Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/23/2005 4:04:38 AM EDT
Norfolk Virginian-Pilot
August 23, 2005

2 Norfolk-Based Warships Collide Off Florida Coast


Two Norfolk-based guided missile destroyers collided off the coast of Jacksonville, Fla., on Monday afternoon while conducting exercises.

No one was injured and damage was minor, according to Cmdr. Conrad Chun, a Navy spokesman in Norfolk.

The collision happened at about 1:30 p.m.

The McFaul and the Winston S. Churchill are Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers.

The McFaul is commanded by Cmdr. Sean M. Connors and was commissioned in 1998. The Winston S. Churchill is commanded by Cmdr. Todd W. Leavitt and entered Navy service in 2001.

The incident is under investigation.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 4:14:18 AM EDT
HOW???? Arleigh Burke's? Oh jeeeebuz. Can we FIT more sensors on them!!!!!
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 4:15:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By H46Driver:
No one was injured and damage was minor, according to Cmdr. Conrad Chun, a Navy spokesman in Norfolk.



Has anyone seen the chinese fighter pilot,Wong Way?
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 4:18:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 4:19:28 AM EDT by dport]
Well, I know how it happened, but I don't know why it happened.

They were training hard to be sure. I've done the same type of operation.

As for sensors, they would not play much of a role, if the situation I heard is accurate. All that was really needed was the Mk1 eyeball.

ETA: H46, they're not boats, they're SHIPS. Damn helo drivers.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 4:21:54 AM EDT
Well, theres two O's that won't make Captain.
There go two Navy careers.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 4:23:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By chapperjoe:
HOW???? Arleigh Burke's? Oh jeeeebuz. Can we FIT more sensors on them!!!!!



Well it is a very stealthy design. Maybe they snuck up on each other.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 4:29:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BB:
Well, theres two O's that won't make Captain.
There go two Navy careers.



youch!
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 4:43:21 AM EDT
Quick hijack: So now that a thread brought all you Navy guys together, what's the difference between the guys who wear brown shoes and the ones that sport black shoes with their khakis
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 4:45:08 AM EDT
That's gonna leave a mark
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 4:52:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:
Quick hijack: So now that a thread brought all you Navy guys together, what's the difference between the guys who wear brown shoes and the ones that sport black shoes with their khakis



So whats the punch line?
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 4:55:00 AM EDT
That'll buff right out!

Link Posted: 8/23/2005 5:30:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By H46Driver:

Originally Posted By chapperjoe:
HOW???? Arleigh Burke's? Oh jeeeebuz. Can we FIT more sensors on them!!!!!



Well it is a very stealthy design. Maybe they snuck up on each other.



Now THAT is funny!
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:21:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By chapperjoe:
HOW???? Arleigh Burke's? Oh jeeeebuz. Can we FIT more sensors on them!!!!!



You question begs, who will take the data from said sensors and process it into useful INFORMATION and then make intelligent choices based on said information.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:21:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:
Quick hijack: So now that a thread brought all you Navy guys together, what's the difference between the guys who wear brown shoes and the ones that sport black shoes with their khakis


The real difference is brown shoes generally denote aviation. Black shoes surface and sub guys. Nowadays, either can wear either shoe, but traditions remain.

Real Naval Officers wear black shoes, of course.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 9:27:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 9:45:14 AM EDT by H46Driver]

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:
Quick hijack: So now that a thread brought all you Navy guys together, what's the difference between the guys who wear brown shoes and the ones that sport black shoes with their khakis


The real difference is brown shoes generally denote aviation. Black shoes surface and sub guys. Nowadays, either can wear either shoe, but traditions remain.

Real Naval Officers wear black shoes, of course.



If, by real Naval Officer, you mean coffee swilling, donut chomping, stress-induced hair losing, uniform tensile strength testing, pride-in-misery taking SWO than I will concede the point.

If, by real Naval Officer, you mean an individual capable of operating and commanding platforms that maneuver on the earth's surface, above it, or outside of earth's atmopshere then those officers wear brown shoes. Even my XO (RIP) on LaSalle, a SWO, knew the truth and wore brown shoes with his khakis. Good luck finding any aviator or NFO who would willingly do that outside of NAVOSH steel-toe requirements.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 10:01:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By H46Driver:
The collision happened at about 1:30 p.m.

Broad friggin' daylight?
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 10:39:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By H46Driver:
If, by real Naval Officer, you mean coffee swilling, donut chomping, stress-induced hair losing, uniform tensile strength testing, pride-in-misery taking SWO than I will concede the point.


