fixermark wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine when a country is founded on an illegal uprising against a significant world military and economic power that they go on to win, exceptionalism ends up baked into their cultural DNA.

Isn’t every armed uprising “illegal” in the eyes of the group that used to be in control?

Depends on which side wins.
Post reply on HN