# USS McCain Collides with Oil Tanker



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

BREAKING: US Navy destroyer USS John McCain collides with large merchant vessel; search and rescue underway | American Military News

Bad news. Also, makes me wonder how this continues to happen. Also makes one think this is a bad time for yet another warship to be damaged.


----------



## SDF880 (Mar 28, 2013)

Just heard this! Read yesterday our ship was shadowing some NK ship? Hmmmm


----------



## PrepperLite (May 8, 2013)

My thoughts go out to the families of the missing.

Whenever I went up to the bridge there were always at least 2-3 lookouts, helm, throttle, BMOW, and OOD at a minimum, it just baffles me how this could keep happening... A lot of people have to blatantly not be paying attention to run into another ship, from my experiance.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

PrepperLite said:


> Whenever I went up to the bridge there were always at least 2-3 lookouts, helm, throttle, BMOW, and OOD at a minimum, it just baffles me how this could keep happening... A lot of people have to blatantly not be paying attention to run into another ship, from my experiance.


I'm past Air Force, but would not the CIC be fully manned at all times? With some of the best radars in the world on an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, how is it possible to keep running into slow merchant vessels? How can we trust the navy could fight a war if they can't even keep from running into other ships?


----------



## PrepperLite (May 8, 2013)

******* said:


> I'm past Air Force, but would not the CIC be fully manned at all times? With some of the best radars in the world, how is it possible to keep running into slow merchant vessels?


Combat / Radio would be manned as well but yes I agree, hell even your basic navigation radars can pick up a 900 foot tanker...


----------



## Gator Monroe (Jul 29, 2017)

What if this is the work of infiltraitors ?


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

Gator Monroe said:


> What if this is the work of infiltraitors ?


That thought crossed my mind also.

Something that keeps crossing my mind even more though is...someone has the ability to overtake our ships with electronic warfare.

I just can't imagine the United States Navy has become this inept.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

@Robie This guy has been making a lot of vids about the Fitzgerald. You'll find them interesting.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Well, it is the U.S.S. *John McCain* after all. And from reading Denton's link, the damage to it was all on the left side (also, not surprising).

Given the real John McCain did quite a bit of damage to Navy ships, I am thinking the U.S. Navy should just retire all things named John McCain.


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

Our radar picks up ships just fine, and while it was already installed when we bought the boat I know they just are not that much. This is really a high level of incompetence.


----------



## PrepperLite (May 8, 2013)

Denton said:


> @Robie This guy has been making a lot of vids about the Fitzgerald. You'll find them interesting.


I watched the one video you posted, 10NM off of an estimated position, (no coordinates) stretched into some grand conspiracy is .... pretty..... a stretch in my opinion. Second, I love when he says sarcastically "this incredibly busy channel, I don't see any ships" then literally 20 seconds later at the 7:40 mark there are 6 other vessels near the Crystal. Watching boats on Vessel finder or Marine traffic doesn't make you an ELINT expert. The Navy messed up running into stuff i'll give him that.... but to stretch it into some grand conspiracy, give me a break.

Also, as the video author noted if you go to the actual Youtube page, in his top comment he admits he messed up and used Statute Miles not Nautical Miles...... they are different by about the 10% he said the Navy was off... again... credibility blown.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

PrepperLite said:


> I watched the one video you posted, 10NM off of an estimated position, (no coordinates) stretched into some grand conspiracy is .... pretty..... a stretch in my opinion. Second, I love when he says sarcastically "this incredibly busy channel, I don't see any ships" then literally 20 seconds later at the 7:40 mark there are 6 other vessels near the Crystal. Watching boats on Vessel finder or Marine traffic doesn't make you an ELINT expert. The Navy messed up running into stuff i'll give him that.... but to stretch it into some grand conspiracy, give me a break.
> 
> Also, as the video author noted if you go to the actual Youtube page, in his top comment he admits he messed up and used Statute Miles not Nautical Miles...... they are different by about the 10% he said the Navy was off... again... credibility blown.


I didn't watch this one. I watched his first few videos and then drifted off.


----------



## PrepperLite (May 8, 2013)

Denton said:


> I didn't watch this one. I watched his first few videos and then drifted off.


I do that a lot on Youtube :vs_laugh:, but mine usually turn into one educational video at 5pm.... then it's 3am and i'm watching videos of cats jumping on trampolines and wondering what i'm doing with my life.


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

Collision Avoidance 2.0 - BoatUS Magazine

BTW were not talking hi tech really in ship avoidance. We have a 2 watt AIS for use anytime within 12 miles of shore or out if we wanted. There are times to turn it off for safety as you prefer not to be broadcasting your position but that's in an area with no shipping activity.


----------



## PrepperLite (May 8, 2013)

stowlin said:


> Collision Avoidance 2.0 - BoatUS Magazine
> 
> BTW were not talking hi tech really in ship avoidance. We have a 2 watt AIS for use anytime within 12 miles of shore or out if we wanted. There are times to turn it off for safety as you prefer not to be broadcasting your position but that's in an area with no shipping activity.


