Navy Ships Collide Off San Diego Coast
Source: NBC San Diego
Two Navy ships collided collided at sea Wednesday morning, Navy officials said.
The USS Essex collided with a USNS Yukon during a replenishment operation. Officials believe a steering malfunction in the Yukon caused the collision.
Read more: http://m.nbcsandiego.com/nbcsandiego/pm_107837/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=zjhCZeDU
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)
Ezlivin
(8,153 posts)And how the officers involved with NORAD's massive failure on 9/11 were treated.
Hint: I don't think the captains will get promoted and receive awards.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)It's mission did not include tracking internal commercial air traffic at the time. Blaming them for not finding the highjacked planes is about as logical as blaming the Army Corps of Engineers for the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion.
Ezlivin
(8,153 posts)If NORAD cannot track aircraft within CONUS, it fails in its mission.
If NORAD cannot track aircraft that don't have transponders, it fails in its mission.
If NORAD cannot track an enemy aircraft that clears the border and enters CONUS, it fails in its mission.
In 2000 NORAD successfully intercepted aircraft within CONUS 129 times. It is standard operating procedure to scramble jet fighters if a jetliner goes off course or radio contact is lost. On 9/11 it failed to intercept four aircraft and its failure to stop the aircraft bound for the Pentagon (the heart of our Defense Department) is completely inexcusable.
To accept the "theory" that NORAD cannot track aircraft within CONUS is patently absurd. What becomes of an enemy fighter crossing the coastline? Does it disappear from radar? (That's a rhetorical question, by the way.)
What does NORAD say about its mission?
NORAD is tasked with monitoring the air space and ALL airborne traffic. In fact, it has scrambled jets to intercept suspected drug couriers. These are small aircraft with no transponders flying into and within CONUS. Yet they are spotted, tracked and intercepted.
NORAD failed on 9/11 and any excuses for its failures are unacceptable. We don't have the defense we've paid for.
shawn703
(2,702 posts)Might suggest that NORAD didn't fail their mission, rather they were given specific orders about what to do (or not do) with four specific airliners on September 11, 2001.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The only civilian plane NORAD intercepted over northam, in the 10 years prior to 9/11, was Payne Stewart's learjet, and it took an hour and a half for the F-16 to catch up to it.
Prior to 9/11, military aircraft, in peacetime, had no permission to exceed the speed of sound over CONUS for intercepts.
NORAD didn't have the sort of ground based radar inside the US, to do what you seem to be expecting of it (paint aircraft without transponders). They do now, which of course raises our average radiation dose, but that's another issue.
NORAD was doing exactly what it was budgeted to, and it was a strategy mistake that is made all the time with commercial computer networks: strong perimeter security, little to nothing inside that perimeter. No defense in depth.
Now we do.
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00766.pdf
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00172.pdf
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00778.pdf
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00788.pdf
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-01256.pdf
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00767.pdf
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00768.pdf
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00764.pdf
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00172.pdf
NORAD was not tasked with monitoring civilian air traffic over the continental US on 9/11. Period. No amount of revisionist history will make it so.
Ezlivin
(8,153 posts)It is disingenuous to suggest that NORAD wasn't prepared or capable of defending air space over America when, in fact, on the morning of 9/11 they were running simulations involving just that.
On my submarine we ran drills all the time, simulating a wide range of events which could occur while underway (and sometimes while docked). We ran these drills repeatedly, knowing that our response would have to be quick and correct, for emergencies taking place hundreds of feet beneath the ocean leave little room for error.
NORAD runs exercises for the same reason and the exercises in which it engaged in on 9/11 are further proof that not only was it capable of tracking hijacked aircraft within CONUS, it drilled on it. These were not the first drills nor would they be the last.
You mention the time it took to reach Payne Stewart's aircraft, but don't mention the time it took for the flights of the 129 fighter jets that were scrambled during the year 2000. You can't mention the time because it's never been released. Before 9/11 the NORAD Commander in Chief, General Eberhart, stated that "Normally, our units [flew] 4-6 sorties a month in support of the NORAD air defense mission." Evidence shows that fighter jets were scrambled regularly for intercepts and that bases surrounding New York and Washington D.C. were "high readiness" bases with fighters guaranteed to be airborne within five minutes (a good thing when you've got incoming bogies). Couple this readiness with the fact that on 9/11 NORAD was fully staffed with senior officers in position, on full alert with fighters already in the air.
The time to scramble fighters was confirmed by NORAD during its testimony. It claimed that after being told of the hijacking at 8:40, it waited six minutes to give the order to scramble. Six minutes later the aircraft departed Otis.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)NORAD was budgeted for a particular mission at the time. That mission was outward looking, to intercept aircraft entering our ADIZ.
