Cyberattack? Sounds more like a modern version of Tomorrow Never Dies.

freitasm:

 

Cyberattack? Sounds more like a modern version of Tomorrow Never Dies.

 

If there was jamming - or as they suggest "spoofing" of GPS signal - then it isn't going to affect only naval vessels - and there are a hell of a lot more commercial vessels than warships on the water, with much smaller crews to maintain visual watch than available to a warship.

Yet it's US navy warships that seem to have a bit of a problem with collisions recently...

I can't fathom this fundamental breakdown in basic seamanship. You have lookouts on watch and it's called a "watch" for a reason. This should never happen even if the freighter was trying to hit them. 

gzt: That seems unlikely twice in a row. More likely an over reliance on automated systems and a consequent tendency to suppress alarms and alerts. Aka tesla 'put your hands on the wheel'.

Fred99 you can't seriously be comparing weekend warrior Captain Fred on his H28 with professional navy officers in charge of a $2billion state of the art warship with every item of radar, gps, night vision, ais, navigation crew, helm crew, lookout crew, security (intrusion) crew etc?

This reminds me of this video I saw years ago.

US Navy Video

Fred99:

gzt: That seems unlikely twice in a row. More likely an over reliance on automated systems and a consequent tendency to suppress alarms and alerts. Aka tesla 'put your hands on the wheel'.

Both recent incidents happened on busy shipping lanes near land. It's extremely hard to see where the hell you are when you're surrounded by lights.

Surely it's not a matter of not knowing where you are? Surely every ship has GPS, so they know where they are to +/-20m?

The problem is not knowing where other ships are. And surely large ships continually broadcast their locations, just like large commercial aircraft? So, even if the warship was in silent stealth mode, it could hear the broadcasts from the other ship, and therefore avoid it?

For me, the first question was whether either or both ships were broadcasting their positions or not. If either was, then responsibility must lie with the other one. If neither was, then responsibility is probably shared in that neither kept an adequate lookout when their technology was not working.

frankv:

 

Fred99:

gzt: That seems unlikely twice in a row. More likely an over reliance on automated systems and a consequent tendency to suppress alarms and alerts. Aka tesla 'put your hands on the wheel'.

Both recent incidents happened on busy shipping lanes near land. It's extremely hard to see where the hell you are when you're surrounded by lights.

 

Surely it's not a matter of not knowing where you are? Surely every ship has GPS, so they know where they are to +/-20m?

 

The problem is not knowing where other ships are. And surely large ships continually broadcast their locations, just like large commercial aircraft? So, even if the warship was in silent stealth mode, it could hear the broadcasts from the other ship, and therefore avoid it?

 

For me, the first question was whether either or both ships were broadcasting their positions or not. If either was, then responsibility must lie with the other one. If neither was, then responsibility is probably shared in that neither kept an adequate lookout when their technology was not working.

 

 

 

Whether the other ship broadcast it's location, speed, intentions or anything else is by the by. The USN ship has radars that could detect an incoming golf ball, it's position, speed and direction... never mind a 50,000t tanker.

Even if the freighter had a drunken maniac at the helm trying to hit the navy ship, the navy crew should have seen the pending collision miles off and avoided it. The Iranians and Nth Koreans must be laughing their tits off.

kryptonjohn:

 

Whether the other ship broadcast it's location, speed, intentions or anything else is by the by. The USN ship has radars that could detect an incoming golf ball, it's position, speed and direction... never mind a 50,000t tanker.

 

Even if the freighter had a drunken maniac at the helm trying to hit the navy ship, the navy crew should have seen the pending collision miles off and avoided it. The Iranians and Nth Koreans must be laughing their tits off.

 

Yeah. But, as others have said, for military reasons they may not want to broadcast anything, and certainly not their classified Binfords 5000 "Spot-a-nit" radar. That seems legitimate to me, but does put extra responsibility on the watch crew to be on an elevated level of eyeball lookout. If the freighter *was* broadcasting its position, then it's negligent for the destroyer crew not to have seen it on their scopes. OTOH, if the freighter also wasn't broadcasting (maybe a fault, or whatever) then the freighter's crew should have been on extra-vigilant lookout.

