Another collision in South China Sea .

#151
end of the day, they could have been chasing a NORK sub hiding under that ship and simply took a left instead of a right, the captain is responsible and should get Court Martial, along with a few others. Lets see what the investigation comes up with.

kortik said:
I have no idea how the U.S. Navy works. What I know is that it is NOT technically possible for any modern navy ship, which has multiple means of detection what is around up to many, many miles, to miss a tanker coming straight at it. It's just not possible, unless people in charge of monitoring hardware were all asleep, dead drunk, on drugs or not at their stations. These people, and people in charge of these people, must be severely punished, to create a strong precedent and restore the discipline.
Click to expand...

 
#153
kortik said:
I have no idea how the U.S. Navy works. I just assume that it works in line with general principles of command and control.

What I know is that it is NOT technically possible for any modern navy ship, which has multiple means of detection what is around it up to many, many miles, to miss a huge tanker coming straight at it. It's just not possible in principle, unless people in charge of the ship monitoring hardware were all asleep, dead drunk, on drugs or not at their stations.

These people, and people in charge of these people, must be very severely punished, to create a strong precedent and to restore the basic discipline. Nothing else will work.
Click to expand...

Thats EXACTLY what Ive been asking....unless your navigation has been hacked or similar event, HOW THE FUCK DO YOU NOT SEE A 600 FOOT LONG CONTAINER SHIP.

Explain that and Ill gladly STFU.
 
#155
Gunfighter14e2 said:
Well seems latest says, the ships navigation was owned by others, for a few minutes. Guess a few updates will have to take place, before we go to war now.
Click to expand...

Ironic, since when i suggested such things it was not valued as a legitimate possibility by many.

While the thought of it is horrific, it sits better with my logic than to think we have boats full of fucking retards all over the place.
 
#156
2ndamendfan said:
Ironic, since when i suggested such things it was not valued as a legitimate possibility by many.
Click to expand...
Only by those who think with their lower head. There is not a electrical device or circuit that can't be owned by others, as anything with a wire in it or attached to it is but an receive antenna. That also includes most shielded systems. As you can over power the shield drain wire rendering it useless, then attack the true target. All you need is the length of the wire to find it's resonant frequency, then it's size to determine it's ampacity.
 
#161
Maggot said:
Thats EXACTLY what Ive been asking....unless your navigation has been hacked or similar event, HOW THE FUCK DO YOU NOT SEE A 600 FOOT LONG CONTAINER SHIP.

Explain that and Ill gladly STFU.
Click to expand...

I've already explained how the relative motion between ships at sea is perceived by humans and it is dramatically different than anything else landlubbers like you have ever seen or experienced.

You and kortik are not qualified to pass judgement on how easy or obvious it is.
 
#164
Gunfighter14e2 said:
Only by those who think with their lower head. There is not a electrical device or circuit that can't be owned by others, as anything with a wire in it or attached to it is but an receive antenna. That also includes most shielded systems. As you can over power the shield drain wire rendering it useless, then attack the true target. All you need is the length of the wire to find it's resonant frequency, then it's size to determine it's ampacity.
Click to expand...

I'm one of the ones skeptical of hacking or an info attack vs. more mundane possibilities. But also extremely interested in the possibility. Any links or something anyone can post? I didn't see one above.

Cheers,

Sirhr
 
#165
sirhrmechanic said:
I'm one of the ones skeptical of hacking or an info attack vs. more mundane possibilities. But also extremely interested in the possibility. Any links or something anyone can post? I didn't see one above.

Cheers,

Sirhr
Click to expand...

I haven't come across anything more than reports along the lines of this one published a few days ago -
Vice Adm. Jan Tighe, who serves as the director of naval intelligence, said Thursday the Navy dispatched to Singapore its Cyber Command 10th Fleet, along with a team of technical experts from Naval Sea Systems Command and Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, "to confirm that cyber had no role" in the Aug. 21 incident that killed ten U.S. soldiers.
Click to expand...

http://freebeacon.com/national-secur...ain-collision/

I don't think, though, that if that boat was fucked remotely, we would ever hear any amount of truth regarding the extent or severity of the fucking.

