- Joined
- Jun 22, 2022
- Messages
- 1,545
Will cost a few million dollars.
Aircraft carrier collides with cargo ship? How does this happen?
- Thread starter Rand
- Start date
I agree.
Something was definitely wrong with the leadership on the aircraft carrier that day and its support ships.
A cargo ship should not have been anywhere near that aircraft carrier. Also, with the pace that these ships move and the advance warning that radar and intelligence equipment gives them they certainly had enough time to fly helicopters and planes and check out what was going on.
To me anyway, it seems silly that a that an unknown vessel would be able to get near one of our aircraft carriers and possibly blow it out of the water
Flex Seal .. The dude built a boat out of it .
He needs to immediately ‘walk the plank’ along with other incompetent leadership. They are 100% at fault for terrible decision making and multiple failures. ZERO excuses !!!!!
Perfect example of Swiss Cheese chain of events.
Boss needs to take responsibility for this happening on his watch and say he made mistakes that lead to this unfortunate incident.
The world’s most power Navy on the planet can’t navigate busy shipping lanes…?
The best of the very best equipment and they don’t even bother to use it ?
No DoD thermal imaging to see another ship smoke stack in the dark ?
No team of sailors on ‘look out’ duty ?
^^^
I’m ex Air Force and don’t know the correct Navy terminology…. LOL.
I understand if they didn’t want other ships (non US Navy) to know their AIS location then that makes the situation much more dire and critical. The level of situational awareness and heads on swivels needs to be 100X.
I’m not trying to start an argument but lots of poor decisions were made.
Luckily the damage can be repaired and no sailors killed. I understand that busy shipping lanes are dangerous but they have to get back to the very basics and do their job.
Last edited:
Update.
It does appear that the carrier was in the wrong place at the wrong time and that the cargo vessel was doing exactly as it should have done exiting the canal.
This is apparently a very congested waterway and the carrier appears not to have followed the dance card.
A number of careers will have been lost here.
This is apparently a very congested waterway and the carrier appears not to have followed the dance card.
A number of careers will have been lost here.
Sure - the story is about a Porsche 911, but this picture of a VW Beetle will work...For those of us that don't fly planes , it doesn't really matter .
Makes you wonder what else they got wrong…
Last edited:
I think you have no idea what port said is
Agreed his post basically states I have no clue but let me throw down a couple paragraphs that have no relationship to what happened.
So again, likely a stupid civilian question. If this can happen - and we likely all agree it was a breakdown in process, then maybe we don't need our aircraft carrier going through the Suez canal? Teachable moment about what can easily go wrong maybe?
There wouldn't be a canal if it was easy to "just go around"
Last edited:
We have 11 carrier groups I believe. One is likely already on the other side? Last I checked were in no current naval conflict.
What does that have to do with anything?
As I already stated, I am simply trying to understand why they need to traverse the Suez, if its so obviously fraught with evil?
As for your comment about going around, when then Houthi's started shooting at things, most cargo ships did in fact go around. Same when that ship got stuck sideways in the canal?
?
I get your point maybe explain how a ship was able to make contact with our warship?
I doubt it is supposed to be that easy
Also “vicinity of Port Said” is not an exact location I would think. However I do admit that I wasn’t interested enough to look into it further. As immediately I wondered how another ship was able to get so close.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/air...des-ship-mediterranean-sea/story?id=118787251
Last edited:
After reading the comments section from the "What's Going On With Shipping" video, it looks like this is not uncommon. Many comments from merchant marine members to pilots of small craft like yachts saying that even though they had right of way, the US warships ignore it and in some cases threaten them. This has apparently happened in various places from open, international waters, to around ports. If you ignore their warnings then you are boarded and bullied. If true, then that's a shame that we conduct ourselves in such a grossly unprofessional manner.
And the alternative is?
Go the long way around Africa, exposing the ship to risk of extreme weather, dealing with more traffic, burning more fuel, reducing the time on station, and requiring* more ships (and the concomitant increase in sailors) in the fleet?
Ships don’t cross the ocean at top speed, they cruise at a fuel efficient speed, which can be anywhere from 12-18 knots, depending on type. At that speed, crossing an ocean takes a long time.
The US Navy has been “Doing the ditch” for decades. The math, the cost, of not doing the ditch is simple, inescapable, and huge.
*Yes. Requiring. It takes about 3 - 3.5 ships in the fleet to have one ship on station across the Atlantic, and about 3.5 - 4 ships in the fleet to have one ship on station across the Pacific. The difference is due to transit time, the Pacific is awfully big.
Here is how it works - Ship A departs home port four weeks before it is needed on station in the ME. Call it 1 December. It arrives on station, call it 1 January, and the ship there heads home, across the Pacific, which will take six weeks, or, if an Atlantic fleet ship, four.