A fact repeated over and over in the testimony I linked to you, supported by documentation, and by budget allocations.
New York and DC are coastal areas, you have not shown that these were domestic intercepts.
The NORAD exercise 'Vigilant Warrior' was not a live-fly drill. There were no fighters already in the air for the exercise on 9/11. That claim is an error based on a mistake made by Mike Ruppert. It was a no-fly multi-command base drill.
Ezlivin
(8,153 posts)Does this not indicate a failure?
Either there was a failure in budgeting, planning or execution. Or all three.
Yet despite these failures, no one was even reprimanded. No one was trotted out as a sacrificial lamb. Admiral Kimmell had to resign to avoid court martial over his lack of foresight, yet on 9/11 we were left completely vulnerable and there was not one single person to blame? Wow.
It is simply stunning to think that NORAD was incapable of tracking a foreign aircraft once it entered our airspace. This is an incredible oversight on someone's part.
I've yet to hear a cogent explanation of what the fuck we were supposed to do once enemy aircraft were in our airspace. According to you, NORAD had no way of tracking or intercepting these aircraft due being "budgeted for a particular mission." Oh, but after those commercial aircraft slammed into buildings they got religion damned fast.
Who the hell was watching the inside of the country for the past 35 years? No one?
Since my Naval service in the seventies we have been completely vulnerable to enemy aircraft entering our airspace and no one ever thought this was a bad idea? That sounds preposterous in light of the trillion dollar defense budget.
As a veteran who served, I hold our military to a damned high standard. On 9/11 they failed us utterly.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Everyone got a free pass, including the senators who handle that budget/appropriations. Everything floated, everything forgiven, because we had to 'rally behind the president', who was too coward to risk the political damage of ordering a shoot-down of an airliner full of US Citizens.
Too LAZY to follow up on previous OBL intel reports.
NORAD could likely track inland, some distance, probably around some specific potential targets, but they never had, and likely still do not have 100% radar coverage of the entire CONUS.
At some point the failure is so large, and so many are responsible, that no one is responsible. Sucks, Bush should have been UNEMPLOYED after that failure. But, we all know how that ended.
FAA ATC was watching the inside of the US (again, barring some key critical infrastructure, anything with a no-fly military zone would have radar, any military bases with airstrips would have norad-accessible radar, etc) but their radar isn't powerful enough to detect aircraft at certain distances, without transponders.
Cold war artifact thinking, post-cold-war budgets, yeah, we were super vulnerable all that time, even with the astounding amounts of money we did spend on national security. Big ol' hole. Bad policy. Etc.
At the end of the day, I don't believe the military failed us. Our political leadership, which the military is subordinate to, failed. And not just the bush presidency. Not just the congress that year. This was a cumulative error, though Bush and Co. are specifically responsible for enough to have warranted unemployment, if not some sort of negligence charges.
That attack was decades in the making, ignoring OBL's involvement in the plot at all.
I don't believe for one second, the POTUS on 9/10 would have ordered the first plane shot down if the capability was in place, because no one really knew, at the time, what the terrorists intentions were, and what the outcome would be. Everyone would have been like 'you shot down a plane full of americans? you monster!'
It would have been political suicide. Not a decision someone like Bush could make.
I will never blame the air force, or the military in general, for the failures of September 11th. The failures were not their call. I look to the SecDef, the President, the Senate Armed Services Committee, etc. Civilians in control of the money, and the policy, created this vulnerability.
hack89
(39,171 posts)their radars were on the borders oriented outwards, there were only 14 strip alert fighters at 7 sites (all on the borders) and they were not integrated with the FAA to track.
NORAD was set up to detect and intercept unknown aircraft well before they entered US airspace.
Look carefully at all those intercepts prior to 9/11- none of them were over US land. They were all against aircraft in international airspace approaching US borders.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)Try again. May I suggest actually reading up before responding?
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)they will never captain another ship again. That is how the Navy generally handles collisions.
Xipe Totec
(43,888 posts)
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Xipe Totec
(43,888 posts)That's why they wrote a book about it 
Large ships act as if they had sails.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... side-by-side for the duration of the replenishment, negotiating wind and wave. It's not an easy task with a 16-foot runabout, I can't imagine it on an aircraft carrier.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)When did the word "resupply" fall into disrepute?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Never use a big word when a diminutive one will suffice.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)that a "replenishment mission" costs twice as much as a "resupply mission"?
hack89
(39,171 posts)it has always been referred to as Replenishment at Sea (RAS) in the US Navy
cloudbase
(5,511 posts)way back when. Took her into Bender Shipyard in Mobile and never saw her again.
Lost the shaft RPM indicator going into Mobile, but the total revolution counter is working just fine. We can reliably set maneuvering speeds by controlling steam pressure into the first stage of the turbine, so it's not a huge deal. I get a call from the bridge asking me if the engine isn't working. Now, I'm thinking "look astern, dumbass, and tell me if there's a propwash. And, perhaps you deck apes can figure out if we're making way."
OriginalGeek
(12,132 posts)but that was an entertaining post to read. "Look astern, dumbass..." made me lol.
cloudbase
(5,511 posts)That really does highlight the difference between engineers and deck apes.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)nt
cloudbase
(5,511 posts)I was an engineer working through the MEBA. The Yukon was being operated by Trinidad Corp., one of MEBA's contract companies.
I worked plenty of the Sealift tankers when they were being operated by MTL. Plenty of UNREPS with those.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Back in the 70's-80's MSCLANT/MSCPAC were all government employees.
Did you go to a maritime college? I was a Domer for 3.5 years, till I ran out of money.
cloudbase
(5,511 posts)Sailed with plenty of great Domers, though, including two of my all-time favorite captains. Now happily retired. Going to sea became too much like a job.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)I sailed for 3.5 years as crew. Great way to spend your youth and live a little. It grows old fast though. On my first ship you were either single or divorced 2 or 3 times. I did sail with a lot of my classmates and many of yours. My experience did help lots when I went back to another college and finished my degree.
cloudbase
(5,511 posts)One of the more interesting ships I sailed on was an old tramp bulker. The captain was on his fifth wife, and the chief engineer was on wife number 6, who was also wife number two. Listening to those two talk at coffee time was a real hoot.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Were your engine rooms decently automated?
I sailed on the USNS Neosho T-AO-143. The navy laid her keel during the Korean war. Labor intensive engine room designed for a navy crew but manned by civilians. When everything is breaking down, great way to learn.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/19/19143.htm
cloudbase
(5,511 posts)It was an oldie. A T-5, if I remember correctly. That was back in 1981. Hand-o-matic all the way.
My second job on my license was the old Long Beach, a C-4 that ran the N. Europe-Persian Gulf shuttle for SeaLand. Old sectional header boilers, so that should give you a clue as to age. I went on green, and came off six months later as a master of casualty control. It was a priceless experience.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Underway replenishment. At sea ship-ship refueling. Two parallel ships transferring fuel. In this case (news article above) an oiler and a carrier.
USN has been doing this since WWII. Up to three ships can transfer fuel at any one time simultaneously. Carriers can take on upwards of a million gallons of diesel fuel; marine (DFM) or JP5 (jet fuel). Transfer could take up to 8 hours.
USNS denotes a civilian crew on a navy owned or leased civilian ship.
The helmsman on both ships have to have nerves of steel to maintain a course.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)For some reason, I thought the ships would be closer together than that.
hack89
(39,171 posts)little closer for small boys like frigates. That distance can become zero a lot faster then you can imagine.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Remmah2
(3,291 posts)150' is the optimum. The distance constantly changes. The line handlers measure it constantly and talk to the bridge. There is a set of line handlers for each transfer hose. The high tension cables that the transfer hoses ride on exert perpindicular forces between the two ships that help buffer minor course variations. Through a series of pullys and hydraulic rams the tension can be kept constant, hence the fuel hoses don't get dropped into the sea.
maxrandb
(15,297 posts)We used to do these all the time. Back in the day, the Russians would screw with us by sailing in the path of the UNREP. Once you agree to a Romeo Corpen (agreed upon course and speed) it's hard to do much of anything but breakaway and try again.
Here's some info on the dangers.
Alongside connected replenishment is a risky operation, as two or three ships running side-by-side at speed must hold to precisely the same course and speed for a long period of time. Moreover, the hydrodynamics of two ships running close together cause a suction between them. A slight steering error on the part of one of the ships could cause a collision, or part the transfer lines and fuel hoses. At a speed of 12 knots, a 1 degree variation in heading will produce a lateral speed of around 20 feet per minute.[4] For this reason, experienced and qualified helmsmen are required during the replenishment, and the crew on the bridge must give their undivided attention to the ship's course and speed. The risk is increased when a replenishment ship is servicing two ships at once.
But you're right...someone's career is over!
Crowman1979
(3,844 posts)Why does the navy always put the lowest 25% of the officers surface vessel school and put them in these ships? Put them on a freakin' Frigate!
hack89
(39,171 posts)lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Loss of a hydraulic fitting, hydraulic pump failure, or loss of power to a screw if it was a twin screw ship. Could of been human error by the helmsman too.