I'd expect something along the lines of....

REALITY - 12 savages from some shithole came over, got free housing, free whatever the fuck, more money than poor folks that lived there forever, happened to see some little white girl and an opportunity to strike, ran the train on every orifice, abused her in the most heinous of ways, and discarded her barely recognizable body in a river.

REPORTED REALITY - Girl with possible ties to supremacist group was assaulted, police are investigating.

You know, kinda like Larry Silverstein buying the twin towers in July of 2001 and taking out a ridiculous insurance policy on them that, post-9/11 and some lawyerfuckery to claim each building individually, netted him a little over 3 billion dollars profit. That's not the kinda shit you're gonna get from an official report.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNtMZ0jEZwM#t=75


Really, though, if it turned out that having the Chinese manufacture chips we use in our state-of-the-art machines of war is going to backfire spectacularly, I'm not sure I'd even want to know about that.. What the fuck are you gonna say? "Yeah, you remember those millions of billions we've spent on shit over the last however the fuck long? Totally fucking useless against communists. Sorry guys, we have all been fucked like that Mexican guy got fucked by that spike up his ass in that video circulating 18 years ago, give or take a few. You remember when the spike came out of his throat? Yeah, that's the best case scenario for us."

I mean, I'd give that speech if that was what was expected of me, but damn... THAT is a tough pill to swallow, both for the administrator and the receiver.

Gotta say, though. I think Matt Elliot might be my most favorite musician I've encountered in the last few years.

The first song - Completely fucked, but not dead yet, is probably my favorite. All of his albums are spectacular, too.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
#166
Here is Lookout Training Handbook (Department of the Navy, January 2007):

http://greenfleet.dodlive.mil/files/...RA-12968-D.pdf

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
From Chapter 1, page 5:

In this United States Navy with its nuclear-powered warships, computerized guidance systems, and the most accurate search radars in the world, you, the lookout, play a critical role in safe ship operations. Your trained human eye is far superior to the most sophisticated equipment. As a lookout, you are the eyes and ears of the ship, and your alertness and skill ensures the safety of the ship. In the naval service there is probably no Rule of the Road more conscientiously observed than Rule 5 of the Navigation Rules, Commandant Instruction M16672.2, which states: “Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and sound as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision.”
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

308pirate,

I agree that I'm "not qualified" to say anything about Navy, as I have no personal experience of any kind related to Navy, except taking part in some fun party with a group of sailors very many years ago. However, I'm really curious if the crews of these two U.S. Navy ships were aware of this Handbook existence or had any operational lookout stations at the time of the accidents? See Chapter 2, page 6 for a proper procedure on how to set up lookout stations.

Are you familiar with this Handbook and do you believe that both ships had operational lookout stations at the time of the accidents? I can safely assume that even if "the most accurate search radars in the world", as stated above, somehow failed, a sailor with binoculars would likely detect potential risk of collision, and would report it immediately for further action to avoid such collision.

Another possible scenario for these accidents, assuming that lookout stations were operational, is that both ships somehow completely lost ability to move at all due to failures of pure technical nature. Do you think such scenario is possible?
 
Last edited:
#167
sirhrmechanic said:
I'm one of the ones skeptical of hacking or an info attack vs. more mundane possibilities. But also extremely interested in the possibility. Any links or something anyone can post? I didn't see one above.

Cheers,

Sirhr
Click to expand...

Considering NAVSSI (ship's navigation) is on the Combat Systems network, which is a closed loop system currently, it's highly unlikely it was hacked. Additionally, tainted chips are something that already have security protocols in place to prevent. Is it possible? Hell, anything is these days. Is it likely? Not very. I'm not going to go into much more detail that that.
 