No, they might not have their weapons radar on, but there's no way they are operating in the area without general radar, which gives them the location, speed and course of ships in their area. A destroyer is not a stealth vessel so anyone in the area who wants to know where they are will know where they are... whether they (the destroyer) have their radars (and lights) on or not. There's no benefit to them in not operating navigational radars and given the number of collisions lately very good reason to have it on.

So whether the freighter was broadcasting AIS (mandatory) is still irrelevant. It would simply be overlaid repeated information in the same navigational screens as the radar. If they are not looking at the screen then they are not going to see it. It would appear that the navy crew were negligent but maybe there's some incredibly unlikely alternative explanation. 

Regardless of the right of way port/starboard rule, maneuverable vessels (destroyers) should keep clear of vessels with restricted maneuverability (tankers).

This is super scary really when you consider the amount of air traffic thats about us. Maybe ships need to learn from air pilots?

kryptonjohn:

 

No, they might not have their weapons radar on, but there's no way they are operating in the area without general radar, which gives them the location, speed and course of ships in their area. A destroyer is not a stealth vessel so anyone in the area who wants to know where they are will know where they are... whether they (the destroyer) have their radars (and lights) on or not. There's no benefit to them in not operating navigational radars and given the number of collisions lately very good reason to have it on.

 

So whether the freighter was broadcasting AIS (mandatory) is still irrelevant. It would simply be overlaid repeated information in the same navigational screens as the radar. If they are not looking at the screen then they are not going to see it. It would appear that the navy crew were negligent but maybe there's some incredibly unlikely alternative explanation. 

 

Regardless of the right of way port/starboard rule, maneuverable vessels (destroyers) should keep clear of vessels with restricted maneuverability (tankers).

 

 

 

As mentioned previously the US routinely operate their ships with NO radars on at all and rely on information they receive from other systems like their AIS, ESM and CESM systems to paint a picture of where everyone else is.

so don't come out with comments like "there's no way they are operating in the area without general radar" when you likely don't have any idea about this and are just going on pure assumption.

They don't operate routinely without their radar off. Who mentioned this and what is their source? They routinely operate without AIS - that's nothing to do with radar.

There's no point turning off radar. Turning off navigational radar doesn't hide  a 500 foot warship any more than crouching behind a curtain hides an elephant. Nothing to do with "pure assumption". It's simple common sense that you wouldn't operate with radar off when it delivers considerable risk and zero benefit. *Especially* when there have been several collisions lately, including in the same region.

They can't rely on other ships AIS to know where they are because they can't rely on other ships having functioning AIS. The biggest risk to US warships, after, apparently their own negligence, is small fast boats running up to them and detonating improvised explosives a la USS Cole. That's another reason to keep the radar on. No amount of ESM is going to help prevent some guy ramming a speed boat packed with explosives into you.

kryptonjohn:

 

They don't operate routinely without their radar off. Who mentioned this and what is their source? They routinely operate without AIS - that's nothing to do with radar.

 

Yes they do. I don't need a source and you would be unlikely to find one, but this is from ACTUAL experience

kryptonjohn:

 

There's no point turning off radar. Turning off navigational radar doesn't hide  a 500 foot warship any more than crouching behind a curtain hides an elephant. Nothing to do with "pure assumption". It's simple common sense that you wouldn't operate with radar off when it delivers considerable risk and zero benefit. *Especially* when there have been several collisions lately, including in the same region.

 

What experience do you have in detecting radar/radio signals to find things? a nav radar is good to about 48miles max to find something, but the radio signals travel considerably further and can be detected many many times that distance away. can you see a 500ft warship from 12 miles away when its over the horizon and it doesn't have ais? doubt it very much.

the American navy is anything but conventional when it comes to things like this because they are such a target they tend to like to remain invisible.

common sense isn't a valid justification for an argument as common sense just isn't that common these days.

kryptonjohn:

 

They can't rely on other ships AIS to know where they are because they can't rely on other ships having functioning AIS. The biggest risk to US warships, after, apparently their own negligence, is small fast boats running up to them and detonating improvised explosives a la USS Cole. That's another reason to keep the radar on. No amount of ESM is going to help prevent some guy ramming a speed boat packed with explosives into you. 

 

 

no but that comes back to people keeping a proper watch especially if they are not operating a radar. but the cole was in harbour when its incident happened. not quiet the same as being at sea.

for all we know the radar may have had a defect or any number of other things.

but everyone is so quick to come to assumptions on these things.