US Navy - Yhdysvaltain laivasto

WASHINGTON — Two accidents that claimed the lives of 17 sailors and wounded dozens more resulted from complete breakdowns in standard Navy procedures and poor decision making by officers and sailors on the bridge of the two warships, according to a Navy report obtained by Defense News.

The Navy plans to release on Wednesday its first official report on the specific causes of the two unrelated collisions this summer when both the destroyers Fitzgerald and John S. McCain struck commercial vessels in crowded sea lanes in the Pacific.

The report reveals that both collisions came after critical failures of officers and sailors on the bridge and raise troubling questions about the basic proficiency of the Japan-based 7th Fleet and the surface Navy as a whole.

In both incidents, sailors on the bridge failed to sound a ship-wide alarm notifying the crew of danger, which is a standard Navy procedure.

Ships at sea must sound five short blasts of the ship’s whistle to alert the crew and the other ship of a coming collision. That did not occur in either collision. Neither the crew members below deck nor the other ships involved had any warning from the Navy that their ships were headed for disaster, the reports found.

Also, neither bridge’s watch standers sought to make bridge-to-bridge radio communication with the approaching ship, which is also a standard Navy procedure.

Yet the specific failures that led to the collisions on each ship were unique.
https://www.defensenews.com/breakin...ault-in-fatal-collisions-investigations-find/

The reports also shed new light on the full extent of the damage sustained by the destroyers, with no fewer than 14 spaces, lockers and escape trunks on McCain flooding completely, and 17 on Fitzgerald.

In the case of Fitzgerald, the officer of the deck failed to notify the ship’s captain that the destroyer was closing with the Crystal despite standing orders requiring it. On McCain, the captain was present on the bridge the whole time.

Both ships lost track of their situations completely, said Capt. Rick Hoffman, a retired cruiser captain who reviewed the documents for Defense News.

“The thing that stood out to me was in both situations they had minimal situational awareness,” said Hoffman. “In the case of Fitzgerald, nearly criminal negligence on the part of the bridge watch team. And in neither case did the ship sound five short blasts or raise the general alarm to let anyone know they were in danger.”

At one point, the Fitz crossed the bow of an oncoming merchant ship at a range of less than 650 yards — fewer than four ship-lengths — but the officer of the deck never informed the captain, a violation of standing orders that requires the skipper to be summoned to help oversee the hazardous conditions.

The CO, Cmdr. Bryce Benson, did not know the ship had been involved in a collision until the bow of the ACX Crystal punched into his stateroom. He was ultimately rescued by crew-members as he clung to the outside of the ship. He had been in command for less than a month.

Also, at no point prior to the collision, did the officer of the deck attempt to make contact with the Crystal on bridge-to-bridge radio, nor did the OOD try to maneuver to avoid Crystal until only a minute before the collision.

Meanwhile, down in the Fitzgerald’s combat information center, which displays inputs from the ship’s weapons systems and radars, the watch standers there failed to “tune and adjust their radars to maintain an accurate picture of other ships in the area,” the report found. That means CIC failed to track the multiple ships exiting the channel.

The Fitzgerald’s watch-standers also failed to use the Automated Identification System, a publicly accessible computer program that provides real-time updates on the location and speed of merchant ships in the area.

Fitzgerald’s lookouts failed as well, with the investigation indicating the sailor or sailors assigned to look out for hazards were literally looking the other way the whole time.

It was just before dawn when the McCain headed into the Strait of Malacca, one of the busiest waterways in the world. The ship’s commanding officer, Cmdr. Alfredo Sanchez, had been on the bridge overseeing navigation in the heavily trafficked area near Singapore for more than four hours when the accident occurred at 5:23 a.m.

The failures on McCain began hours before accident.

Sanchez had decided to give his crew some extra rest and delayed orders putting his crew on what is known as sea and anchor detail, which requires more sailors and puts the ship at a higher state of readiness. That includes a bulked up navigation team, a full suite of lookouts and a master ship driver on the bridge.

Sanchez ordered the crew to set sea and anchor detail at 6 a.m. instead of an hour prior, when the ship entered the shipping lane heading into the Strait of Malacca. The ship’s operations officer, executive office and navigator had all recommended the ship set sea and anchor at 5 a.m. for safety reasons.

The critical failure came when the current was pushing the ship left and Sanchez noticed the helmsman — usually a junior sailor charged controlling the ship’s steering and speed when ordered by the officer of the deck or conning officer — was having trouble keeping the ship on course.

The master helmsman who would perform these tasks during a sea and anchor detail was still in the chow line at the time.

At 5:20 a.m., Sanchez ordered a second watch-stander to help run the controls to steer the ship, letting the helmsman keep control of the rudder while giving the second watch-stander control of the speed and position of the ship’s two propellers — a position known as the lee helm.

