User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 8:55:26 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Trump should just rename LCS-10 I think making it the next DDG would be more appropriate than an LCS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 9:02:59 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd call her a tempestuous bitch however I have yet to sleep as well on dry land as I did at sea. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The sea is a harsh mistress. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 9:08:38 AM EDT
[#3]
To help determine what happened, investigators will download radar data from the ship's Aegis weapons system, which records routine details on position, course, speed and any nearby ships or aircraft. Navigation and radar data will also be gathered from the cargo ship. Another factor being examined is the impact of the destruction of the Fitzgerald's communications gear on the ability of the crew to call back to shore to inform commanders they needed help. Preliminary analysis indicates the collision occurred where the ship's communication nodes are housed and the official said the crew had to resort to using satellite based cell phones to communicate both on board and back to shore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 9:12:26 AM EDT
[#4]
For the Navy, investigators are trying to determine why the ship's radar and other sensors did not detect the Crystal in time to take steps to avoid the collision. The Fitzgerald is equipped with the AN/SPS-64 advanced military navigation radar, and also uses a commercial radar system to enhance the shipping traffic picture of ships in its vicinity. Navy ships operate radar systems to detect approaching ships or submarines. Lookouts posted on the bridge are responsible for detecting ships that pose a risk of collision. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 10:07:19 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What is this thing you call "sleep"? Typically I was only able to this for more than 6 hours when nothing significant broke during the night or I didn't have to 0000-0400 or 0400-0800 watch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 10:22:26 AM EDT
[#6]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 10:26:59 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For the Navy, investigators are trying to determine why the ship's radar and other sensors did not detect the Crystal in time to take steps to avoid the collision. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 10:33:11 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was what I called the brief periods of time that I was afforded the opportunity to check my eyelids for holes. Typically I was only able to this for more than 6 hours when nothing significant broke during the night or I didn't have to 0000-0400 or 0400-0800 watch. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What is this thing you call "sleep"? Typically I was only able to this for more than 6 hours when nothing significant broke during the night or I didn't have to 0000-0400 or 0400-0800 watch. I dropped my papers rather than go back to a ship -- if I never set foot on one again I'll be perfectly happy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 10:57:02 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think there is nowhere near enough information available to say that ship sensors did not detect the merchant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 12:27:15 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is an assumption in that statement that I would not make. Same goes for the headlines I've read that the crew of the Fitzgerald did not see the ACX Crystal. That *may* prove to be the case, but IMO, it's far more likely that the crew downplayed the importance of what the ship's sensors may have been telling them because of how they were visually interpreting shipping traffic. I have not yet seen any statements from the crew that they were unaware of the presence of the Crystal, but we probably won't see anything directly from the crew until the investigation is published. I think there is nowhere near enough information available to say that ship sensors did not detect the merchant. The biggest question I have is why they didn't wake the Captain when the contact got within the standing order range. Usually 6000 yards. With all the redundant electronic systems, I expect the investigation will reveal the bridge got task focused on something and the CIC watch failed to back up the Bridge, could be been doing PQS or just shooting the shit and not paying proper attention. It's a tough lesson to learn. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 12:40:08 PM EDT
[#11]
So according to how I read the Drudge article, the container ship was on autopilot with no lookouts, and Navy ship's 2 radars plus the lookouts failed to detect the impending T-Bone collision at sea.