#168
kortik said:
Are you familiar with this Handbook
Yes. It's been a long time since I've looked at it but I am familiar with it


and do you believe that both ships had operational lookout stations at the time of the accidents?
I assume they did as required by Navy regulations and common sense, but I wasn't there


I can safely assume that even if "the most accurate search radars in the world", as stated above, somehow failed, a sailor with binoculars would likely detect potential risk of collision, and would report it immediately for further action to avoid such collision.
Lookouts are trained to primarily report contacts. Evaluating contacts in their sector for "potential risk of collision" isn't what they do, nor are they expected or supposed to do. Obviously, anyone with half a brain will report a collision risk when it's in-extremis. As I've said for about the fifth or sixth time, evaluating risk of collision just by looking at another ship is extremely difficult and not at all accurate. It's one of those things that you think "how could it be that difficult" until you get you ass up on the bridge and try to do it. Why do you think contacts are plotted to establish track, speed, and CPA (closest point of approach)? We wouldn't bother teaching target motion analysis if we could figure out in our heads with just visual observation, that's why.


Another possible scenario for these accidents, assuming that lookout stations were operational, is that both ships somehow completely lost ability to move at all due to failures of pure technical nature. Do you think such scenario is possible?
It's possible. However it's highly improbable that all four main engines and/or both main reduction gears (each shaft has two General Electric LM2500 gas turbine engines coupled to a common gear box) were all rendered inoperable at the same time. So much so that I dismiss the possibility out of hand and leave it to the conspiracy theory idiots to ponder.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#169
MarinePMI said:
Considering NAVSSI (ship's navigation) is on the Combat Systems network, which is a closed loop system currently, it's highly unlikely it was hacked. Additionally, tainted chips are something that already have security protocols in place to prevent. Is it possible? Hell, anything is these days. Is it likely? Not very. I'm not going to go into much more detail that that.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the fact that within sight of land, the quartermaster of the watch will be taking radar and visual bearings off landmarks and plotting them on a paper chart.........
 
#170
MarinePMI said:
Considering NAVSSI (ship's navigation) is on the Combat Systems network, which is a closed loop system currently, it's highly unlikely it was hacked. Additionally, tainted chips are something that already have security protocols in place to prevent. Is it possible? Hell, anything is these days. Is it likely? Not very. I'm not going to go into much more detail that that.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you, but if there 'is' anything to it, it's an amazing information operations coup. And if there is 'not' anything to it... it's an amazing psy-ops coup... in either situation, a rather interesting information operations case study.

Even if these accidents have nothing to do with hacking... now there are people spending time and resources... thinking that they might have been influenced. Which means that the psy op had an impact, whether or not it was anything but an accident. If I were an enemy of the USA... I'd sure play it that way.

Cheers,

Sirhr
 
#171
If it was electronic hijinks more likely a worm or timebomb, that went in on a Zip drive. Maybe without the users knowledge Not a virus because viruses self replicate and a virus would be more likely picked up in a scan.

It it could have been triggered when a certain radar traffic pattern occurred. Just a guess.
 
#172
308pirate,

Thank you for your reply.

You've posted:

"Lookouts are trained to primarily report contacts. Evaluating contacts in their sector for "potential risk of collision" isn't what they do, nor are they expected or supposed to do. Obviously, anyone with half a brain will report a collision risk when it's in-extremis. As I've said for about the fifth or sixth time, evaluating risk of collision just by looking at another ship is extremely difficult and not at all accurate. It's one of those things that you think "how could it be that difficult" until you get you ass up on the bridge and try to do it. Why do you think contacts are plotted to establish track, speed, and CPA (closest point of approach)? We wouldn't bother teaching target motion analysis if we could figure out in our heads with just visual observation, that's why."

When you drive a car (or, say, a fishing boat ) and see another vehicle (or a boat) expected, say, to cross the road in front of your vehicle (or a boat) or heading in your direction in a certain dangerous manner, do you really employ target motion analysis per specific Navy developed procedure, or you just use your head to figure out the easiest way to prevent potential collision, like either applying your vehicle brakes (or turning the boat in an appropriate direction), or accelerating your vehicle (or a boat) to get out of the potential danger zone?