Putting two sailors at the separate positions required changing the ship’s steering configuration and shifting control of engine propeller speed to another part of control console.

But changing the control mechanisms immediately led to confusion because they mistakenly shifted all of the controls — both rudder and engine speed — to the second console.

As a result, the helmsman could no longer control the steering. He initially believed he had lost steering due to a mechanical failure, when in fact, he was just confused about the configuration of the equipment.

Four minutes before the collision, confusion began to run wild on the bridge while watch-standers attempted to fix a nonexistent loss of steering.

Complicating the situation further, changing in steering configurations forced the rudder to revert to a center line position, releasing the previous position that was set to the right between one and four degrees to fight the current that was pushing the ship left.

With the rudder unintentionally set to center line, the current continued to push the ship left of track.

During the confusion, when the bridge thought they had lost control of steering, the commanding officer ordered the engine to slow the ship’s speed from 20 knots to five. But the sailor at the console controlling the speed of the two propellers only slowed the port shaft to five knots, while the starboard shaft was still turning at 20 knots, abruptly pushing the ship sharply to the left and into the track of the Alnic MC for more than a minute.

An officer on the bridge ordered the steering controls to be shifted to a space near the rear of the ship that can also control steering, known as aft steering. But that was not yet manned due to Sanchez’s decision to man sea and anchor at 6 instead of 5 a.m.

The McCain’s steering configuration was changed five times in the roughly three minutes before the collision, according to the Navy report.

By the time the aft steering was manned and the sailor on the bridge fixed the speed issue that was forcing McCain left of track, it was too late.
 
Viimeksi muokattu:
Valtavia virheitä tehty. Missä ammattitaito?

Niin karmeita virheitä ja laiminlyöntejä, että tulee juurisyyksi mieleen:

DrunkenSailors.jpg
 
Onhan nuo tylyä luettavaa. Fitzgeraldin kapteeni ei tiennyt ongelmatilanteesta mitään ennenkuin toisen laivan kokka rysähti laipiosta sisään - kapteeni päätyi roikkumaan laivan kyljelle! Melkoinen herätys...
McCainin onnettomuuskertomus antaa vaikutelman ettei miehistö yksinkertaisesti osannut ohjata alusta. Heti kun joku vähän vastusti, niin sormi suuhun. Sellaista "Suomen surkein kuski" -settiä: "Apua mitä nää kaikki vivut oikein tekee..."
Ehkä tässä näkyy sitten jenkkilaivastossakin leikkaukset ja säästötoimenpiteet, koulutus ei yksinkertaisesti näytä olevan tehtävien vaatimusten tasolla. Fitzgeraldilla tuntuu olleen vallalla myös jonkunmoinen kuri- tai asenneongelma?
 
Fitzgeraldilla tuntuu olleen vallalla myös jonkunmoinen kuri- tai asenneongelma?

Minusta tuntui että Fitzgeraldilla oli paljon muitakin ongelmia, ja onni onnettumuudessa oli se että ne ei eivät tulleet aikaisemmin ilmi. Potkut oli pienin mahdollinen rankaistus. Mutta ongelmien samankaltaisuudesta johtuen luulen että tätä samaa on vapaana ympäri laivaston.
 
USN heräsi siihen, että navigaatiokoulutusta jne. oli vuosien vrrella vähennetty rajusti. Vestigia terrent.
 
Jos olen vahdissa sillalla ja päivystävä upseeri tulee kysymään tilannekuvaa, tuleeko huutoa jos sitä en pysty kertomaan vaikka sen pitäisi tulla ulos kuin vettä vain. Noilla kavereilla oli kaikki vempaimet ja silti kädetettiin silmittömästi.
 
Vaikeuksia tuntuu olevan myös univormujen suhteen.

The U.S. Navy Still Hasn’t Figured Out How to Make a Decent Uniform
This camo craze has gone too far
PI2ORWDWHNF3RHEE4JNXNMZGLA-e1509707031161-970x350.jpg


WIB sea November 3, 2017 Robert Beckhusen

In 2016, the U.S. Navy announced it would dump the much-derided NWU Type I — also known as the “blueberry” or “aquaflage” — after it was revealed in 2012 that the uniforms are flammable. Fire, of course, is one of the greatest threats to sailors.

That was the worst of several problems, such as the fact that camouflaged NWU Type Is are blue, black and gray, and were worn by sailors working on ships … at sea.

It was a terrible design. The Navy is replacing them with green camouflage — NWU Type IIIs — for use ashore by October 2019. Although why, precisely, sailors need a separate, green camo uniform is not exactly clear.

The Type I was designed for easier washing and in part to hide stains and fresh paint, which were more apparent on the preceding plain-blue “utilities” uniform, which replaced the famous dungarees which sailors wore from 1913 until the 1990s.


