This Passes For Military Prowess?
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Full-Text Search & Archives
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions. For investment, legal or other professional advice specific to your situation contact a licensed professional in your jurisdiction.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility; author(s) may have positions in securities or firms mentioned and have no duty to disclose same.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2019-02-08 09:15 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 340 references Ignore this thread
This Passes For Military Prowess?
[Comments enabled]

Sweet Jesus, if we ever have to fight an actual war....

Take the time to read the linked document.  All of it.

Here is just what I recall from memory, without going back to check and see what I missed.

  • The primary search radar was inappropriately set for too long a range, and couldn't be easily changed at the watch-standers station because the control to do so was broken.  The ship left port without properly functioning navigational aids and this was not a combat sortie where they had to go or get blown up either.

  • There apparently wasn't a working secondary radar set that could cover this part of the environment around the ship either.  That unit was also compromised and effectively worthless.

  • The crew had nobody on the starboard side wing standing lookout.  The person on the port wing was supposed to check both sides, back and forth, but didn't because they were doing other things (training someone) while "standing lookout."  If you're standing lookout then that's your damn job!  If you know your electronics aren't working right what the hell are you doing not posting warm, breathing bodies with eyeballs to do the job instead?

  • They saw another vessel in the vicinity (which might have shadowed the lights of the Crystal, which was the ship in the collision) but judged it would pass 1500 meters astern.  Well, that one did.....

  • When they finally did see the vessel (in other words, they actually lookedthere was still sufficient time to stop the Fitzgerald.  It would have been damn close, but they could have stopped.  Instead the order from the OD was for all ahead flank and left full rudder -- given the capability of the vessel exactly the wrong move.

  • Oh, and the other vessel apparently didn't see them either -- but irrespective of that Crystal saw green and thus should have maintained course and speed, which she did -- right into the Fitzgerald.  Nonetheless the radar and lookout on Crystal should have both flagged the contact (military vessels do not transmit AIS, but do receive it and, in civilian areas under normal conditions do display normal navigational lighting) and when it became apparent Fitzgerald wasn't going to maneuver to pass safely behind they should have either raised hell or taken action themselves long before the collision occurred.  While this doesn't excuse Fitzgerald's maneuvering and culpability for the collision, as the give-way vessel, it does raise the question as to whether anyone was at the helm of Crystal, and whether she had a proper lookout posted as well.

The full article paints a picture that I'm not sure I believe.  A vessel in disrepair with critical navigational assets out of service or severely-compromised, an improper watch knowing that the electronic aids were compromised, and a complete breakdown of the chain of command on board.

It gets worse -- in the weeks beforehand the ship had two other near-misses due to previous failures to properly keep a lookout (which, irrespective of the size of your vessel, is your primary responsibility when it comes to safe navigation.)  

God forbid someone had actually took a shot at that ship -- or any of our other vessels out there on the high seas.  If this is their "best effort" just sailing the ship what do you expect would happen if they actually tried to fight with it?

Has any of this been corrected in the time since?  I doubt it.

This sort of corrosion in readiness doesn't happen in a day or a week and it doesn't get fixed in a short period of time either.

Anyone care to bet whether the Chinese and Russians are similarly incompetent?

I'll take the under on that - one of them shoots at us and there are going to be a lot of dead American Sailors on the bottom of the ocean.