More or less, vessels over 300 Gross Tons are required to broadcast AIS. It's great to have either way if operating in congested areas.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Regardless, John McCain sucks, tell all your friends.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Slippy said:


> Regardless, John McCain sucks, tell all your friends.


And he runs into stuff and breaks shit...

From reading the stories when he was a Navy Flyboy in Vietnam, he damn near killed more sailors than the entire NVA. And that was just one crash! That was before he got taken prisoner and became the "Songbird" as our pal Dwight points out.

Right here; right now... I am declaring my new Political Action Committee! I am calling it the Deport John McCain Right F%$!ing Now (or DJMRFN pronounced Der-jer-mer-firn). So join my coalition today and help me hire Space X to shoot John McCain to the moon (Permanently). Deporting him to another country does not solve the problem.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Hate to say it & hate to paint a generation is such a broad stroke, but my experience as a veteran who now runs a business is that a lot of these youngsters of today just don't give a shit about much of anything beyond posting & reading on social media. They don't care if they come into work late, & don't care if their taking a day off, when others in their department are already off, hurts the business. It is all about them & not the big picture. As a Minuteman Missile Launch Officer from the early 80s, we did a very boring job well. Now they have all these issues motivating the launch crews & are worried about morale. The crews aren't doing well on evaluations & there have been instances of widespread cheating on tests. What the F? Grow a pair and do your damn job!


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Naming a war ship the John McCain is akin to naming one the Titanic. The navy needs to get their shit straight, they may be needed soon.


----------



## Oddcaliber (Feb 17, 2014)

Was the tanker owned by Exxon?


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

8 years of Obama and this is what we have for leadership in the military. But you can bet they are up to date on transgender PC and medical care for them. The rest of the services are in the same boat.


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

The ship was named to honor his father's and grandfather's outstanding careers serving in WW2 and later. While it's a shame the current POS senator has the same name. Lets not belittle the great men that fought bravely to receive such an honor to have a ship named after them. Let alone the current hero's serving on her. 

I have no problem if we all bash the crap out of the senator. He deserves it with his recent actions.


----------



## Gator Monroe (Jul 29, 2017)

Chipper said:


> The ship was named to honor his father's and grandfather's outstanding careers serving in WW2 and later. While it's a shame the current POS senator has the same name. Lets not belittle the great men that fought bravely to receive such an honor to have a ship named after them. Let alone the current hero's serving on her.
> 
> I have no problem if we all bash the crap out of the senator. He deserves it with his recent actions.


Viva Juan McCain


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

The current John McCain deserves respect for what he once was . But that does not mean we can not call him out on what he has become. To many years in the swamp.


----------



## NKAWTG (Feb 14, 2017)

A question was posed...
Was the McCain hacked?
Not in the computer sense (though possibly).
In the last three months, three ships out of Yokosuka, Japan have collided with other ships.
Two of them very serious.

5/09/2017 – USS Lake Champlain
6/17/2017 – USS Fitzgerald
8/21/2017 – USS McCain

Ship collisions are rare, but three in three months?
Maybe these accidents weren't accidents.
Meaconing of radar and GPS is a possibility.


----------



## headhunter (Jul 29, 2017)

******* said:


> I'm past Air Force, but would not the CIC be fully manned at all times? With some of the best radars in the world on an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, how is it possible to keep running into slow merchant vessels? How can we trust the navy could fight a war if they can't even keep from running into other ships?


I live in the far east and I can tell you this is exactly what locals are thinking. The issue is past the embarrassment phase and more like "How can the USA protect it's allies if it can't even handle things during peacetime?"


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

I spent almost 30 years on merchant ships. Doesn't matter if GPS, radar, or anything electronic is hacked or malfunctions. That's what watch officers and lookouts are for. These people are supposed to LOOK. This is especially important in confined waters like the Straits. It is highly probable that there was heavy traffic but still no excuse for a collision. Many times our bridge officers got slammed with heavy traffic but then they call for additional manpower to help con the ship. A modern merchant ship has just 2, and in some cases only 1 man on watch on the bridge. Our navy ships have the OOD, JOOD, quartermaster, and lookouts. Probably more than this. In addition they have CIC manning the radars. If civilians can safely con a 100,000 ton ship with 2 men, surely the Navy should be able to do at least as well.


----------



## PrepperLite (May 8, 2013)

Word on the street is the USS John S McCain had lost steering prior to the collision, then regained limited power and steering and was limping back to port when it was struck. 

If this is true, and the McCain was broadcasting/signaling its restricted maneuverability, the tanker was required to yield by international law.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

PrepperLite said:


> Word on the street is the USS John S McCain had lost steering prior to the collision, then regained limited power and steering and was limping back to port when it was struck.


Hmmm... That sounds like the real-life John McCain - lost his steering, limited power and limping.