You mean there is another definition?

Back to the topic. I got to read the SITREPs. Not too much detail in them. And I won't go into what I know until I see it released in the media.

I have driven a ship, DDG coincidentally, in similar circumstances, and the situation does get hairy from time to time. I will say they were on an excerise. And in such exercises you try to train as close to the real thing as possible and still do it safely. I have my own opinions on what the failures were, but I'm going to keep them to myself until I see more information in the press.

As I said before, the only sensor really needed was a good Mk1 Seaman's eye, if the visibility was good.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 10:44:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By H46Driver:
Norfolk Virginian-Pilot
August 23, 2005

2 Norfolk-Based Warships Collide Off Florida Coast


Two Norfolk-based guided missile destroyers collided off the coast of Jacksonville, Fla., on Monday afternoon while conducting exercises.

No one was injured and damage was minor, according to Cmdr. Conrad Chun, a Navy spokesman in Norfolk.

The collision happened at about 1:30 p.m.

The McFaul and the Winston S. Churchill are Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers.

The McFaul is commanded by Cmdr. Sean M. Connors and was commissioned in 1998. The Winston S. Churchill is commanded by Cmdr. Todd W. Leavitt and entered Navy service in 2001.

The incident is under investigation.



uhhhhh, guys... Monster.com is THAT away ------->
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 12:31:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By H46Driver:
If, by real Naval Officer, you mean coffee swilling, donut chomping, stress-induced hair losing, uniform tensile strength testing, pride-in-misery taking SWO than I will concede the point.


You mean there is another definition?

Back to the topic. I got to read the SITREPs. Not too much detail in them. And I won't go into what I know until I see it released in the media.

I have driven a ship, DDG coincidentally, in similar circumstances, and the situation does get hairy from time to time. I will say they were on an excerise. And in such exercises you try to train as close to the real thing as possible and still do it safely. I have my own opinions on what the failures were, but I'm going to keep them to myself until I see more information in the press.

As I said before, the only sensor really needed was a good Mk1 Seaman's eye, if the visibility was good.



What was the exercise? the only time we got that close during any evolution was during an unrep.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 12:33:20 PM EDT
"It's too close for a MoBoard solution. We'll just have to eyeball it...."

Link Posted: 8/23/2005 12:33:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 12:37:04 PM EDT by Zaphod]

Originally Posted By BB:
Well, theres two O's that won't make Captain.
There go two Navy careers.



More like six.

CO
OOD
JOOD

All toast.


The McFaul iswas commanded by Cmdr. Sean M. Connors and was commissioned in 1998. The Winston S. Churchill iswas commanded by Cmdr. Todd W. Leavitt and entered Navy service in 2001.


Needs correction.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 12:34:32 PM EDT
Bet ya they were running side by side transfering stuff back and forth when they scraped paint...
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 12:35:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By H46Driver:
If, by real Naval Officer, you mean an individual capable of operating and commanding platforms that maneuver on the earth's surface, above it, or outside of earth's atmopshere then those officers wear brown shoes.



Yeah. That's why there are more aircraft in the ocean than there are ships in the sky.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 12:38:39 PM EDT
Maybe they both came over the horizon from opposite directions at the same time. No way they could see each other.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 12:38:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BB:
What was the exercise? the only time we got that close during any evolution was during an unrep.


Define "we."

I hesitate to get into details without the Navy releasing more info to the press.

However, there are many exercises/evolutions that require close proximity: DIVTACs, UNREPs, and Plane Guard to name three.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 12:56:11 PM EDT
We named a DDG .....Winston Churchill?
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 12:56:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Back to the topic. I got to read the SITREPs. Not too much detail in them. And I won't go into what I know until I see it released in the media.

I have driven a ship, DDG coincidentally, in similar circumstances, and the situation does get hairy from time to time. I will say they were on an excerise. And in such exercises you try to train as close to the real thing as possible and still do it safely. I have my own opinions on what the failures were, but I'm going to keep them to myself until I see more information in the press.

As I said before, the only sensor really needed was a good Mk1 Seaman's eye, if the visibility was good.



Here at the COCOM we got the OPREP 3B. Interesting read and hopefully we will be able to discuss it soon. My ship driving didn't involve anything close to what those boats were doing - after all, we were the HVU.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 12:59:54 PM EDT
Minor damage my ass!!

Look at this thing:






­

<­font size=1>just kidding
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 1:20:53 PM EDT
I'm just damn glad it wasn't in the middle of the day!

