Posted on May 11, 2018
Fitzgerald Collision Hearing Brings Ship's Radar Problems into Focus
4.16K
38
25
6
6
0
Well, this is eye opening. They never should have been at sea if there was that much material degradation. The responsibility certainly lies higher than the CO,a s I am sure he was told to "get it done."
Fitzgerald Collision Hearing Brings Ship's Radar Problems into Focus
Posted from military.comPosted in these groups: 
111x: Surface Warfare Officer
Maintenance
111x: Surface Warfare Officer Maintenance
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
5
5
0
Not buying it. The DDG has a SPQ-9 radar that's also used as a navigation radar, and the SPY-1D operates quite well in surface mode. If there was a degradation in the SPS-67, the Combat Systems Maintenance Manager should have known and either fixed it or had the CSO convince the CO to CASREP it. Bottom line is it's not the only surface search radar on these ships.
At any rate, OOD's for generations have successfully conned ships into/out of port and across oceans without any radar. We have successfully conducted flight operations from aircraft carriers in total EMCON. The best device invented for preventing collisions at sea is still the MK One MOD Zero eyeball. Previous generations used it just fine.
At any rate, OOD's for generations have successfully conned ships into/out of port and across oceans without any radar. We have successfully conducted flight operations from aircraft carriers in total EMCON. The best device invented for preventing collisions at sea is still the MK One MOD Zero eyeball. Previous generations used it just fine.
(5)
(0)
SCPO (Join to see)
CDR Dan Cunningham SPQ-9s are on CGs. DDGs have SPS-67/73. The bridge team should of been using the 73 and that should of been enough. My first ship only had a 73, operating in restricted waters was a norm and we never had issues.
(0)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
Ask ANY JO on the waterfront today to do a MOBOARD. In fact-- ask any SWO.
You may not be 'surprised' but you will be disgusted at how over-reliant we (as a Navy) have become on electronics. My dearly departed 30-year Senior Chief Signalman grandfather would be very disappointed in the Navy we have become.
You may not be 'surprised' but you will be disgusted at how over-reliant we (as a Navy) have become on electronics. My dearly departed 30-year Senior Chief Signalman grandfather would be very disappointed in the Navy we have become.
(2)
(0)
CDR Dan Cunningham
I believe you - so am I. By the time I was a Dept Head I could do MOBOARD in my head; we made JO's do it on paper so they could get to the same point.
(0)
(0)
LCDR Rob Commons
Hard to sort through all the smoke and mirrors. But in the end, the master of a vessel must take measures to compensate for equipment malfunctions. Post additional lookouts, slow down, etc. Somewhere in the CO’s standing orders had to be the requirement to get the captain to the bridge if the OOD lost the bubble. Lots of blame to be passed around, if current ship drivers still watch the film of the Evans-Melbourne incident, they know clearly that it takes a host of bad decisions to lead to a collision at sea. But I can’t fault the Admiral for sending the ship to sea with equipment problems, this is often the case. The Navy places a solemn trust in its CO’s to operate the ship safely in spite of such problems.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
""Imagine the Crystal, a 29,000-ton container ship, suddenly takes up the entire (radar) screen," prosecutor Lt. Cmdr. Katherine Shovlin told the hearing officer. "There was not a breakdown of communication. There was …. no communication.""
Erm...that's not how radars work, and anyone that's ever actually seen one will know it. Bigger ships show up as bigger blips, but they'd still be a fraction percentage of the screen. So that defense is a non-starter, and I'm surprised to see it come from a Naval officer. That said, I"ve said from the beginning that this is a Navy failure, not just a Fitz failure. Each of these officers (and enlisted) bear responsibility because they were in the seat at the time, but do NOT let Big Navy off the hook just because they have convenient and obvious scapegoats. And this is coming from someone that loves the Navy. Generally.
Erm...that's not how radars work, and anyone that's ever actually seen one will know it. Bigger ships show up as bigger blips, but they'd still be a fraction percentage of the screen. So that defense is a non-starter, and I'm surprised to see it come from a Naval officer. That said, I"ve said from the beginning that this is a Navy failure, not just a Fitz failure. Each of these officers (and enlisted) bear responsibility because they were in the seat at the time, but do NOT let Big Navy off the hook just because they have convenient and obvious scapegoats. And this is coming from someone that loves the Navy. Generally.
(4)
(0)
CDR Dan Cunningham
The prosecutor has probably never seen a working radar in her life. And, if the Crystal did, in fact, take up the entire radar screen, it was probably when her bow smashed into the radar.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
MK I eyeballs could have prevented this one, they have done so since it was logs paddled by hands
(4)
(0)
CDR Dan Cunningham
SN Greg Wright - Depends if it's wood or steel. Korean fishing boats aimed for our bow, so the last thing you'd want to do is confuse them by turning. Apparently, it's good luck for the fishing day. A Carrier's shadow zone is about 600 YDS, so all you see is the top few feet of a tiny mast waving at you dead ahead. Most crossed the bow but some chickened out and passed down the port side. Never had to scrape anybody off the bow, so everybody won.
(2)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
CDR Dan Cunningham - I've seen small boats do innumerable stupid shit in the face of super tankers a thousand times, so I'm not surprised, Commander.
(1)
(0)
SCPO (Join to see)
CDR Dan Cunningham Unfortunately the Navy decided back in the early 2000s 1st Tour Divos could learn seamanship from a box of CDs......
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google