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

131–140 of 143 posts

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

#131

Post by jessaustin »

phonon wrote: post #122
danielvf wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 g…

CIC tracks radar. Lights don't show up on radar. This might make sense as an excuse for poor visual watchkeeping, but won't save the officer on duty in CIC. Also how can anyone claim that grainy black & white blob proves anything about what lights were on or what color those lights were?

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

#132

Post by hindsightbias »

alistairSH wrote: post #79
adventured wrote: post #54

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…

If our naval superiority is that vast, perhaps we should retire a few warships, pick commanders for the remaining vessels from the competent members of the officer corp, and force-retire those that no longer have ships to command.

The Navy wants 350 ships.

They have more Admirals now that ships.

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

#133

Post by [deleted] »

vigormortis wrote: post #123
magduf wrote: 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…

[deleted]

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

#134

Post by vigormortis »

magduf wrote: post #129
vigormortis wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 aircra…

Ships afloat does not mean they're operational or combat effective. Some of those ships are quite old and are badly in need of replacement or upgrades. Many of them are under crewed. The numbers of ships are a starting point, but really don't tell much of the story.

None of Germany's 6 subs were operational at the beginning of last year. That may have changed since, but the underlying reasons, poor planning and lack of spare parts, are still there. Only 9 of 15 Frigates were operational and the lead of their new class of frigates, the F125, failed sea trials. The Navy subsequently refused to commission the ship. Admittedly, these are not necessarily crew training issues, but crews without operational ships are not likely to maintain a desirable level of combat readiness. These issues aren't just limited to the Navy; ground forces are also in a bad state.

France and the UK are in better shape, but the Royal Navy in particular has holes in its capabilities where the US Navy is expected to fill in. They're regaining some capabilities with their new (and only operational) carrier, but it's not even clear if it has a functional air wing yet as the F-35B's they purchased only began carrier operations this past September. Another carrier is under construction, but it may be awhile before their carrier based naval aviation becomes combat effective.

The remaining European Navies are pretty small and pretty limited in what they can do. They tend to focus on ASW with some surface warfare capabilities, but are again dependent upon one of the larger Navies for air defense.

Japan may well be the most combat effective of the bunch, but that's a completely different theater of operations.

This isn't intended to be a rah-rah, USA forever sort of rant. Everyone, including the US, seem to have let things slip to the extent that combat effectiveness is becoming questionable.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/germanys-navy-dead-26...

https://www.dw.com/en/no-more-missions-for-germanys-navy-war...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/20/german-armed-for...

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

#135

Post by vigormortis »

magduf wrote: post #129
vigormortis wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 aircra…

Also, ballistic missile subs don't really matter unless you're planning to throw nukes at someone, in which case the makeup of surface fleets quickly becomes irrelevant.

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

#136

Post by jessaustin »

rthomas6 wrote: post #118
jessaustin wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Here are the possibly relevant enumerated powers of Congress:

- define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations

- declare War

- grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal

- make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

- raise and support Armies

- provide and maintain a Navy

- make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces

- provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

- provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States

Nowhere in that list is "for an indefinite period of time, kill a bunch of unidentified people in unspecified foreign lands for unspecified reasons". Wars fought among nations are generally bad things, but historically there has been a protocol that the Constitution references in the simple phrase "declare war". Various acts of violence against various parties for various purposes have been considered necessary for the peace and security of any political unit, but those acts have been limited to the territory of that political unit.

Ever since the USA army wasn't properly stood down from WWII, the requirements of the military-industrial complex have dictated the invention of another procedure for killing thousands of innocents every week on an ongoing basis. A cursory examination of the Constitution reveals that this new innovation violates the enumerated powers of Congress and the executive.

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

#137

Post by sctb »

jayalpha wrote: post #104
jayalpha wrote: post #42

Unfortunately, an urban legend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lighthouse_and_naval_vessel_ur...

For all the idiots who downvoted: This was not directly connected to this thread. PS: Take your head out of your ass if you don't mind.

Please don't post like this! The guidelines are pretty clear.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#138

Post by magduf »

pc86 wrote: post #126
magduf wrote: 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…

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

Funny, but it's not devolution of a comment thread, I'm pointing out that things are falling apart in the US, and the problems in the Navy are merely one facet of a much, much larger problem with the way the government is operating (at both federal at state levels, but most of these issues have a lot of federal involvement, e.g. bridges, and public transit usually spans states because most of our major cities span states, and long-distance trains necessarily are a federal issue).

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

#139

Post by JohnBooty »

dctoedt wrote: post #121
JohnBooty wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

This was really informative, and I appreciate it a lot. Thank you!

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

#140

Post by jessaustin »

cmurf wrote: post #92

In a related article at navytimes.com published two days earlier, the Panamanian owners of the other ship involved, have agreed to pay the U.S. government ~$27 million in a settlement. https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/01/11/ship-own... Naturally we're not supposed to infer “any liability, negligence, breach of duty, or wrongdoing” by either party as a result of such a settlement.

That seems likely to be more related to specifics of law of the controlling jurisdiction than to anything else. I don't blame the Panamanians or their insurance company for wanting to just put this all behind them. Collisions with USN are sort of like "Acts of God" anyway...
Post reply on HN