Hundreds of millions of people are avoiding collisions every day without having any Navy "on the bridge" experience to avoid collisions. Excluding the possibility of the total loss of power by both ships, which, per your reply, is very unlikely and can only be taken into account by "idiots", it looks like the crews of both ships were not properly trained to follow some very basic steps (see referenced Handbook) in order to avoid collisions.

My last question - what, in your opinion, is wrong about this conclusion, which is based on common sense and real life observations?

Thank you in advance.
 
Last edited:
#174
kortik said:
308pirate,

Thank you for your reply.

You've posted:

"Lookouts are trained to primarily report contacts. Evaluating contacts in their sector for "potential risk of collision" isn't what they do, nor are they expected or supposed to do. Obviously, anyone with half a brain will report a collision risk when it's in-extremis. As I've said for about the fifth or sixth time, evaluating risk of collision just by looking at another ship is extremely difficult and not at all accurate. It's one of those things that you think "how could it be that difficult" until you get you ass up on the bridge and try to do it. Why do you think contacts are plotted to establish track, speed, and CPA (closest point of approach)? We wouldn't bother teaching target motion analysis if we could figure out in our heads with just visual observation, that's why."

When you drive a car (or, say, a fishing boat ) and see another vehicle (or a boat) expected, say, to cross the road in front of your vehicle (or a boat) or heading in your direction in a certain dangerous manner, do you really employ target motion analysis per specific Navy developed procedure, or you just use your head to figure out the easiest way to prevent potential collision, like either applying your vehicle brakes (or turning the boat in an appropriate direction), or accelerating your vehicle (or a boat) to get out of the potential danger zone?

Hundreds of millions of people are avoiding collisions every day without having any Navy "on the bridge" experience to avoid collisions. Excluding the possibility of the total loss of power by both ships, which, per your reply, is very unlikely and can only be taken into account by "idiots", it looks like the crews of both ships were not properly trained to follow some very basic steps (see referenced Handbook) in order to avoid collisions.

My last question - what, in your opinion, is wrong about this conclusion, which is based on common sense and real life observations?

Thank you in advance.
Click to expand...

I already answered the question about five or six times. But I will try once more.

Relative motion between large, slow moving objects that may be several miles away is not readily apparent to the naked eye and the end result of that relative motion is even less so.

It is NOTHING at all like what you know and use as an example here, the relative motion between small, relatively fast vehicles in much closer proximity.

Quit being such a fucking know-it-all and maybe you'll learn something. I'm done with your stupid ass.
 
#176
308pirate said:
I already answered the question about five or six times. But I will try once more.

Relative motion between large, slow moving objects that may be several miles away is not readily apparent to the naked eye and the end result of that relative motion is even less so.

It is NOTHING at all like what you know and use as an example here, the relative motion between small, relatively fast vehicles in much closer proximity.

Quit being such a fucking know-it-all and maybe you'll learn something. I'm done with your stupid ass.
Click to expand...

O.K., I know nothing, which is the reason I've asked you, an expert. However, you're extremely rude and failed to reply in an intelligent manner. I'm also done with your stupid ass.


 
Last edited:
#177
kortik said:
O.K., I know nothing, which is the reason I've asked you, an expert. However, you're extremely rude and failed to reply in an intelligent manner.
Click to expand...
You were given the fucking answer more than once. You're either too stupid to understand or a fucking troll looking for an angle.

Either way you can fuck right off.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dirty D
I ROR'd
Replies
8
Views
1K
DocRDS
D
pineoak
Chinese military balloon explained
Replies
28
Views
2K
highbclowgr
highbclowgr
Blue Sky Country
Maggie’s You are listening to Black Cove 107.1 FM. WHERE OUTLAW COUNTRY LIVES. All day and every day
Replies
20
Views
3K
fpgt72
fpgt72
c1steve
Stopping a bear attack with a pistol, a compilation of events.
Replies
100
Views
11K
Mike Casselton
Mike Casselton
P
Are U.S. Navy’s Super Carriers a Relic of Wars Past?
Replies
16
Views
1K
roggom
roggom
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts