5 ms·

> 2) The destroyer was running without transponder on, as per typical Navy behavior so it couldn't be tracked by unfriendly powers. This meant the automated nav

> 2) The destroyer was running without transponder on, as per typical Navy behavior so it couldn't be tracked by unfriendly powers. This meant the automated navigation system on the cargo ship didn't see it. I hope this behavior is changed during peace to prevent unnecessary human fatalities.

nulldev 9y ago
Turning on transponders across the entire fleet is not a proportional response here. There are lots of military vessels out there and 99.99% of the time they don't crash into cargo ships. A lot of things went completely sideways for this to happen, and there are reasonable failsafes that can be enacted to prevent it in the future.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mjlee 9y ago
Although the AIS transponder was turned off - the vessel would still have appeared on radar. The cargo vessel's system wouldn't have had the same amount of information for anticollision calculations, but still would have been able to detect it as an obstacle and would have flagged it to anybody on the bridge who was paying attention. Plenty of ships go to sea without transponders on, such as large fishing vessels that don't want to give away where the good spots are.
- jessaustin 9y ago
  Large fishing vessels turn on their AIS when crossing shipping lanes. Also, the whole point of modern military naval architecture is to reduce radar cross-section. Sure these boats can be seen from up close, but we can't assume that decades-old cargo ships are outfitted with the latest radar tech either.
  - mjlee 9y ago
    My point was that AIS is not an anticollision mechanism and shouldn't be relied upon. It's also often wrongly configured or just broken. The Royal Navy advertise their 8500ton Destroyer as having the radar cross section of a small fishing vessel: https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/3951 https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/3951 I'm not sure what the weather conditions were like, but even in marginal conditions, they'll have been picked up on radar.
  - astrodust 9y ago
    Even a consumer grade radar would be able to spot a 9,000 ton vessel from a thousand yards away no matter how "stealthy" it is, and they got closer than that.
johannes1234321 9y ago
Considering that US armed forces are at war (or police action or whatever it's called) almost all the time since WWII it's likely we'll never know ;) But even then they certainly don't want to make it simple to trace their complete deployments.
civilitty 9y ago
If they did that, then the second a war started all of our surface Navy would be wiped out in a first strike.
- jessaustin 9y ago
  Whereas, on the current footing, all it will take is a bunch of 12-knot cargo ships on autopilot to take them out. Either the captain and OOD should both be court-martialed out, or USA Navy needs to go back to the drawing board.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    Yes, because once a decade one of our 400 naval ships has a survivable collision, we should turn AIS on full time.
    - jessaustin 9y ago
      [EDIT:] I didn't suggest that, but Lieutenant Commander Michael Kiser, USN does suggest that AIS be used in shipping lanes: https://blog.usni.org/posts/2017/06/21/three-changes-the-navy-can-make-to-improve-safe-navigation https://blog.usni.org/posts/2017/06/21/three-changes-the-nav... Also, there are 274 ships in USN. Also, this cargo ship did not intend to collide with the navy ship. In wartime, we can't make that assumption.
    - kevinr 9y ago
      A single submarine loss (the Thresher accident) was enough to prompt the US Navy to institute the SUBSAFE program, possibly the single most successful safety program in history.
- astrodust 9y ago
  Considering the size of the US navy, around 430 ships, that's extremely unlikely. There's not enough submarines in the world to sneak attack them all at once.
  - 9y ago

nulldev 9y ago

Turning on transponders across the entire fleet is not a proportional response here. There are lots of military vessels out there and 99.99% of the time they don't crash into cargo ships. A lot of things went completely sideways for this to happen, and there are reasonable failsafes that can be enacted to prevent it in the future.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

mjlee 9y ago

Although the AIS transponder was turned off - the vessel would still have appeared on radar. The cargo vessel's system wouldn't have had the same amount of information for anticollision calculations, but still would have been able to detect it as an obstacle and would have flagged it to anybody on the bridge who was paying attention. Plenty of ships go to sea without transponders on, such as large fishing vessels that don't want to give away where the good spots are.

jessaustin 9y ago
Large fishing vessels turn on their AIS when crossing shipping lanes. Also, the whole point of modern military naval architecture is to reduce radar cross-section. Sure these boats can be seen from up close, but we can't assume that decades-old cargo ships are outfitted with the latest radar tech either.
- mjlee 9y ago
  My point was that AIS is not an anticollision mechanism and shouldn't be relied upon. It's also often wrongly configured or just broken. The Royal Navy advertise their 8500ton Destroyer as having the radar cross section of a small fishing vessel: https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/3951 https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/3951 I'm not sure what the weather conditions were like, but even in marginal conditions, they'll have been picked up on radar.
- astrodust 9y ago
  Even a consumer grade radar would be able to spot a 9,000 ton vessel from a thousand yards away no matter how "stealthy" it is, and they got closer than that.

johannes1234321 9y ago

Considering that US armed forces are at war (or police action or whatever it's called) almost all the time since WWII it's likely we'll never know ;) But even then they certainly don't want to make it simple to trace their complete deployments.

civilitty 9y ago

If they did that, then the second a war started all of our surface Navy would be wiped out in a first strike.

jessaustin 9y ago
Whereas, on the current footing, all it will take is a bunch of 12-knot cargo ships on autopilot to take them out. Either the captain and OOD should both be court-martialed out, or USA Navy needs to go back to the drawing board.
- valuearb 9y ago
  Yes, because once a decade one of our 400 naval ships has a survivable collision, we should turn AIS on full time.
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    [EDIT:] I didn't suggest that, but Lieutenant Commander Michael Kiser, USN does suggest that AIS be used in shipping lanes: https://blog.usni.org/posts/2017/06/21/three-changes-the-navy-can-make-to-improve-safe-navigation https://blog.usni.org/posts/2017/06/21/three-changes-the-nav... Also, there are 274 ships in USN. Also, this cargo ship did not intend to collide with the navy ship. In wartime, we can't make that assumption.
  - kevinr 9y ago
    A single submarine loss (the Thresher accident) was enough to prompt the US Navy to institute the SUBSAFE program, possibly the single most successful safety program in history.
astrodust 9y ago
Considering the size of the US navy, around 430 ships, that's extremely unlikely. There's not enough submarines in the world to sneak attack them all at once.
- 9y ago