Posted on 02/12/2005 7:41:28 AM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
Skipper error, simply put?
Guess so, T.
Your points are meaningful, but they do not carry the day.
The commander signed approval for acceptance of the contaminated food on board. He also accepted command of the ship with the design flaw. The same will be true for each of your examples. The commander accepted them. It was his choice.
The choice is to hold those who have assumed responsibility, responsible. If you start to depart from that precedent, then people who really did screw up will start to maneuver more aggressively to avoid being held responsible for their screwups.
It's a bit like the justice system. A choice was made to let 10 guilty men go free to lessen the odds of incarcerating an innocent man. A similar choice is in place with regard to commander responsibility. Ten times you punish a commander who did nothing wrong to avoid having a guilty one escape punishment.
In the movie U571, the skipper was asked, "How deep can this Sub Dive"?
The skipper answered "All the way to the bottom, unless we stop it".
Earlier reports seemed to by sympathetic to the CO. In any event, he's the one who is holding the bag.
There is precedent fore the Navy to blame the skipper of a ship for the Navy's shotcomings. In the late 60's, when the N. Kopreans hijacked the USS Pueblo in international waters, CDR. "Pete" Bucher was held accountable for the loss of his ship and the classified material it carried aboard.
Prior to beginning his ill-fated South China Sea patrol, he had expressed strong concerns to the CNO about the amout of classified material aboard his ship. The Pueblo was so overloaded with classified material, the crew had to stuff it it the overhead on top of pipes and wiring because there wasn't enough room to store it properly.
Bucher complained to his superiors about the amount of material several times between leaving Hawaii and his arrival in Japan. Not only did they ignore his requests, even after he expressed concerns that, in the event it became necessary, the crew would not have enough time to properly destroy the classified material, when he got to Japan, MORE classified material was loaded aboard the ship.
When the N. Koreans finally released Bucher and his crew after 11 months of captivity, Bucher was charged with violating military regs and court-martialed. The court-martial board acquitted him but, sadly enough, his career was over.
Buscher stayed in the Navy a few more years, but never really got fair treatment after the Pueblo incident and the court-martial. When he retired, it was generally acknowledged that he was being forced out and that he career had ended after his court martial.
The entire Pueblo affair is nothing if not a well-documented story of senior Navy officers covering their brass at the expense of a less senior officer.
Russian subs in Tom Clancy's the "Hunt for Red October" used that method to transit to the mid-Atlantic.
That's how I read it, too.
There is nothing qutie like the bright light of an investigation to reveal any flaws in the operating procedures whatever. The true cause of the accident may be classified for good reason or ill. That unexpected problems will occur to the most powerful armed forces in the world is to be expected. That every problem will be aired in public is probably not reasonable.
An earlier article says that the most recent chart didn't show the seamount, but that an earlier one showed a "discolored" spot in the water (maybe observed by an aircraft?).
It's normal practice to use the most recent charts. I've used nautical charts all my life, and it would be extremely unusual to pull out older charts for comparison on a regular basis. Not unless you had some reason for doubt or were navigating a tricky harbor or channel, which doesn't seem to be the case here.
So I wouldn't fault the commander on that basis. The fault was with whoever was responsible for updating the chart. That person either should have kept the "discolored" notation or made some effort to ascertain whether there was anything there by either confirming or refuting the original doubtful report.
Whether he was derelict in any other way, I don't know. Sure, the captain is responsible for his ship, but that assumes he has an opportunity even to make a decision before the event is over.
By this (very stupid) standard, Bush should impeached.
Unfornately, those darn passive seamounts make less noise than those active schools of sadines...
As a matter of policy, to avoid detection, US subs do NOT use active sonar to "see" what is front of them.
Still, one could ask whether the use of UHF sonar (which has a very limited range) to "see" a mile or so ahead might become an approved policy in peacetime.
Please consider that a friend who served on a sister ship to the Pueblo told me that:
(1) the Pueblo "heaved to" too soon. The N. Koreans could never have boarded that ship while it was underway.
(2) the Pueblo could have have been steered towards rescue from its well-armored engine room.
(3) If, just prior to the boarding by the N. Koreans, the reduction gears of the Pueblo had been damaged (a la a "monkey wrench"?) the transit into N. Korean waters would have taken long enough for that ship to be
rescued.
In short, my friend thought that Cdr. Butcher "gave up too early".
Please consider that a friend who served on a sister ship to the Pueblo told me that:
(1) the Pueblo "heaved to" too soon. The N. Koreans could never have boarded that ship while it was underway.
(2) the Pueblo could have have been steered towards rescue from its well-armored engine room.
(3) If, just prior to the boarding by the N. Koreans, the reduction gears of the Pueblo had been damaged (a la a "monkey wrench"?) the transit into N. Korean waters would have taken long enough for that ship to be
rescued.
In short, my friend thought that Cdr. Butcher "gave up too early".
The standard applies to the military. Not the civilian world.
Bush is the commander-in-chief of the military. Therefore, he is ultimately responsible for them.
Not sure why they were running that fast, but they were broadcasting themselves pretty loudly by going at that speed. If they were going slower, they might have been able to pick up the passive sounds of currents and ocean life around the mountain.
Your friend is sadly mistaken. The Pueblo was under attack for approximately 22 hours before the ship was forced into Korean waters. In my book, that is not "heaving to" too early.
Cdr. Bucher pleaded for assistance from the Navy and from any military command in the region. The Commander of 7th Flt in Honolulu wouldn't do anything. The only one who tried to help him was an AF Gen. in Okinawa who ordered his Ready Alert aircraft to So. Korea to try and help. The AF aircraft had to have nuclear weapons off-loaded before they could be dispatched to help the Pueblo. By the time that was done, it was too dark for the aircraft to be dispatched to assist the ship.
Because of icing conditions, the plug on the deck gun was frozen and could not be removed. The crew had no means of defending themselves and attempted to destroy the masses of classified material onboard; an exercise in futility, if ever there was one.
Even the court martial board, in their acquittal of Cdr. Bucher, acknowledged that Bucher did nothing wrong and made every possible effort to salvage his ship and crew.
The friend who served on the sister ship wasn't there. It's easy for us armchair admirals to second guess Cdr. Bucher, but the facts speak for themselves. The Navy is incredibly hard on commanders who lose their commands. That Cdr. Bucher was acquitted speaks volumes.
No matter what else happens, the commander of the vessel pays for it. Of course, the sailor who died paid more, but it's a blessing that the rest made it back.
I want to know what these "so-called" saftey and voyage procedures were....? Are other commanders ignoring them too and why? Sorry about the sub...but as a tax payer I also know that it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to train sub commanders and to lose an experienced one because of a collision with an uncharted undersea mountain is moronic. Did these "violations" cause the ship to hit the mountain? It doesn't sound like it to me...but then since we'll never have the whole story...I'll just be stuck with the opinion I have.
The captain with great skill minimized the loss of life and brought the damaged boat back to port...that ought to count for something. The fact that he could actually bring the boat back says something of his skill and experience. To lose that expereince is stupid and wrong.
Well maybe in a future fight with China he'll be needed again...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.