Ship A spends four months on station, when it is relieved by Ship B, on 1 May. Now, ship B had to leave on 1 April to make it there. Ship A heads home. They arrive on 1 June - normal 6 month deployment, where they spent 4 months on station.
Ship C leaves port on 1August, to be on station to relieve ship B on 1 September. Ship B heads home after the turnover, arriving on 1 October, 6 months after they left. Ship C stays on station until 1 January, when ship A shows up again.
Each ship spent six months on deployment and six months between deployments, still at sea, conducting training for new sailors that were assigned in the interim, until they are fully ready to deploy.
So, 3 ships, across the Atlantic, to cover one station. But, periodically, ships need maintenance, down time, so, 3.5 ships to cover one station so that a ship can get a few months out of the rotation every couple of years, where it can be dry docked, maintained, and upgraded.
Across the Pacific, same math, but longer transit time, means, 4 ships, each with a 6 week transit, then 3 months on station, and 6 weeks back. Add in maintenance and upgrade time and you’re at 4.5 ships to cover one station across the Pacific.
Not using the Suez? Well, add another three weeks to go around the Cape of Good Hope, so, now, instead of 4 weeks transit, our Atlantic Fleet ship has a 7 week transit, and thus 2.5 months on station, and instead of 3.5 ships, we need 5 ships, to cover one station, perhaps a bit more to cover maintenance and upgrade time.
Get out the checkbook Congress, you’re going to need a much bigger Navy.
I think you misunderstand the reason for having a Navy.
A Navy sitting at home without deploying accomplishes nothing. Sailors are untrained. The ships are not exercised, the fleet is “A fleet in being” which is to say - not a fleet, just a collection of hardware. The Royal Navy, and our own, have discovered throughout history how ineffective a collection of ships can be when they just sit and do not train and exercise their crews.
Maintaining sea lanes (yes, that is an active effort in the global commons, as nations keep trying to illegally claim various areas of the ocean as their own) requires a fleet at sea.
Being able to respond to conflict, requires a trained, effective fleet that is deployed around the world.
“No current Naval Conflict” - again, a misunderstanding of mission - our Navy isn’t fighting another Navy, at the moment, but they are the centerpiece of our armed conflict, most recently against Houthis who are shooting at merchant ships, affecting every nation on Earth.
Further, the United States Navy is the centerpiece of our diplomatic and “soft power” presence. The very reason that the Royal Navy built and developed new carriers, and the reason that China is building and developing carriers is to be able to show the world that they are able to act with global reach.
No hostile nation cares that we have a B2 sitting in a hanger in Whiteman Missouri, but they do pay very close attention, they do notice, when a carrier strike group is operating near their coast.
90% of the world’s population lives within a few hundred miles of the sea. In other words, that carrier strike group can directly influence nearly the entire world just by being close to their coastline.
We currently maintain a carrier presence in the Mediterranean, and the Persian Gulf, and in the western Pacific. There are strategic US interests in each of those areas. The first question that any US president asks when a crisis occurs, is “where are the carriers?”
No admiral wants to say, “safely tied up in San Diego, Mr. President, they can be underway in a week, and on station in two months. A month or two after that, they will be fully trained up and ready to go”
To be of use, they need to be at sea, around the globe, fully prepared for whatever mission the Nation requires of them.
Generally, the admiral is able to say, “Mr. President, the USS ___ is XX hours away at flank speed, and we can have aircraft overhead tonight/tomorrow”
Back to simple math - 3 stations. 3.5 ships per station. We need about 11 carriers.
https://www.navy.mil/About/Mission/#:~:text=Mission Statement,the seas open and free.
Last edited:
The AIS switch on the carrier must have a loose connection in my opinion. It turned on immediatly whe the jolt of the collision happened. Perhaps they had a NAVFAC Maintenance request already submitted that will show up soon... LOL.
Whatever the case, there is little excuse for them not seeing the AIS brodcast from the cargo ship.... It was there. NOT LOL.
I have nothing but the utmost respect for the US Navy, so please don't take this as anything different.
Their civilian leadership and the tasks they are given are another matter. Interesting you bring up the Royal Navy - it bankrupt them also. The freedom of navigation doctrine and diplomacy by aircraft carrier was a Bretton Woods bribe, to get countries to maintain the cold war fight. It should have ended in 1992 but instead it was kept alive so that an out of work factory worker in Michigan could pay for the Chinese to freely ship the goods that took his job. But I won't go any further outside the rails than that.
Back to the Suez specifically. It has been shown that it can be easily shut down by a big ship turning sideways. Or a few rebels with missiles. Or ramming a large cargo ship into a US Navy vessel presumably. It would seem to me that patrolling freedom of navigation through the Suez is simply fighting the last war. Again, this is purely a civilian observation.
Anyway nothing will convince me the navigation aids were turned off by accident. Reference my first line regarding the navy. I have to believe this was some sort of exercise, and possibly they learned far more than they hoped for. We shall likely never know.
Last edited:
