Live data from Hacker News

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

navytimes.com

121–130 of 143 posts

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

#121
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I never served aboard a "small boy" (a.k.a. "tin can" a.k.a. destroyer), so I don't know what their operational tempo is like. On the carrier where I did serve, if we had extended up-tempo ops, there'd be times when the most-senior officers other than the CO and XO would take turns as "command duty officer" on the bridge as a backstop for the more-junior officer-of-the-deck (OOD), so that the skipper could get some rest. Of course, a carrier has lots of pretty-senior officers — small boys, not so much.

And to be sure, it's not quite apples to apples. An aircraft carrier normally spends most of its time in the open sea: To launch and recover aircraft (other than helos and vertical take-off and -landing aircraft), the carrier needs miles and miles of room to steam at high speed into the wind without having to change course for traffic. (If you're steaming into the wind at, say, 30 knots, the aircraft being launched or recovered get a head start in staying above stall speed.) Depending on the circumstances, even in peacetime a carrier might have one or more weapons-loaded aircraft in alert status, ready for launch on comparatively-short notice as a combat air patrol (CAP). When that's the case, the ship would need to be away from traffic, in case it had to quickly turn into the wind to put up a CAP. That's why, except when entering or leaving port, or transiting, carriers usually stay away from highly-trafficked areas.

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

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The officer of the deck is named "Sarah". How does a woman urinate in bottles in a public work setting? If she was the boss, why did she tolerate others doing what she can't? If she wasn't the boss, it seems she has a pretty good case for having been subjected to a toxic work environment. Of course this must be balanced against the fact that her poor performance killed sailors.

The officer on deck - Sarah Coppock - was responsible for the entire ship while the captain was sleeping. She was on the bridge, not in the CIC where the bottles were. However, the officer in charge of the CIC - Natalie Combs - was also female.

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/01/16/photo-em...

In a surprise move during a Tuesday hearing in a Washington Navy Yard courtroom, defense attorneys representing Lt. Natalie Combs held up a new piece of evidence that might exonerate her at her upcoming court-martial trial.

It’s a photograph — a still image captured from digital footage recorded by an aft Vertical Launching System camera mounted on the guided-missile destroyer Fitzgerald on June 17, 2017, seconds after it was speared and spun off the coast of Japan by the hulking ACX Crystal, a Philippine-flagged cargo vessel.

What it reveals is something that hasn’t surfaced in any of the Navy’s publicly-released probes or even a secret military “dual-purpose” investigation obtained by Navy Times and completed 41 days after the tragedy.

It shows a string of lights on the ACX Crystal that Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Jeff Janaro — an attorney who also commanded vessels at sea — called an “improper lighting configuration,” one that appeared to the defense team to be “recklessly unlawful.”

That’s important because if the ACX Crystal’s lamps were positioned incorrectly, that alignment might’ve fooled the watchstanders on the Fitz’s bridge who were trying to track multiple vessels in one of the world’s busiest maritime superhighways, piecing together a picture of the night through radar readings and visual clues.

Ship travel is governed by the “rules of the road,” a set of guidelines regarding speed, lookouts and other best practices to avoid collisions. Those bylaws include how lights are configured on ships.

The green lights on the side of a vessel should be visible from three miles away, six miles for the bright white lights running from bow to stern.

“This picture tells us it didn’t look right,” Janaro told Navy judge Cmdr. Arthur Gaston. “We think the Crystal was very negligent in this matter.”

Few people have seen the image — maybe only a handful of attorneys in Washington, Lt. Combs and Navy Times — but it “might be worth a thousand words,” as Gaston put it.

It’s unclear if even the Coast Guard investigators working on a National Transportation Safety Board probe into the Fitzgerald collision have a copy of it.

n the night of the collision, Combs never would’ve seen the lights of the ACX Crystal with her own eyes. She was in charge of the Fitz’s electronic nerve center below the bridge, what’s called the Combat Information Center, or "CIC.'

Her team was supposed to use advanced sensors like the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer’s SPS-67 radar to track vessels near the Fitz and relay what they detected to the watchstanders on the bridge.

But the secret probe helmed by Rear Adm. Brian Fort determined that Combs' CIC had "zero communication” with the bridge team before the Crystal loomed seemingly out of nowhere to ram the Fitz’s starboard hull.

Although listed as operational, the CIC’s SPS-67 system actually had fallen into a “degraded status,” according to Fort’s report. Some CIC sailors didn’t appear to know how to use the equipment — much of it in various states of disrepair — and the room itself was heaped in garbage, human waste and exercise equipment.

In the aftermath of the ACX Crystal collision, Fort found a stack of abandoned forms where Combs had been sitting.

“She was most likely consumed and distracted by a review of Operations Department paperwork for the three and a half hours of her watch prior to the collision,” he wrote.

Fort determined that Combs was derelict in her CIC duties, but an investigating officer assigned to her initial Article 32 hearing, Cmdr. Anthony Johnson, sifted through the same evidence and recommended that she skip court-martial proceedings and go instead to a Navy board of inquiry to determine if she should remain on duty.

Adm. James Caldwell, the convening authority in her case, disregarded Johnson and charged Combs with dereliction of duty that negligently resulted in the death of fellow sailors and the negligent and improper hazarding of a vessel.

To Janaro and star military defense attorney David Sheldon, the photo casts into doubt the first charge.

It relies on a “but for” clause — but for Combs' derelict leadership, the mishap would not have occurred. They believe that the ACX Crystal shouldered much of the blame for the accident, and bad Navy practices set her up to fail.

They pointed to the recent settlement between the U.S. Department of Justice and Olympic Steamship Company, S.A., Panama, the owners of the ACX Crystal.

They’re forking over $26.7 million to the United States.

While finding plenty of fault with Combs and other Americans on the Fitzgerald for the collision, Fort’s report also takes aim at the crew of the ACX Crystal, in particular an unnamed second officer.

Among a long list of failures listed in the Fort report, that officer “failed to maintain a proper lookout so as to make a full appraisal of the risk of collision” with the Fitzgerald, "failed to determine if a risk of collision with FTZ existed by using all available means” and “he failed to appreciate, by radar or visual observation, that FTZ was on a constant bearing with a decreasing range, which observation would have led him to deem risk of collision to exist.”

Sheldon and Janaro want to interview two Filipino officers from the ACX Crystal about their vessel’s lights captured in the photo, plus the many other problems raised in Fort’s report.

The attorneys have a series of transcripts from previous interviews the officers did, but their words are marked “indiscernible” 203 times.

The defense team thinks their testimony might free Combs.

Military prosecutor Lt. Cmdr. Kate Shovlin told Gaston that Naval Criminal Investigative Service made a good faith effort to talk to the men, but they avoided the agent who visited their homes and workplace.

Their family members also told NCIS the ACX Crystal crewmen wouldn’t cooperate with American investigators.

Combs' defense team wants to trigger a treaty between Washington and Manila that would prod authorities in the Philippines to compel the ACX Crystal’s officers to testify, but that threatens to push the court-martial trial well past its slated late May opening.

That’s also around the time the highly-anticipated NTSB probe is expected to be released.

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

#123
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. >Iran? North Korea? ISIS? What enemy? It's a good thing the US is still friendly with Europe. Everything I've read about their (admittedly much smaller) navies is that they're far more professional and better run, and look at the Americans as unprofessional and even dangerous when they have to do training exercises with the…

> It's a good thing the US is still friendly with Europe. Everything I've read about their (admittedly much smaller) navies is that they're far more professional and better run, ....

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Norway managed to sink one of their own frigates.

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2018/11/13/norwegia...

Germany doesn't have anything left to sink.

https://www.rt.com/news/418484-german-navy-ships-shortage/

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

#124
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Surface Warfare Officers eat their own. It's a constant game to make sure you don't get passed over for promotion.

I had a friend who was an SWO, was brilliant in school, extremely physically fit, spoke multiple languages, etc. He got out after the minimum enlistment and couldn't stop talking about how terrible the culture was and how you basically needed to do whatever it took in order to secure your next promotion.

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

#125
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…

I agree that there is no coming hot conflict with Russia in the short term, but they are absolutely, objectively an enemy to America.

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

#126
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. >Iran? North Korea? ISIS? What enemy? It's a good thing the US is still friendly with Europe. Everything I've read about their (admittedly much smaller) navies is that they're far more professional and better run, and look at the Americans as unprofessional and even dangerous when they have to do training exercises with the…

Only on HN will a thread about the US Navy devolve into public transit.

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

#127
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#128
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The role here is supposed to be that the big boss watches so that everyone behaves. Plus so that big boss takes blame. It is not like that person would be required for something active.

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

#129
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There is no naval enemy on earth that is even remotely competitive with the US in any regard. >Iran? North Korea? ISIS? What enemy? It's a good thing the US is still friendly with Europe. Everything I've read about their (admittedly much smaller) navies is that they're far more professional and better run, and look at the Americans as unprofessional and even dangerous when they have to do training exercises with the…

> It's a good thing the US is still friendly with Europe. Everything I've read about their (admittedly much smaller) navies is that they're far more professional and better run, .... I wouldn't be so sure about that. Norway managed to sink one of their own frigates. https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2018/11/13/norwegia... Germany doesn't have anything left to sink. https://www.rt.com/news/418484-german-navy-sh…

Good point about the Norwegian ship, but I have no idea what you're talking about with the German Navy. They have over 60 ships, including 10 frigates, 5 corvettes, and 6 submarines, plus various other support ships. Their close allies in Italy have 2 light aircraft carriers, 3 amphibious assault ships, 4 destroyers, 12 frigates, 8 attack subs, 1 corvette, plus others. Their other close allies in France have 1 aircraft carrier, 3 amphibious assault ships, 14 frigates of various types, 6 attack subs, plus some other frigates and corvettes, as well as 4 ballistic-missile subs. I haven't even gotten to the other powers in continental Europe (Netherlands, Denmark, etc.). All together, they seem to have a pretty sizeable defense force.

Japan also has a pretty sizable Navy with over 120 ships.

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

#130
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When you say non-state, you surely mean by parties whom aren't favourable to US interests. It's interesting that when a government or party that's not in the US's best interests is in power, it's okay for the CIA to use asymmetric tactics to fund rebels and favourable terrorism, stage coups d'etat, overthrow governments and meddle in foreign elections but when those parties seek to do the same to the US, it's terrori…

> When you say non-state, you surely mean by parties whom aren't favourable to US interests.

No, I meant non-state. The US doesn't generally use the T-word for, say, Russia's actions in Crimea or in Syria. Being opposed to US interests is necessary but not sufficient to make you a terrorist in this definition.

Post reply on HN