Doesn't seem possible, but it happened. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 12:44:55 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My guess is their MOBOARD solution was transposed and they failed to update it. Didn't believe what the were seeing vs what they were expecting. The biggest question I have is why they didn't wake the Captain when the contact got within the standing order range. Usually 6000 yards. With all the redundant electronic systems, I expect the investigation will reveal the bridge got task focused on something and the CIC watch failed to back up the Bridge, could be been doing PQS or just shooting the shit and not paying proper attention. It's a tough lesson to learn. I think that it is awfully likely that the OOD/Conn/CICO (maybe) had a preconceived idea and when radar didn't match, they prioritized their preconception. Similar to getting the leans and believing your inner ear instead of your instruments, with the caveat that basic flight instruments usually provide data that is more accurate and more easily understood than bridge radars. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 12:51:15 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Some of the ships I've been on have had even larger call the CO ranges, out to 10K yards. Those may get pulled back in high traffic areas. Maybe the XO was splitting time with the Captain on the bridge during high traffic density transits.. Maybe they did call the Captain, gave him their contact report indicating no problem, and they gave him a reason to disregard his radar display. There will be a lot in the investigation, I'm sure. I think that it is awfully likely that the OOD/Conn/CICO (maybe) had a preconceived idea and when radar didn't match, they prioritized their preconception. Similar to getting the leans and believing your inner ear instead of your instruments, with the caveat that basic flight instruments usually provide data that is more accurate and more easily understood than bridge radars. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 1:01:26 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So according to how I read the Drudge article, the container ship was on autopilot with no lookouts, and Navy ship's 2 radars plus the lookouts failed to detect the impending T-Bone collision at sea. Doesn't seem possible, but it happened. USN lookouts seeing a ship, more accurately, seeing two or three lights, in a sea of lights, will not necessarily preclude a collision. All lookouts do is notify other watch standers that they have visually acquired a contact, or at night, the contact's running lights and provide a bearing to that contact. Someone else has to get the range to the contact, typically via radar range. A third person has to correctly plot multiple iterations of the contact over time in order to determine the closest point of approach and possibly make maneuvering recommendations if necessary, to increase the closest point of approach to the target. Any bit of bad information in that chain, in the gathering, passing, plotting, or computing, will corrupt the calculation of CPA and subsequent maneuver recommendation or non-recommendation. It's not necessarily uncommon for someone to miscalculate a CPA or maneuver, especially someone inexperienced. Ships tend to value manual MOBOARD calculations as being more accurate than sensor predictions and that is true IFF, the MOBOARD is fed good information and properly calculated. While aviators tend to not be as polished as SWOs at formal ship driving, more often than not, they tend to be better judges of relative motion and have better instinctive judgement as to whether a MOBOARD solution passes the "stink test". I know that I sucked at desired winds and desired CPA MOBOARDs, but it was really easy for me to tell if a recommendation from someone else would put winds in the envelope or open/close CPA on a contact. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 1:27:25 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Most of the articles say that the DDG's radars did not detect the merchant, because they assume that if the radar(s) did detect the merchant, the crew would have taken action to avoid collision. I'm telling you that is a bad assumption, not because the crew wanted to play chicken or stage a collision, but because, for some reason, they prioritized the radar information lower than other information on the contact. USN lookouts seeing a ship, more accurately, seeing two or three lights, in a sea of lights, will not necessarily preclude a collision. All lookouts do is notify other watch standers that they have visually acquired a contact, or at night, the contact's running lights and provide a bearing to that contact. Someone else has to get the range to the contact, typically via radar range. A third person has to correctly plot multiple iterations of the contact over time in order to determine the closest point of approach and possibly make maneuvering recommendations if necessary, to increase the closest point of approach to the target. Any bit of bad information in that chain, in the gathering, passing, plotting, or computing, will corrupt the calculation of CPA and subsequent maneuver recommendation or non-recommendation. It's not necessarily uncommon for someone to miscalculate a CPA or maneuver, especially someone inexperienced. Ships tend to value manual MOBOARD calculations as being more accurate than sensor predictions and that is true IFF, the MOBOARD is fed good information and properly calculated. While aviators tend to not be as polished as SWOs at formal ship driving, more often than not, they tend to be better judges of relative motion and have better instinctive judgement as to whether a MOBOARD solution passes the "stink test". I know that I sucked at desired winds and desired CPA MOBOARDs, but it was really easy for me to tell if a recommendation from someone else would put winds in the envelope or open/close CPA on a contact. Relative winds though... I hated doing those. Even with the Whiz Wheel they seem counter-intuitive. I had an S-3 pilot CO who could do RW in his head in about 10 seconds... before we managed to get the dot penciled on the wheel. It was uncanny. The trouble with OSs is that they're amazingly bad about looking at radar video. For air contacts they always tracked IFF blocks instead of the actual contacts. I suspect because of Aegis they've become even worse at believing in where the NTDS symbol is equals where the contact is since they never see the raw video from SPY. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 1:36:41 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1st There is a 2nd mate on watch at that time of night along with a lookout / helmsman , usually an Able Bodied seaman. The chances of neither of them being on the bridge while underway is nil. Even if the Mate was taking a crap and the AB was asleep leaning against a rail they certainly would have known they had just been in a collision and not taken 30 minutes to react. 2nd The Captain would have been on the bridge in the time it took to put his pants on and run up one flight of stairs. 3rd I've been on everything from tugboats to Super Tankers and never seen an autopilot that controlled throttles. They can theoretically be set to follow a pre-planned series of courses from the chart plotter but I have never seen it enabled on a commercial vessel. The normal procedure is to change course by hand and then reset the auto pilot to keep that course. 4th Even though a change in speed is a valid method to increase the CPA it is rarely done at sea. A course change is almost always used unless sea room is insufficient. I do believe that the merchant vessel bridge was manned but was not paying attention and the Destroyer misinterpreted the electronic information it had available and cut in front of the container ship. The AIS alone should have given the Fitzgerald CPA, Time to CPA, the Container Vessels course and speed etc. Let alone the military gear. The Container ship would not have had that information from the destroyer's AIS because the Navy doesn't broadcast it. They both should have know just by visual observation that the bearing wasn't changing and the range was closing which is a pretty good indicator that you may try to occupy the same space at the same time but too often thes days sailors, civilian and military depend too much on electronics and not enough on eyeballs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 1:39:10 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was what I called the brief periods of time that I was afforded the opportunity to check my eyelids for holes. Typically I was only able to this for more than 6 hours when nothing significant broke during the night or I didn't have to 0000-0400 or 0400-0800 watch. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What is this thing you call "sleep"? Typically I was only able to this for more than 6 hours when nothing significant broke during the night or I didn't have to 0000-0400 or 0400-0800 watch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 1:40:50 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So according to how I read the Drudge article, the container ship was on autopilot with no lookouts, and Navy ship's 2 radars plus the lookouts failed to detect the impending T-Bone collision at sea. Doesn't seem possible, but it happened. Your typical search and detection RADAR operates on the basis of reflected energy from the target. It's entirely possible that the cargo ship just happened to be on the right course, right position relative to the Fitzgerald, and the right atmospheric/surface conditions that not enough energy was reflected back to the Fitzgerald. This is the basic premise of the F117 stealth fighter, it simply doesn't reflect a lot of energy back instead it deflects it away. Is this exactly what happened, I don't know...but I do know that it's possible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 1:45:14 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There still should have been an AB/lookout and mate on watch in the wheelhouse after reading the article it seems that they might not have been there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 1:46:20 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
4 hour watches? WTF navy were you in? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What is this thing you call "sleep"? Typically I was only able to this for more than 6 hours when nothing significant broke during the night or I didn't have to 0000-0400 or 0400-0800 watch. That 4 hour shit really only applied when I actually stood DC related watches, that did not include when I had to play GSM or EN and stand their watches. That also didn't apply to when I was on crash and smash up on the flight deck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 2:04:11 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Moboards aren't exactly rocket science, especially for simple CPA/desired CPA solutions with a non-maneuvering target. Of course, if the target changes course/speed in the middle of your plot (3 or 6 minutes) it does hose the whole thing and you have to start over with a new R point. All SWOs and OS3 and above should be very experienced in moboard solutions for single contacts - heck even for multiple contact Fleet Formation solutions. That was beaten into us in accession training and the SWO Basic Course. Aviators tend to rely on eyeball solutions, and honestly, they're usually "good enough," although not precise. Relative winds though... I hated doing those. Even with the Whiz Wheel they seem counter-intuitive. I had an S-3 pilot CO who could do RW in his head in about 10 seconds... before we managed to get the dot penciled on the wheel. It was uncanny. The trouble with OSs is that they're amazingly bad about looking at radar video. For air contacts they always tracked IFF blocks instead of the