Jump to content

Another dd Collision


Ghostraider
 Share

Recommended Posts

I heard some theories about China maybe hacking GPS and spoofing, because the chances of this happening and being just an accident again are kinda suspicious ..., considering the fact that one of the GBU bombs, i forgot, but the one that glides for longer distances was upgraded with an anti-GPS spoofing kit so this is not some far fetched idea.

Modules: A-10C I/II, F/A-18C, Mig-21Bis, M-2000C, AJS-37, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-47, FC3, SC, CA, WW2AP, CE2. Terrains: NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf, Syria

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard some theories about China maybe hacking GPS and spoofing, because the chances of this happening and being just an accident again are kinda suspicious ..., considering the fact that one of the GBU bombs, i forgot, but the one that glides for longer distances was upgraded with an anti-GPS spoofing kit so this is not some far fetched idea.

 

& Maybe it was Steve Bannon getting payback on us all by jamming their radar using a radio shack device hacked by the anonymous collective to help start a war in Asia as the next phase of his fantasy cultural renewal cycle.

 

You've now heard another theory.

They both have the same amount of fact.

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WTF really? What are the odds of this exact kind of accident happening twice?.

Windows 10 Pro 64, I5 4690k @4.6GHz with CAPTIAN 240EX AOI, Samsung 850 EVO ,G Skill Ripjaws 16G RAM, Nvidia GTX 970 STRIX, MSI Z97 GAMING 5, WD Blue 1TB HDD, Seasonic M12 II EVO psu, Track IR 5, Pro Flight X-55 Rhino H.O.T.A.S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

regardless of intent, a modern destroyer should be expected to be able to outmaneuver a cargo ship. the fact these destroyers seemed to have taken no preventive actions is of grave concern.

This.

 

Large container ships and tankers need a couple of kilometers to do anything, let alone manouver around another vessel in one of the busiest sea lanes in the world.

 

Doesn't the US Navy post look-outs on the ship? Serious question.:huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modern destroyers are not so visible on radar. So, they cannot assume the cargo ship detects them. Trying to keep undetected for some reason could lead to difficult situations if the cargo ship changes course at the wrong time.

My Rig: AMD Ryzen 9 3950X | 64GB DDR4-3200 Ram | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti | Thrustmaster Hotas Warthog | MFG Crosswind rudder pedals | HP Reverb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blaming the high sea traffic for these accidents is not good enough from a military point of view I fear, since these destroyers are most likely to get involved in combat in busy shipping lanes that enemies want to disrupt rather than in the open seas, where the design of the armament and sensors of the Arleigh Burke class has been designed for: the more distance they can keep between them and a possible enemy, the better their weapons work.

 

Does this still makes sense in today's maritlme reality, where an enemy can hide between a flood of commercial ships and suddenly attack from close distance, possibly ramming the destroyer out of action?

 

Some rethink is necessary I guess.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blaming the high sea traffic for these accidents is not good enough from a military point of view I fear, since these destroyers are most likely to get involved in combat in busy shipping lanes that enemies want to disrupt rather than in the open seas, where the design of the armament and sensors of the Arleigh Burke class has been designed for: the more distance they can keep between them and a possible enemy, the better their weapons work.

 

Does this still makes sense in today's maritlme reality, where an enemy can hide between a flood of commercial ships and suddenly attack from close distance, possibly ramming the destroyer out of action?

 

Some rethink is necessary I guess.

 

I don't think that the capabilities of the sensors had anything to do with these accidents. The Arleigh Burke has 2 short range navigation radars the AN /SPS-67 and AN/SPS-73. These are designed to aid in navigation and will detect coastlines, other shipping, navigation bouys etc. The AN/SPS-73 for example will track 200 plus contacts, and is directly intergrated into the ship navigation systems. All warships are designed to navigate in congested water ways, at some point they all have to enter harbours where the navigation risks are much higher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that the capabilities of the sensors had anything to do with these accidents. The Arleigh Burke has 2 short range navigation radars the AN /SPS-67 and AN/SPS-73. These are designed to aid in navigation and will detect coastlines, other shipping, navigation bouys etc. The AN/SPS-73 for example will track 200 plus contacts, and is directly intergrated into the ship navigation systems. All warships are designed to navigate in congested water ways, at some point they all have to enter harbours where the navigation risks are much higher.

 

Well two vessels of the same class have been hit by non-maneuvering cargo ships (as noted above, practically tankers don't maneuver).

Unless you think someone's found a way to cloak an oil tanker, either there's a problem with the vessels sensors, or some very poor seamanship is being exercised.

 

Surely given how recent the last collision was, the crew would be alert, which to me suggests a problem with, & over reliance on, the sensors.

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well two vessels of the same class have been hit by non-maneuvering cargo ships (as noted above, practically tankers don't maneuver).

Unless you think someone's found a way to cloak an oil tanker, either there's a problem with the vessels sensors, or some very poor seamanship is being exercised.

 

Surely given how recent the last collision was, the crew would be alert, which to me suggests a problem with, & over reliance on, the sensors.

 

 

 

There are a number of issues at play here, but I think that it is highly unlikely that a problem with the operation of the USN ships sensors, to have 2 radars and the AIS all faulty at the same time seems very improbable. My point in my first post is that the Arleigh Burke class has multiple sensor that aid in safe navigation. I would be very surprised if a human factor wasn`t involved here.

 

 

From the tankers crew point of view I agree there may have been an over reliance on AIS, they may have assumed this was giving them a full picture of the traffic around them, but it is common for warships to turn off their beacon for obvious operational reasons.

 

 

The alertness of the crew is kind of irrelevant, there is also an assumption that they were not aware of the tankers presence, an alert crew can still misinterpret the information being display to them and take the wrong course of actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The alertness of the crew is kind of irrelevant, there is also an assumption that they were not aware of the tankers presence, an alert crew can still misinterpret the information being display to them and take the wrong course of actions.

 

That's what I meant by an over reliance on sensors. A human conducting a watch with a pair of binoculars would have seen the tanker & been able to tell they were on a collision course.

 

Someone looking at a scope somewhere probably saw the tanker, but didn't get from the information presented what was going to happen.

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what I meant by an over reliance on sensors. A human conducting a watch with a pair of binoculars would have seen the tanker & been able to tell they were on a collision course.

 

Someone looking at a scope somewhere probably saw the tanker, but didn't get from the information presented what was going to happen.

 

 

 

That's presuming you can see further than the end of your own ship, that the other shipping in the area has adequate lighting, the visibility conditions in the USS John S. McCain incident were reported as poor and the collision of the USS Fitzgerald happened at night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here we go:

 

Chief Of Naval Operations "Looking Into" Possibility Ships Were Hacked

 

..

The Crystal was likely operating on autopilot at the time of the collision, raising the possibility that hackers may have broken into the ship's control network and directed the ship to hit the Fitzgerald.

 

The two destroyer collisions are unusual because warships are equipped with multiple radars capable of detecting ships as far as 20 miles out. Watch officers on the bridge also are in charge of checking for nearby vessels.

 

In the case of a ship on a collision course, Navy radar operators will signal the bridge that a "constant bearing, decreasing range" contact is detected once radar detects a vessel on a collision course.

 

Watch officers on the bridge normally would notify the captain and recommend that the ship change course to avoid the collision.

 

Navy experts say collisions between slow moving freighters and fast Navy ships that occur are normally the result of two mistakes by the warship operators: Allowing the warship to get close to an approaching vessel in the first place, and then having to maneuver at close quarters to avoid it.

..

 

Sources:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-23/chief-naval-operations-looking-possibility-ships-were-hacked

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/cno-does-not-rule-out-intentional-act-latest-warship-collision/

Modules: A-10C I/II, F/A-18C, Mig-21Bis, M-2000C, AJS-37, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-47, FC3, SC, CA, WW2AP, CE2. Terrains: NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf, Syria

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha. Love it. The General didn't rule out looking into hacking as a cause, therefore half the article then goes onto an assumption excercise into hacking and the replies then take up the mantle with the remaining assumption and go with it. Then people post it online. I love how social media works.

 

Of course, like the lookouts, my brain was hacked into replying to this thread, the new nanochip my Chinese doctor installed yesterday must be playing up. I'd make a terrible sailor.

 

The most likely reason for this is down to the same reason that when you are waiting for your bus, then its late, you wait and wait, then three turn up at the same time.

___________________________________________________________________________

SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING *

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

 

Thanks for update

Modules: A-10C I/II, F/A-18C, Mig-21Bis, M-2000C, AJS-37, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-47, FC3, SC, CA, WW2AP, CE2. Terrains: NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf, Syria

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still need to read the official (complete) report, but for now it confirms my earlier idea "poor seamanship"...

 

On a normal cargo vessel, there is only one officer of the watch, in congested waters or poor visibility aided by one helmsman / lookout. This is usually sufficient as long as nobody does anything strange.

 

On the John S. McCain, there were 11 people on the bridge. This is the complete crew of a moderate size cargo vessel! But it seems that there were no clear duties and responsibilities resulting in misunderstandings and mistakes.

Modules: Bf 109, C-101, CE-II, F-5, Gazelle, Huey, Ka-50, Mi-8, MiG-15, MiG-19, MiG-21, Albatros, Viggen, Mirage 2000, Hornet, Yak-52, FC3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the report acknowledges poor bridge crewing, i think it's more arstechnica spinning the emphasis for themselves

 

Not so sure about seamanship, but in aviation a lot of what's common today came from accidents and the realization how they might have been avoided.

 

"Pull up! Pull up!" is a lot more self-explanatory than "Beep beep! Beep beep!". While you could always blame the pilot who failed to interpret "Beep beep! Beep beep!" the correct way, it still leaves the question if a verbal command could have avoided a crash.

 

If it's possible to misinterpret the duty assignments on a console in a way that seems to have happened on the McCain, I would always welcome a change to avoid this particular problem in the future, instead of solely blaming it on the people who happened to be there. And that's really the lesson to be learned here: How can this problem be avoided in the future? If it's training, that's fine. If it's a change in the user interface, that's fine as well, just as long as no one else ever has to die because of this particular type of mishap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you remember, a trackball was for a very short time a hype on PC. I even bought one, to soon discover it is absolutely not the most ergonomic input device. For one thing, the translation of of curved movement to a linear one makes it a little difficult to learn. Also, you lack force feedback to use it with precision.

 

I can fully understand it is long forgotten in the PC world, and am a little surprised to see it show up in multi million dollar ships!

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...