Above — Navy blueberries. At top — the NWU Type III uniform. U.S. Navy photos


But there are many more problems with Navy uniforms which any sailor would be very familiar with, and a November 2017 article by Capt. Vince Augelli in Proceedings, the U.S. Naval Institute journal, is a refreshing and blunt look at the matter.

Mainly, the uniform situation remains a big mess. The U.S. Navy has too many different everyday uniforms. The service takes far longer than the other branches to make changes, and flame-resistant coveralls — introduced as an at-sea replacement for the blueberries — have limited availability, and sailors at sea are issued only two. The Navy is rolling out a replacement for these, too.


Navy coveralls. U.S. Navy photo


To add more annoyance, the sailing branch doesn’t allow sailors to wear “working” uniforms — again, we’re referring to the blueberries and the camo-green Type IIIs — in the Pentagon without special permission “that takes months of paperwork,” Augelli points out.

Who wears similar, rugged, camouflaged working uniforms in the Pentagon? The Army, Air Force and Marines — wisely so because even Pentagon work can involve more than sitting behind a desk. Enlisted sailors at the Pentagon wear black-and-khaki service uniforms which look like something an officer would wear. “At the end of the evolution the sailor is missing ribbons and has scratched his belt buckle and scuffed his leather shoes,” Augelli writes.

What is even more amazing is the Navy’s physical training uniform, or PTU, which is worn during physical exercises. While the Navy was insistent that the blueberry hide stains, the PTU looks like this:


PTUs. U.S. Navy photo


It’s worth reading Augelli’s recommendations, especially his advice to allow sailors to wear a universal uniform at sea, on land and at the Pentagon. The Navy needs to simplify itself.

As a personal preference, and Augelli may disagree, the U.S. Navy should take a hint from the Royal Navy’s named-by-committee but nonetheless practical “R.N. Personal Clothing System,” although the United Kingdom’s sailors wear a more formal-looking “general duty rig” when working ashore.


The Royal Navy’s ‘R.N. Personal Clothing System.’ Royal Navy photo


It’s fine. Except swap the beret for a hat. Or just remake the dungarees with modern materials. But please, U.S. Navy, ditch the camouflage. It doesn’t suit you.

http://warisboring.com/the-u-s-navy-still-hasnt-figured-out-how-to-make-a-decent-uniform/
 
Robottiruorimies... automaagirouri on tulossa kovaa vauhtia. Miten sitten sotatilanteessa?

Among the recommendations offered in the U.S. Navy’s new review of the year’s warship-related mishaps are some that will help prepare the fleet for interaction with the autonomous vessels that will soon be crowding the seas.

For example: accelerate plans to upgrade today’s electronic navigation systems. Teach crewmen to use automatic identification systems to broadcast their location to nearby ships. Improve methods for human systems integration.

Virtually all ships are required to have an automatic identification system, or AIS, that can receive information about nearby ships (in passive mode) and send data about themselves (in active mode). The U.S. Navy rarely uses active mode, which broadcasts a ship’s own location. That’s changing as a result of this year’s collisions involving the USS Fitzgerald, McCain, and Lake Champlain.

“In each of the three collisions, the U.S. Navy ships involved had an AIS receiver and transmitter, but maintained their AIS in receive mode only,” noted the 177-page review, dated Oct. 26 and released Nov. 1. “This removed one of the primary awareness and collision avoidance tools used on board most commercial vessels around the world. Further, they generally failed to use AIS information to improve their situational awareness. Inadequate use of AIS was a contributing factor to the chain of errors that resulted in the incident.”
http://www.defenseone.com/technolog...oid-future-collisions/142258/?oref=d-topstory
 
McCain’s bridge team was neither experienced nor qualified to the level they should have been to be steaming a warship through crowded waters, and the Navy’s report acknowledged as much, blaming the failures on the bridge team’s insufficient local training and qualifications.

That’s because multiple members of the bridge team on watch at the time of the collision were temporarily assigned from the cruiser Antietam and had never officially qualified to operate the bridge equipment on board McCain.

The report noted that the differences between the two ship’s steering systems were significant, but none of the watch-standers were given any training to learn the new system.
idiots-idiots-everywhere-qulckmeme-com-6655325.png
 
FFG(X)-ohjelmasta tihkuu pikkuhiljaa tietoa

-"jonkun verran" isompi kuin LCS
-ei kokonaan uusia teknologioita
-20 alusta, joista ensimmäinen tilattaisiin jo 2020.
-tiukan aikataulun vuoksi kokonaan uutta suunnittelua oleva alustyyppi on pois laskuista. Joku kotimainen tai ulkomainen tyyppi modifioidaan vaatimuksiin sopivaksi.

