7 Missing after Destroyer hits Merchant Ship

I'm wondering if someone is deliberately targeting our warships.

Who do you suspect to be behind it?

I was thinking al-Qa'ida. They attacked the USS Cole before, and they are always trying to innovate new ways of attacking us.

But I have nothing that stands out as evidence. Just something that I'm wondering. If it keeps happening over and over though my suspicions will grow.

So the (bridge) crew of various US warships and the commanding officers of those were/are part of al Quaida?

Not likely. But the cargo ships that collided with the US warships could have been infiltrated. Or navigation systems could have been hacked and altered. Or some other possibility that I didn't consider could have been the means of attack.

These could well have just been tragic accidents. We'll see if it keeps happening.

"Tragic accidents"? Obviously the US-crews aren't to blame for anything in your opinion.

Where did you get your nautical and/or seamanship experiences?

Regarding the Fitzgerald’s collision, it puzzled me still, why the commander wasn't alerted or on the bridge: in former times, the officer on watch had to alert or wake the captain if the ship is within the closest point of approach (the point at which two objects could collide).
About 3 nm still seems to be common in the US-navy. (In certain high-traffic areas some captains certainly might raise the bar for alerts.´, since even they want to get some sleep/rest.)

That would seem to be the alternative to deliberate acts.



I do indeed find it implausible that US crews deliberately caused these collissions.

If US crews did deliberately cause the collisions, though, they should be found out and tried for their crimes.



Where did you get the idea that nautical experience is necessary to speculate that collisions may have been deliberate?

I'm not at all suggesting that it was done deliberately.

If it wasn't done deliberately, it must have been an accident, possibly caused by inattention or incompetence of the crew or officers.

They used to say that "All accidents are avoidable, but accidents will happen.

Generally, I thinkt that there a too high belief in computerised procedures (mainly referring to navigation here).
The "art and craft" got forgotten ...

Considering my feelings about self driving cars, I won't begin to dispute that.

Computers can assist navigators, but the idea of turning over navigation to a computer is madness. Navigation requires high-order mathematical calculations, for which computers can be very useful. But proper data have to be input, and observations of changing conditions as well. Over long distances, spherical trigonometry is needed to place one's vessel exactly on the surface of the planet. Nothing would be better than a computerized assist with that. But that sailboat made of wood which doesn't show up on radar and the sudden changes in the conditions of the sea and the sky can hardly be programmed into a computer in real time. I've seen the water change in minutes--that's what is meant by a sea change--the sky and the sea change suddenly, much faster than you could program into a computer and await a response. Walter is right, navigation is an art. It's not just a science, it's not just math.

Navigation is indeed an art, and one that involves, not only the sometimes conflicting elements of electronic and radar data and direct visual observations, but also the behavior and actions of other humans on other ships. All of the recent collisions occurred at night and in crowded shipping channels, where the navigation lights on ships white on the mast; red on the port side; green starboard ) are seen among a maze of lights along the shore lines. One or two of the events also involved unusual reversals of course on the part of the other ships.

All of the collisions were preventable, and none would have occurred, absent errors on the bridges of (probably) both vessels. The Navy has recently also relieved the Seventh Fleet commander (and earlier) the Captains of each ship), and ordered a comprehensive review of all elements involved from ship's deployment and training scheduling, to the details on each ship.

The number of operating ship in the Navy is down by half since the highs of the early 1990s. Despite that the forward deployment taskings have not been reduced at all. Schedules for both ships and aircraft squadrons involve periods for forward deployments, home port maintenance and repair, and dedicated at sea training. Relative growth in the deployment periods, add to the urgency and need for maintenance and upgrade periods, leaving training as the only elastic component. Given that ships & squadrons replace about 30% of their crews annually the need for training is continuous and deficits in it eventually show their results.

I experienced a similar issues in the Jimmy Carter years after 'Nam and it took several years to restore pilot proficiency to its previous levels. I suspect our Army and Air Force are experiencing similar problems.

I'm in agreement with you on self driving cars.

Exsctly what I think.

I've passed the English Channel a couple of times - those on outlook got crazy identifying the various ships/boats and where they actually were going. (And the Kelvin Hughes radar wasn't a big help either.m

They've found all the missing 10 crew of the McCane today.

This is the Navy Hymn and if you have any of the Blue and Gold about you, well, it still gives me goosebumps.

That's OK. I made sure the suggestion got raised.

You certainly love to raise red herrings.

The possibility that someone is targeting our ships is hardly a red herring.