Even the owl and the pussycat won't sail with these crews.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 1:24:03 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 1:25:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:
Quick hijack: So now that a thread brought all you Navy guys together, what's the difference between the guys who wear brown shoes and the ones that sport black shoes with their khakis


The real difference is brown shoes generally denote aviation. Black shoes surface and sub guys. Nowadays, either can wear either shoe, but traditions remain.

Real Naval Officers wear black shoes, of course.



Real and Naval Officer don't belong in the same paragraph!!!
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 1:28:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By BB:
What was the exercise? the only time we got that close during any evolution was during an unrep.


Define "we."

I hesitate to get into details without the Navy releasing more info to the press.

However, there are many exercises/evolutions that require close proximity: DIVTACs, UNREPs, and Plane Guard to name three.



I seriously doubt it was an UNREP.

I always hated UNREPs dut to the length of time it took to take on fuel.
After the UNREP, the ship looked like a steamer from all the smokers hanging out....
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 1:29:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 1:37:27 PM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 1:48:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By quijanos:
We named a DDG .....Winston Churchill?

No worse than naming a SSBN 'Jimmah Carter'.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 2:02:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 2:22:38 PM EDT by BB]

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By BB:
What was the exercise? the only time we got that close during any evolution was during an unrep.


Define "we."

I hesitate to get into details without the Navy releasing more info to the press.

However, there are many exercises/evolutions that require close proximity: DIVTACs, UNREPs, and Plane Guard to name three.




we [wee]: pronoun
Appropriate Definition:
1. refers to speaker and others: used to refer to the speaker or writer and at least one other person ( first person plural personal pronoun, used as the subject of a verb )

In this case we refers to myself and my shipmates who served aboard USS McInerney (FFG8). We never got as close to any other ship as we did during UNREP; DIVTACS, plane guard, interdiction, etc. included. I can see someone really screwing up a high-speed manuever though.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 2:10:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:


Under an agreement with the USN the Winston S Churchill always carries a British Royal Navy Officer. Last one was the Navigating Officer… hope this one wasn't

ANdy



If it was the 'gator there could be a vacancy soon. I'd be happy to show you around Norfolk - maybe even get you a ride in a Super Hornet sim.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 2:34:13 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 2:47:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By H46Driver:
Here at the COCOM we got the OPREP 3B. Interesting read and hopefully we will be able to discuss it soon. My ship driving didn't involve anything close to what those boats SHIPSwere doing - after all, we were the HVU.


I said SITREPs when I meant OPREP. Did you get both? The initial OPREP's format was interesting don't you think?
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 2:48:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Hydguy:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By BB:
What was the exercise? the only time we got that close during any evolution was during an unrep.


Define "we."

I hesitate to get into details without the Navy releasing more info to the press.

However, there are many exercises/evolutions that require close proximity: DIVTACs, UNREPs, and Plane Guard to name three.



I seriously doubt it was an UNREP.

I always hated UNREPs dut to the length of time it took to take on fuel.
After the UNREP, the ship looked like a steamer from all the smokers hanging out....


I know what they were doing, but until the Navy says more, I can't say.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 2:49:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Hydguy:
Real and Naval Officer don't belong in the same paragraph!!!




Would you prefer imaginary Naval Officer? I think a few of us here would take offense to that, including H46. I'm pretty sure he's not a figment of my imagination.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 2:55:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BB:

Appropriate Definition:
1. refers to speaker and others: used to refer to the speaker or writer and at least one other person ( first person plural personal pronoun, used as the subject of a verb )


Smartass. Yep, he's a Navy vet.


In this case we refers to myself and my shipmates who served aboard USS McInerney (FFG8). We never got as close to any other ship as we did during UNREP; DIVTACS, plane guard, interdiction, etc. included. I can see someone really screwing up a high-speed manuever though.



I the press release doen't give the distance at which they were operating, so how do you know what distance they intended on maintaining? That's the point. LEYTE GULF had a collision conducting plane guard, and evolution we both agree requires distances greater than UNREP. All these evolutions are dangerous and require manuevering in close proximity. Inattention and/or a small mistake can take these ships too close to each other.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 2:56:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By quijanos:
We named a DDG .....Winston Churchill?





Yes . . . I believe it has to do with naming conventions for warships . . . name them after significant persons deceased (IIRC) for DDG's. Winny being significant he got one . . . what is your beef?
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 3:08:48 PM EDT


Hmmm the sound of sinking careers in today's zero mistake officer policy. Don't let officers learn from mistakes, screw em instead. Maybe they need to be tossed out, maybe not; I don't know. I do know that right or wrong, they won't get a second chance.