actual contacts. I suspect because of Aegis they've become even worse at believing in where the NTDS symbol is equals where the contact is since they never see the raw video from SPY. These days the training is pretty minimal for baby SWOs. I don't know how much MOBOARDing they get prior to reporting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 2:15:26 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can tell you as a former Operation Specialist(OS), which are the people who operate the RADARs, radios, and what not down in CIC this is entirely possible. I've experienced it more than once myself. Your typical search and detection RADAR operates on the basis of reflected energy from the target. It's entirely possible that the cargo ship just happened to be on the right course, right position relative to the Fitzgerald, and the right atmospheric/surface conditions that not enough energy was reflected back to the Fitzgerald. This is the basic premise of the F117 stealth fighter, it simply doesn't reflect a lot of energy back instead it deflects it away. Is this exactly what happened, I don't know...but I do know that it's possible. .jpg)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 2:41:10 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
While I don't like the name of that ship, I think making it the next DDG would be more appropriate than an LCS. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Trump should just rename LCS-10 I think making it the next DDG would be more appropriate than an LCS. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 2:43:46 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unless navy radar is vastly inferior to my 10 year old commercial units that is not possible . A container ship with hundreds of 40' steel boxes on deck makes an excellent target in anything but the heaviest downpours. and even then only if rain / sea clutter controls are not tuned correctly. We aren't talking about a 30' fiberglass sailboat here. http://media.advance.net/breaking_news_national_desk/photo/Japan%20US%20Navy%20Collisi_LaRu%20(1).jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I can tell you as a former Operation Specialist(OS), which are the people who operate the RADARs, radios, and what not down in CIC this is entirely possible. I've experienced it more than once myself. Your typical search and detection RADAR operates on the basis of reflected energy from the target. It's entirely possible that the cargo ship just happened to be on the right course, right position relative to the Fitzgerald, and the right atmospheric/surface conditions that not enough energy was reflected back to the Fitzgerald. This is the basic premise of the F117 stealth fighter, it simply doesn't reflect a lot of energy back instead it deflects it away. Is this exactly what happened, I don't know...but I do know that it's possible. http://media.advance.net/breaking_news_national_desk/photo/Japan%20US%20Navy%20Collisi_LaRu%20(1).jpg I've never once seen that situation happen inside of a reasonable distance that left plenty of time to react. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 2:48:21 PM EDT
[#25]
deleted.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 3:44:53 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unless navy radar is vastly inferior to my 10 year old commercial units that is not possible . A container ship with hundreds of 40' steel boxes on deck makes an excellent target in anything but the heaviest downpours. and even then only if rain / sea clutter controls are not tuned correctly. We aren't talking about a 30' fiberglass sailboat here. http://media.advance.net/breaking_news_national_desk/photo/Japan%20US%20Navy%20Collisi_LaRu%20(1).jpg Think of it like a mirror; if you stand directly in front of that mirror your light gets reflected back to you. Now move left or right; the mirror is still reflecting light, however it's not reflecting your light directly back to you and you can no longer see yourself. It's basically the same concept, the surface area didn't change but the angle of reflection did. What we don't know is the position of the Fitzgerald relative to the cargo ship, what the Fitz was doing at the time, or much else about the Fitz at the time. Is that what happened in this case? I don't know. All I have is a report on Drudge and with the news being what news is I expect that story to change. I can also tell you having spent thousands of hours looking at RADAR returns that it does indeed happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 4:29:02 PM EDT
[#27]
Found this video. Liked the candid attitude. Last 3 min is good.
 My Thoughts on the USS Fitzgerald Collision |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 4:32:46 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep, it's a big ship with a lot of surface area but that doesn't mean that the Fitzgerald's RADAR energy is getting reflected back to it. Surface area is one small part of the equation, geometry is another as well as a lot of other factors. Think of it like a mirror; if you stand directly in front of that mirror your light gets reflected back to you. Now move left or right; the mirror is still reflecting light, however it's not reflecting your light directly back to you and you can no longer see yourself. It's basically the same concept, the surface area didn't change but the angle of reflection did. What we don't know is the position of the Fitzgerald relative to the cargo ship, what the Fitz was doing at the time, or much else about the Fitz at the time. Is that what happened in this case? I don't know. All I have is a report on Drudge and with the news being what news is I expect that story to change. I can also tell you having spent thousands of hours looking at RADAR returns that it does indeed happen. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 4:35:16 PM EDT
[#29]
There is no way that the Fitz's radar did not pick up that merchant vessel.....none, zero.