Projekti on siis melkolailla päinvastainen kuin Zumwalt tai LCS: nyt hankitaan edullista ja koeteltua nopeasti. Saa nähdä pitääkö noin kunnianhimoinen aikataulu.

Perry-luokan fregattien reaktivointia on esitetty mutta ei suositella.
 
Procurement Schedule
Following a final year of LCS procurement in FY2019, wants to procure the first FFG(X) in
FY2020, the second in FY2021, and the remaining 18 at a rate of two per year in FY2022-
FY2030.
Ship Capabilities and Design
As mentioned above, the (X) in the program designation FFG(X) means that the design of the
ship has not yet been determined. In general, the Navy envisages the FFG(X) as follows:
 The ship is to be a multimission small surface combatant capable of conducting
AAW, ASuW, ASW, and EMW operations.
 Compared to the FF concept that emerged under the February 2014 restructuring
of the LCS program, the FFG(X) is to have increased AAW and EMW capability,
and enhanced survivability.
 The ship’s area-defense AAW system is to be capable of local area AAW,
meaning a form of area-defense AAW that extends to a lesser range than the area-
defense AAW that can be provided by the Navy’s cruisers and destroyers.
 The ship is to be capable of operating in both blue water (i.e., mid-ocean) and
littoral (i.e., near-shore) areas.
 The ship is to be capable of operating either independently (when that is
appropriate for its assigned mission) or as part of larger Navy formations.
Given the above, the FFG(X) design will likely be larger in terms of displacement, more heavily
armed, and more expensive to procure than either the LCS or the FF concept that emerged from
the February 2014 LCS program restructuring

Parent-Design Approach
The Navy’s desire to procure the first FFG(X) in FY2020 does not allow enough time to develop
a completely new design (i.e., a clean-sheet design) for the FFG(X). (Using a clean-sheet design
might defer the procurement of the first ship to about FY2023.) Consequently, the Navy intends
to build the FFG(X) to a modified version of an existing ship design—an approach called the
parent-design approach. The parent design could be a U.S. ship design or a foreign ship design.

https://www.google.fi/url?sa=t&sour...AyoQFgiXATAa&usg=AOvVaw3tNvcPxOAlBBDttWbuNAmK
 
FFG(X)-ohjelmasta tihkuu pikkuhiljaa tietoa

-"jonkun verran" isompi kuin LCS
-tiukan aikataulun vuoksi kokonaan uutta suunnittelua oleva alustyyppi on pois laskuista. Joku kotimainen tai ulkomainen tyyppi modifioidaan vaatimuksiin sopivaksi.

Parent-Design Approach
The Navy’s desire to procure the first FFG(X) in FY2020 does not allow enough time to develop
a completely new design (i.e., a clean-sheet design) for the FFG(X). (Using a clean-sheet design
might defer the procurement of the first ship to about FY2023.) Consequently, the Navy intends
to build the FFG(X) to a modified version of an existing ship design—an approach called the
parent-design approach. The parent design could be a U.S. ship design or a foreign ship design.
Siinä tapauksessa voisivat varmaan lainata Ranskan tulevan FTI / Belharra fregatin designia. Ainakin omaan silmään oikein näpsäkän näköinen paatti. Ranskan laivasto on tilannut noita viisi kpl, joista ensimmäisen pitäisi olla palveluksessa vuonna 2023.

FTI_Belharra_frigate_Naval_Group_DCNS_French_Navy_PACIFIC_2017_1.jpg


Naval Group Refines the Design of its FTI / Belharra Next Generation Frigate
https://www.navyrecognition.com/ind...the-fti-belharra-next-generation-frigate.html
 
Tuohan on hiukka parempi
Saab provides air traffic #radar for the #USNavy's Aircraft Carrier (CVN) and Amphibious Assault (LH) Class #ships
kuin mita nimi sanoo. Eli silloin kun ammutaan, se pystyy jatkuvaan de-konfliktointiin. Eli ilmapuolustusvyohykkeet pysyvat aktiivisina, vaikka on omia ilmassa (johonkinhan niiden pitaa pystya laskeutumaan!).
 
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/22/politics/navy-aircraft-crash/index.html

Navy aircraft crashes in Philippine Sea

A US Navy aircraft carrying 11 crew and passengers crashed into the Pacific Ocean, southeast of Okinawa on Wednesday.
Japan's Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera told reporters that 10 or 11 people were aboard the C-2 transport aircraft, of which eight had been rescued. The rest are missing, and both US and Japanese forces are searching for them, he said to reporters.
 
10 or 11 people were aboard the C-2 transport aircraft, of which eight had been rescued.
Odotusarvoa selvasti parempi tulema... silloin kun kyseessa on pakkolasku veteen (Hudson joki pl.).
 
Kas, kun US Navy ajelee japanilaisten C-2:lla.
 
Back
Top