Posted on 03/08/2018 7:26:42 AM PST by DFG
A US guided missile destroyer’s deadly collision with an oil tanker near Singapore in 2017 was caused by “a sudden turn” made by the warship that put it in the path of the commercial vessel, said a report by the Singapore government Thursday.
The collision on Aug. 21, which killed 10 sailors and was one of a handful of incidents in the Asia Pacific region involving US Navy warships, raised questions about Navy training and led to the removal of a number of officers.
“The collision between the USS John S McCain (JSM) and Alnic MC (AM) as they were transiting through the Singapore Strait happened because of a sudden turn to Port by JSM, which caused it to head into the path of AM,” the report said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I think that was the Forrestal...
...anyway...same deal.
Heh, don't WE know it!
The report...Singapore Safety Report on USS John S. McCain Aug. 21, 2017 Collision
Read it for yourself to know.
Perhaps the professional negligence is based in part on the fact that once navigation was in jeopardy it would have been prudent to slow or even stop while at the same time assuring a sufficient number of lookouts.
I’m not sure of the original commenter’s intent. There are quite a few FReepers, though, who are insistent that McCain did start the fire by wet-starting his plane.
Is it customary to allow a foreign government access to a US fighting ship for exam of the mechanical systems? Or is it possible Singapore relied heavily on info provided by the USN?
One also wonders how often primary steering malfunctions and how complex any transfer could be.
Argh. They keep going at it and going at it. (The Forrestal Fire and McCain’s role in it)
What is worse than being wrong about something? (because that happens to us all the time...)
What is worse is being wrong about something, but wanting it to be true so badly that you are oblivious to the facts, and any person who knows the facts can see you are a complete ignoramus every time you open your mouth on the subject.
To be fair, I don’t blame some people (including Freepers) on this issue, because it isn’t exactly American history they teach in school, so I understand how some people get it wrong. They may only know what they saw or read somewhere.
But when people who were there, who have been in the military, who have been on ships, who have worked on planes tell you that you are misinformed and you prefer to believe some video you saw on Youtube...well, THOSE are the people who should hang their heads in shame, but won’t.
A ship usually goes through battle drills/training before deployment. Such problems are usually found then.
A ship is given a 'Battle E' if they do well.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/navalsurfaceforces/16394672011/in/album-72157633023873179/
Zoom in and you can see their Battle E. For ships, it's a very big thing to be awarded one.
When is this false story going to get put to bed?
No fan of songbird here, but let’s stay accurate. OK?
A Destroyer being awarded a ‘Battle E’ (the white one) indicates they are the best DDG in the Squadron, not just that they ‘did well’.
There’s a lot that goes into it, and they have to be awarded at least four of the Command Excellence E’s (the black, red, blue, yellow, purple ones).
I served on four ships and have four Battle E’s. We never hit anybody either, although another Navy ship did hit us while we were moored pier side in the US. Also once watched an Italian Destroyer disappear in the shadow zone of our CVN - that was exciting.
Hey, that's how I learnt it too!
I learned from my dad, who is an old salt.
Coincidentally he served aboard the USS McCain, as a radarman.
The only compelling story he has is when they were doing protective duty for Taiwanese ships resupplying 2 small islands near the Chinese coast. The commies blasted the Taiwanese vessel, being careful to not hit them. They were under orders to not stop, and he said he heard the screams of a thousand drowning Chinamen as they passed them in the water, and on the way back there were no Chinamen left.
By "Chinamen" he meant "Taiwanese Chinamen".
I was keeping it simple, though there is a link (see “Battle E” link above) to follow for more info .
>>Read it for yourself to know.<<
Thanks for the link. What surprised me on reading it is that they never really lost steering control; the helmsman just thought he did when, in fact, it was inadvertently transferred to the Lee Helm position. From there on it just got worse and worse, with no one seemingly able to figure out what was really going on and all sorts of ineffective corrective actions being taken (including slowing down so much that they were hit when they could have passed by in time to avoid it, apparently.)
The last few pages of the report offer a good summary for those not wanting to read the whole thing.
IMO if they had simply maintained speed, or even increased speed, they would have crossed the bow. It might have been close, but no hit.
This has been debunked many times on this website. McCain did not cause anything that happened on the Forrestal. Just another reporter who did not do his homework.
>>Read yours after I posted mine above. Don’t recall reading about any mechanical problems at least in early reports, but then I haven’t stayed up with developments.<<
On reading the report today, it looks like the initial report of loss of steering that I read months ago was actually caused by the helmsman not realizing that both steering and propulsion control had been transferred to the Lee Helm (when he expected it to only be a transfer of propulsion control.) Upon finding he had no control of steering he announced a loss of steering and the McCain put up lights signaling a vessel not under control.
>>Perhaps the professional negligence is based in part on the fact that once navigation was in jeopardy it would have been prudent to slow or even stop while at the same time assuring a sufficient number of lookouts.<<
Ironically, they did slow and that might have been the final straw. If they hadn’t, they might have cleared the Alnic when passing in front of it. The Alnic also failed to slow or stop, either of which might have prevented the collision. Plenty of blame to go around, it seems.
>>IMO if they had simply maintained speed, or even increased speed, they would have crossed the bow. It might have been close, but no hit.<<
It looks that way, but at the time the OOD wasn’t really planning to cross at all. Then steering got all mucked up so he reacted by slowing down. I think that’s probably an example of a lack of situational awareness.
This is so appropriate as an analogy for the man himself.
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.