User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 4:14:18 AM EDT
[#1]
HOW???? Arleigh Burke's? Oh jeeeebuz. Can we FIT more sensors on them!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 4:15:32 AM EDT
[#2]
Has anyone seen the chinese fighter pilot,Wong Way? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 4:18:39 AM EDT
[#3]
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. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 4:21:54 AM EDT
[#4]
Well, theres two O's that won't make Captain.
There go two Navy careers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 4:23:54 AM EDT
[#5]
Well it is a very stealthy design. Maybe they snuck up on each other. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 4:29:13 AM EDT
[#6]
youch! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 4:43:21 AM EDT
[#7]
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
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 4:45:08 AM EDT
[#8]
That's gonna leave a mark
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 4:52:56 AM EDT
[#9]
So whats the punch line? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 4:55:00 AM EDT
[#10]
That'll buff right out!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 5:30:50 AM EDT
[#11]
Now THAT is funny! |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 6:21:34 AM EDT
[#12]
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 6:21:54 AM EDT
[#13]
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 9:27:28 AM EDT
[#14]
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. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 10:01:14 AM EDT
[#15]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 10:39:48 AM EDT
[#16]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 10:44:01 AM EDT
[#17]
uhhhhh, guys... Monster.com is THAT away -------> |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 12:31:24 PM EDT
[#18]
What was the exercise? the only time we got that close during any evolution was during an unrep. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 12:33:20 PM EDT
[#19]
"It's too close for a MoBoard solution. We'll just have to eyeball it...."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 12:33:52 PM EDT
[#20]
More like six. CO OOD JOOD All toast. 
Needs correction.  |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 12:34:32 PM EDT
[#21]
Bet ya they were running side by side transfering stuff back and forth when they scraped paint...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 12:35:17 PM EDT
[#22]
Yeah. That's why there are more aircraft in the ocean than there are ships in the sky.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 12:38:39 PM EDT
[#23]
Maybe they both came over the horizon from opposite directions at the same time. No way they could see each other.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 12:38:43 PM EDT
[#24]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 12:56:11 PM EDT
[#25]
We named a DDG .....Winston Churchill?
 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 12:56:46 PM EDT
[#26]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 12:59:54 PM EDT
[#27]
Minor damage my ass!!
Look at this thing:  just kidding |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 1:20:53 PM EDT
[#28]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 1:24:03 PM EDT
[#29]
Last time I checked his Mother was American… ANdy 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 1:25:56 PM EDT
[#30]
Real and Naval Officer don't belong in the same paragraph!!! |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 1:28:32 PM EDT
[#31]
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.... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 1:29:44 PM EDT
[#32]
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 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 1:48:57 PM EDT
[#33]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 2:02:01 PM EDT
[#34]
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. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 2:10:27 PM EDT
[#35]
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. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 2:34:13 PM EDT
[#36]
Super Hornet? pfft! Had my ass in an F-35 sim… w00t!!!! ANdy |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 2:47:10 PM EDT
[#37]
I said SITREPs when I meant OPREP. Did you get both? The initial OPREP's format was interesting don't you think? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 2:48:23 PM EDT
[#38]
I know what they were doing, but until the Navy says more, I can't say. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 2:49:47 PM EDT
[#39]
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 2:55:06 PM EDT
[#40]
Smartass. Yep, he's a Navy vet.
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. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 2:56:48 PM EDT
[#41]
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? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 3:08:48 PM EDT
[#42]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 3:11:48 PM EDT
[#43]
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?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 3:26:48 PM EDT
[#44]
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!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 3:47:24 PM EDT
[#45]
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. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 3:50:27 PM EDT
[#46]
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). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 4:12:23 PM EDT
[#47]
Oh, I would say the probability is very high. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 4:20:41 PM EDT
[#48]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 4:23:17 PM EDT
[#49]
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!!!!
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2005 4:26:21 PM EDT
[#50]
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. |
|||
|
|
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.