----------



## headhunter (Jul 29, 2017)

PrepperLite said:


> Word on the street is the USS John S McCain had lost steering prior to the collision, then regained limited power and steering and was limping back to port when it was struck.
> 
> If this is true, and the McCain was broadcasting/signaling its restricted maneuverability, the tanker was required to yield by international law.


And if it isn't true, then it's _damage control_ by the Navy's PR team.

Let's hope it's true.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

Inor said:


> And he runs into stuff and breaks shit...
> 
> From reading the stories when he was a Navy Flyboy in Vietnam, he damn near killed more sailors than the entire NVA. And that was just one crash! That was before he got taken prisoner and became the "Songbird" as our pal Dwight points out.
> 
> Right here; right now... I am declaring my new Political Action Committee! I am calling it the Deport John McCain Right F%$!ing Now (or DJMRFN pronounced Der-jer-mer-firn). So join my coalition today and help me hire Space X to shoot John McCain to the moon (Permanently). Deporting him to another country does not solve the problem.


It never occurred to me until now .... perhaps out of pure self preservation, the Navy had him captured as a POW?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Is someone hacking our 7th Fleet? Navy to investigate after USS John S McCain collision | Fox News

Good article, asking the right questions.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

A Watchman said:


> It never occurred to me in until now .... perhaps out of pure self preservation, the Navy had him captured as a POW?


Maybe... But I do know we should start bombing Vietnam again for letting him out. That was an act of of war and needs to be dealt with.


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

I did a web search on the tanker involved in this collision. She is the Alnic MC resistered in Liberia. 50,000 tons with a max speed just under 9 knots and a cruising speed of around 7 knots. She is a big, ungainly pig. Not very manuverable at all. From pictures it looks like the tanker's bulbous bow t-boned the McCain. Power failure/steering gear failure on the destroyer seems like a plausible cause. Depending on the circumstances there may have been nothing the crew could do to avoid being struck. However, the ships must have been in close proximity. This is not usual in the open sea. Has anybody heard if this accident took place in a traffic separation zone or restricted waters?


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

Found a chart posted online showing the position of the collision. The destroyer WAS in a traffic separation zone in restricted, high traffic waters. She was relatively close to land and there were shallow water areas in the general vicinity. A shitty navigation area that definately required a higher level of caution and readiness. Still, navy ships operate with manned engine spaces and many people on the bridge. We practice 'loss of power' and 'steering gear casualty' drills. Something still smells very fishy here. I can see maybe one ship to be guilty of poor training and readiness. But not 3! Hope it comes out what caused these accidents.


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

Fox interviewed a naval officer this morning. Commander said because of budget cuts and undermanning the navy has reduced the number of lookouts from 3 to 1. This is unacceptable! This is what our military has come to! Half our planes don't fly. Ships can't even safely navigate much less fight. And our troops can't even get the proper camo for the theater they fight in. The Washington pols suck! Too bad their sons and daughters aren't out there on the tip of the spear.


----------



## PrepperLite (May 8, 2013)

headhunter said:


> And if it isn't true, then it's _damage control_ by the Navy's PR team.
> 
> Let's hope it's true.


Oh I doubt they were broadcasting it, I honestly don't think a Warship in that area would be broadcasting they are limping around. Plus depending on the time between loss/regain and the collision they may have been busy with other things going on.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Chiefster23 said:


> Found a chart posted online showing the position of the collision. The destroyer WAS in a traffic separation zone in restricted, high traffic waters. She was relatively close to land and there were shallow water areas in the general vicinity. A shitty navigation area that definately required a higher level of caution and readiness. Still, navy ships operate with manned engine spaces and many people on the bridge. We practice 'loss of power' and 'steering gear casualty' drills. Something still smells very fishy here. I can see maybe one ship to be guilty of poor training and readiness. But not 3! Hope it comes out what caused these accidents.


This appeared recently on ZeroHedge. Thought you might be interested.

"In the last year there have been four collisions in the area, including the latest one. So far in 2017, 17 US sailors have died in the Pacific southeast in events which have been attributed to accidental collisions with civilian vessels.

In January the USS Antietam ran aground near Yosuka, Japan.

In May the USS Champlain collided with a South Korean fishing vessel.

On June 17th seven US sailors died when the USS Fitzgerald - operating near Yokuska - collided with a container ship from the Philippines. It was determined that "the bridge team lost situational awareness."

Pentagon and intelligence insider Jim Rickards points out "When the same basic incident happens twice, you have to raise your eyebrows. When you have a low-probability event that happens twice, in other words, the likelihood of coincidence becomes infinitesimal."

Jim Rickards and others are wondering if the Navy's decades-old reliance on old electronic guidance systems has become the victim of multiple cyberattacks."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-24/cyberwar-risk-was-us-navy-victim-hacking

What's the old saying: Once is an accident, twice is suspicious, the third time is enemy action.


----------