Colin Powell (IIRC) tells a good story of losing his pistol as a 2LT and the lesson his CO taught him over it. Today, the mark that would leave would screw him out of the service, most likely.


Link Posted: 8/23/2005 3:11:48 PM EDT
dport,

Without getting yourself in trouble, can you say if this is the kind of thing that is going to ruin careers as many here suspect?
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 3:26:48 PM EDT
I believe Churchill is also an "Honorary US Citizen"...................He was also "First Sea Lord " and a very "Naval" personn besides as opposed to "Anal" person..............Do any of you remember the JFK/Belknap collision.........shit at night , at sea..can ruin your entire day!!!
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 3:47:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BB:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By BB:
What was the exercise? the only time we got that close during any evolution was during an unrep.


Define "we."

I hesitate to get into details without the Navy releasing more info to the press.

However, there are many exercises/evolutions that require close proximity: DIVTACs, UNREPs, and Plane Guard to name three.




we [wee]: pronoun
Appropriate Definition:
1. refers to speaker and others: used to refer to the speaker or writer and at least one other person ( first person plural personal pronoun, used as the subject of a verb )

In this case we refers to myself and my shipmates who served aboard USS McInerney (FFG8). We never got as close to any other ship as we did during UNREP; DIVTACS, plane guard, interdiction, etc. included. I can see someone really screwing up a high-speed manuever though.



I agree. I never conned my ship as close to another as I did during alongside replensihment. And as one of the officers of another Perry class frigate, I participated in all of the above listed evolutions.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 3:50:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By H46Driver:
If, by real Naval Officer, you mean an individual capable of operating and commanding platforms that maneuver on the earth's surface, above it, or outside of earth's atmopshere then those officers wear brown shoes. Even my XO (RIP) on LaSalle, a SWO, knew the truth and wore brown shoes with his khakis. Good luck finding any aviator or NFO who would willingly do that outside of NAVOSH steel-toe requirements.



Aviators are unfit to command combat ships (real ones, with their own weapons), Naval Mobile Construction Batallions, Special Boat Units, Naval Inshore Warfare Units, and a host of other Fighting Navy commands.

The only reason you are allowed to command amphibs and auxiliaries is because the rest of the wardroom actually knows what they are doing (ie their are SWOs).
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 4:12:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By happycynic:
dport,

Without getting yourself in trouble, can you say if this is the kind of thing that is going to ruin careers as many here suspect?


Oh, I would say the probability is very high.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 4:20:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 4:21:17 PM EDT by dport]

Originally Posted By SWO_daddy:
I agree. I never conned my ship as close to another as I did during alongside replensihment. And as one of the officers of another Perry class frigate, I participated in all of the above listed evolutions.



I would hope the closest anyone got is during UNREP. However, this is a collision; obviously, they weren't meant to be THAT close. None of the publically released information I've seen has said anything about how close they were supposed to be. I pointed to other manuevering situations that get ships within close proximity and have almost no margin for error. At 30 knots, 1000yards, a common distance for DIVTACS and Plane Guard goes by in a minute. Less if the other ship contributes.

Re zero tolerance for mistakes. It's understandable in a Navy where ever combatant is needed to meet world-wide tasking. A collision can really mess up the deployment cycle. It's a function of very few ships and very many missions. If we had a six hundred ship Navy then things might be different. As it stands, the Navy cannot afford large mistakes.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 4:23:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By Hydguy:
Real and Naval Officer don't belong in the same paragraph!!!




Would you prefer imaginary Naval Officer? I think a few of us here would take offense to that, including H46. I'm pretty sure he's not a figment of my imagination.



Could be, just like refering to the 'men' in the Navy....

I was in the Marine Corps, and yes, I know that the Marine Corps is a department of the Navy...........THE MEN'S DEPARTMENT!!!!
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 4:26:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Hydguy:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By Hydguy:
Real and Naval Officer don't belong in the same paragraph!!!




Would you prefer imaginary Naval Officer? I think a few of us here would take offense to that, including H46. I'm pretty sure he's not a figment of my imagination.



Could be, just like refering to the 'men' in the Navy....

I was in the Marine Corps, and yes, I know that the Marine Corps is a department of the Navy...........THE MEN'S DEPARTMENT!!!!


Typical piss-poor Marine reading comprehension. The USMC isn't "a" department of the Navy. The USMC is in THE Department of the Navy. Which means, both the USMC and USN are in the same department. So much for your supposed insult. Please find some new and accurate material.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top