With all of that freeboard and superstructure above the waterline and all of the corrugated metal connex boxes, the Crystal would have reflected copious amounts radar energy from every angle. I tend to agree that the watch team on the Fitz did not interpret the information correctly and did not take the appropriate actions to avoid the collision. There had to have been a multitude of failures in order to allow something like that to happen. Not that I am any CIC whiz and all of my knowledge predates anything on the Burke class ships but during my SW quals I recall the bridge calling at least semi regularly to CIC for closest contact, bearing and distance, especially when in higher traffic situations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 5:03:46 PM EDT
[#30]
So if I'm understanding this correctly the crew on duty on the fitz screwed the pooch for whatever reason and the collision occurred. The captain was asleep when it occurred and presumably he is allowed to sleep at some point. Is he still screwed?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 5:06:39 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Umm wat? As I have stated before I have no idea if this actually transpired or not. There is a news report stating that they never detected a RADAR return and my training and experience says it's possible because I've experience it first hand albeit without the collision. The probability of this occurring is another matter entirely; I think it'd have to be the absolute perfect confluence of events for this occur. Whether or not that actually happened is anybody's guess at this point. Personally I expect the current story to change several times over and the truth to come out months or years down the road when everything is all forgotten. My initial thought was that there was enough blame to go around and I have yet to see anything change my mind in that regard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 5:09:12 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So if I'm understanding this correctly the crew on duty on the fitz screwed the pooch for whatever reason and the collision occurred. The captain was asleep when it occurred and presumably he is allowed to sleep at some point. Is he still screwed? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 5:11:35 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So if I'm understanding this correctly the crew on duty on the fitz screwed the pooch for whatever reason and the collision occurred. The captain was asleep when it occurred and presumably he is allowed to sleep at some point. Is he still screwed? If the CO was never called by the bridge, and had zero knowledge something was happening until impact due to inaction by the watch standers, they'll take pity on the CO because of his injuries and his career will be fine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 5:14:08 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All future Burke-class production is already named. Kharn Or are you including those? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 5:17:08 PM EDT
[#35]
Still can't believe that ship stayed afloat after getting hit like that.
Gonna be interesting to read the reports after the dust settles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 6:39:47 PM EDT
[#36]
I'm going to change my thought of it being a T-Bone hit, instead I suggest the container ship came up behind/alongside and hit the Fitzgerald at an angle, accounting for the port-only damage of the container ship. The Navy ship watch was perhaps looking forward and up to 90 degrees off center. That container ship struck at maybe 135 degrees off bow center.
I think it's safe to say there were no lookouts on the Crystal, until the hit. Manuevering by the Frigate may have never allowed any forward looking to even see the container ship bearing down. It all may be a trick of angles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 6:57:35 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Damn, didn't know that. Did they 86 the Flight III plans? I thought the Navy wanted more Burkes when they axed the Zumwalts. Or are you including those? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
All future Burke-class production is already named. Kharn Or are you including those? Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 7:18:48 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
4 hour watches? WTF navy were you in? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What is this thing you call "sleep"? Typically I was only able to this for more than 6 hours when nothing significant broke during the night or I didn't have to 0000-0400 or 0400-0800 watch. I normally was doing two 6 hour watches on two or three different watchbills - in addition to running a division. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 7:26:20 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here is my guess. If the CO was never called by the bridge, and had zero knowledge something was happening until impact due to inaction by the watch standers, they'll take pity on the CO because of his injuries and his career will be fine. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So if I'm understanding this correctly the crew on duty on the fitz screwed the pooch for whatever reason and the collision occurred. The captain was asleep when it occurred and presumably he is allowed to sleep at some point. Is he still screwed? If the CO was never called by the bridge, and had zero knowledge something was happening until impact due to inaction by the watch standers, they'll take pity on the CO because of his injuries and his career will be fine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 7:26:51 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Umm wat? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yep, it's a big ship with a lot of surface area but that doesn't mean that the Fitzgerald's RADAR energy is getting reflected back to it. Surface area is one small part of the equation, geometry is another as well as a lot of other factors. Think of it like a mirror; if you stand directly in front of that mirror your light gets reflected back to you. Now move left or right; the mirror is still reflecting light, however it's not reflecting your light directly back to you and you can no longer see yourself. It's basically the same concept, the surface area didn't change but the angle of reflection did. What we don't know is the position of the Fitzgerald relative to the cargo ship, what the Fitz was doing at the time, or much else about the Fitz at the time. Is that what happened in this case? I don't know. All I have is a report on Drudge and with the news being what news is I expect that story to change. I can also tell you having spent thousands of hours looking at RADAR returns that it does indeed happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 7:50:08 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He's an OS. He has no idea what he's talking about. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yep, it's a big ship with a lot of surface area but that doesn't mean that the Fitzgerald's RADAR energy is getting reflected back to it. Surface area is one small part of the equation, geometry is another as well as a lot of other factors. Think of it like a mirror; if you stand directly in front of that mirror your light gets reflected back to you. Now move left or right; the mirror is still reflecting light, however it's not reflecting your light directly back to you and you can no longer see yourself. It's basically the same concept, the surface area didn't change but the angle of reflection did. What we don't know is the position of the Fitzgerald relative to the cargo ship, what the Fitz was doing at the time, or much else about the Fitz at the time. Is that what happened in this case? I don't know. All I have is a report on Drudge and with the news being what news is I expect that story to change. I can also tell you having spent thousands of hours looking at RADAR returns that it does indeed happen. If that fucking container ship is 'stealthy' then the whole .mil has a serious radar issue. A goddamn flashlight could have found it in time to avoid it. What about the stories of looking for sub periscopes, or single fucking birds flying around. A fucking 35,000 ton container ship not showing up on radar? Next somebody is gonna say that they dont show up in windows, either. Windows are amazing technology, when used correctly - totally passive, just need a little Windex and elbow grease once in a while. Oh, also need a couple of eyeballs behind them. and those eyeballs need to be connected to something that is awake. As I said earlier, avoid the red light - go, stop, turn, but avoid it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 8:15:25 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This guy studied the physics behind it. It was his paper that was written in the then Soviet Union that gave use this. It worked because it reflected energy away from the RADAR transceiver rather than it back to it. Yes, they used some RADAR absorbing materials but the bulk of the work so to speak was in the angles. As I have stated before I have no idea if this actually transpired or not. There is a news report stating that they never detected a RADAR return and my training and experience says it's possible because I've experience it first hand albeit without the collision. The probability of this occurring is another matter entirely; I think it'd have to be the absolute perfect confluence of events for this occur. Whether or not that actually happened is anybody's guess at this point. Personally I expect the current story to change several times over and the truth to come out months or years down the road when everything is all forgotten. My initial thought was that there was enough blame to go around and I have yet to see anything change my mind in that regard. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Umm wat? As I have stated before I have no idea if this actually transpired or not. There is a news report stating that they never detected a RADAR return and my training and experience says it's possible because I've experience it first hand albeit without the collision. The probability of this occurring is another matter entirely; I think it'd have to be the absolute perfect confluence of events for this occur. Whether or not that actually happened is anybody's guess at this point. Personally I expect the current story to change several times over and the truth to come out months or years down the road when everything is all forgotten. My initial thought was that there was enough blame to go around and I have yet to see anything change my mind in that regard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 8:44:27 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Something's fucky here. If that fucking container ship is 'stealthy' then the whole .mil has a serious radar issue. A goddamn flashlight could have found it in time to avoid it. What about the stories of looking for sub periscopes, or single fucking birds flying around. A fucking 35,000 ton container ship not showing up on radar? Next somebody is gonna say that they dont show up in windows, either. Windows are amazing technology, when used correctly - totally passive, just need a little Windex and elbow grease once in a while. Oh, also need a couple of eyeballs behind them. and those eyeballs need to be connected to something that is awake. As I said earlier, avoid the red light - go, stop, turn, but avoid it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yep, it's a big ship with a lot of surface area but that doesn't mean that the Fitzgerald's RADAR energy is getting reflected back to it. Surface area is one small part of the equation, geometry is another as well as a lot of other factors. Think of it like a mirror; if you stand directly in front of that mirror your light gets reflected back to you. Now move left or right; the mirror is still reflecting light, however it's not reflecting your light directly back to you and you can no longer see yourself. It's basically the same concept, the surface area didn't change but the angle of reflection did. What we don't know is the position of the Fitzgerald relative to the cargo ship, what the Fitz was doing at the time, or much else about the Fitz at the time. Is that what happened in this case? I don't know. All I have is a report on Drudge and with the news being what news is I expect that story to change. I can also tell you having spent thousands of hours looking at RADAR returns that it does indeed happen. If that fucking container ship is 'stealthy' then the whole .mil has a serious radar issue. A goddamn flashlight could have found it in time to avoid it. What about the stories of looking for sub periscopes, or single fucking birds flying around. A fucking 35,000 ton container ship not showing up on radar? Next somebody is gonna say that they dont show up in windows, either. Windows are amazing technology, when used correctly - totally passive, just need a little Windex and elbow grease once in a while. Oh, also need a couple of eyeballs behind them. and those eyeballs need to be connected to something that is awake. As I said earlier, avoid the red light - go, stop, turn, but avoid it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 8:47:17 PM EDT
[#44]
I watched from the flight deck as the USS Wasp ran into the USNS ship that was refueling it (or maybe the refuel ran into the Wasp??).
In broad daylight. In the morning, when everyone was at their most alert. With a whole flight deck full of lookouts and watch standers. Even had a line with flags marking the distance between the two ships. But they kept getting closer. And Closer. And Closer. And closer. Until the port side elevator smacked into the tower on the refueler. In other words. Sometimes, people fuck up and bad things happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 8:49:01 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So according to how I read the Drudge article, the container ship was on autopilot with no lookouts, and Navy ship's 2 radars plus the lookouts failed to detect the impending T-Bone collision at sea. Doesn't seem possible, but it happened. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 9:01:50 PM EDT
[#46]
Accordind
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If the other ship was on autopilot, wouldn't that make it even worse for the navy? If it was on autopilot, it wasn't acting erratically when it hit the navy ship. They should have seen it coming on a constant course a long way off. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So according to how I read the Drudge article, the container ship was on autopilot with no lookouts, and Navy ship's 2 radars plus the lookouts failed to detect the impending T-Bone collision at sea. Doesn't seem possible, but it happened. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 9:28:14 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If the other ship was on autopilot, wouldn't that make it even worse for the navy? If it was on autopilot, it wasn't acting erratically when it hit the navy ship. They should have seen it coming on a constant course a long way off. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So according to how I read the Drudge article, the container ship was on autopilot with no lookouts, and Navy ship's 2 radars plus the lookouts failed to detect the impending T-Bone collision at sea. Doesn't seem possible, but it happened. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 10:38:55 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep, it's a big ship with a lot of surface area but that doesn't mean that the Fitzgerald's RADAR energy is getting reflected back to it. Surface area is one small part of the equation, geometry is another as well as a lot of other factors. Think of it like a mirror; if you stand directly in front of that mirror your light gets reflected back to you. Now move left or right; the mirror is still reflecting light, however it's not reflecting your light directly back to you and you can no longer see yourself. It's basically the same concept, the surface area didn't change but the angle of reflection did. What we don't know is the position of the Fitzgerald relative to the cargo ship, what the Fitz was doing at the time, or much else about the Fitz at the time. Is that what happened in this case? I don't know. All I have is a report on Drudge and with the news being what news is I expect that story to change. I can also tell you having spent thousands of hours looking at RADAR returns that it does indeed happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 10:44:57 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So if I'm understanding this correctly the crew on duty on the fitz screwed the pooch for whatever reason and the collision occurred. The captain was asleep when it occurred and presumably he is allowed to sleep at some point. Is he still screwed? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2017 11:04:19 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Captain is maybe a little less screwed because he was asleep. If he had night orders directing the watch to call him when meeting other vessels within a safe distance or when in any doubt and those orders were not followed. But he is the Captain and they will find some kind of fault. He didn't train his crew enough, he should have been on the bridge in those waters etc. His career is most likely toast even if he did ALMOST everything right. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
