# US Navy ship strikes reef because of incorrect charts



## BarryL (Aug 21, 2003)

Hey,

I just saw this:
US Navy: Ship stuck in Philippines used faulty map - Yahoo! News

An inaccurate map that mislocated a marine sanctuary may have caused a U.S. Navy minesweeper to run aground on a coral reef in the Philippines this week, the Navy said Saturday

All 79 officers and crew of the USS Guardian were taken off the ship for safety reasons after it struck the reef with its bow at 2 a.m. Thursday. The Navy's Pacific Fleet, based in Hawaii, said Saturday that its ships along with several support vessels continued to conduct salvage operations that minimize environmental effects to the reef.

The Navy said in a statement that a review of Digital Nautical Charts, which are used for safe navigation by all U.S. Navy ships, found they contained inaccurate data and may have been a factor in the Guardian's grounding. As a result, Navigator of the Navy Rear Adm. Jonathan White released precautionary guidance to all Pacific Fleet ships, saying that "initial review of navigation data indicates an error in the location of Tubbataha Reef" in the Philippines.....

How about that?

Barry


----------



## Lake Superior Sailor (Aug 23, 2011)

I was taught never to rely on one piece of information , use charts, depthfinder, radar, sonar, Chart plotter, and what ever else you have. A pilot is nice!...Dale


----------



## PalmettoSailor (Mar 7, 2006)

Incorrectly mapped or not, I bet its a career ender for that Captain.

Sux if the map he had was incorrect but that's pretty much the way of the Military. 

Even if he's absolved it will be a unoffical black mark on his record that will eventually put him behind his peers.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Yep...you are probably right

Wheres Jon?,,,he will probably let us know he was staring at his chartplotter, not look at a chart


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

PalmettoSailor said:


> Incorrectly mapped or not, I bet its a career ender for that Captain.
> 
> Sux if the map he had was incorrect but that's pretty much the way of the Military.
> 
> Even if he's absolved it will be a unoffical black mark on his record that will eventually put him behind his peers.


Exactly - that's the "honour" that military types are always on about.


----------



## mad_machine (Dec 16, 2012)

yup.. unless you are piloting a LST or a landing craft... running aground in the navy is a career ender. 

Something that small.. he might not have even been a "true" captain.. that is a shame


----------



## tschmidty (Sep 25, 2008)

Yep, doesn't matter if it was the captains fault, it was his responsibility.


----------



## joyinPNW (Jan 7, 2013)

It's the Navy! Really?! Hitting an (endangered) coral reef? Sort of hope they work out the details a little better next time. Glad no injuries, but sad for the reef. Not happy about what is a bad day for the Captain...


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Some of the data on South Seas charts comes from soundings taken LONG ago. I wonder if that might have been a factor. If they just transferred 1800s depth soundings into new looking ENCs, it could cause a false sense of security.


----------



## mad_machine (Dec 16, 2012)

joyinPNW said:


> It's the Navy! Really?! Hitting an (endangered) coral reef? Sort of hope they work out the details a little better next time. Glad no injuries, but sad for the reef. Not happy about what is a bad day for the Captain...


Thankfully only 10metres of it.. lets see how much they damage getting the minesweeper off


----------



## PorFin (Sep 10, 2007)

The upside is that most minesweepers are made with non-ferrous hulls -- so the damage to the reef probably is somewhat less than it would have been if it had been struck by a steel hulled vessel.

There are going to be several folks who take hits along with the skipper -- the XO, the quartermaster, the watch officer...


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

chef2sail said:


> Wheres Jon?,,,he will probably let us know he was staring at his chartplotter, not look at a chart


Might not be all that far-fetched, actually... Anytime a boat is driven straight onto a reef that is _AWASH_, in the open ocean, in a region where the tidal range is not particularly extreme, it's a pretty safe bet that the watch or lookout might have been looking somewhere other than dead ahead, at the time...

It will be interesting to learn precisely how far "off" their charts had misplaced their reef... As smurphy mentions, many features in the more isolated regions of the Pacific are misplaced, often by as much as a mile or more...

However, Tubbataha Reef is hardly a "remote" atoll, being one of the most popular dive sites in the Phillipines, and frequented by numerous liveaboard charter dive boats, etc... I suspect they all have a pretty good idea where it is, you'd think the US Navy operating in that part of the world would have access to cartography at least as good as the locals are using...

I'm guessing that this supposed "inaccuracy" in the charts is being used, for the time being, as a temporary cover for the Navy's screw up... It would not surprise me at all if it turns out that the reef is, indeed, misplaced to some degree... However, I will be very surprised if that error turns out to nearly as significant as the berth that any prudent skipper, transiting those waters at night, should have been giving to an unlit reef, to begin with...


----------



## Deric (Feb 3, 2008)

I was told a long time ago by fellow sailors after I had my first grounding, "You are not a real sailor until you had a grounding."

It happens to the best of us, no?


----------



## mad_machine (Dec 16, 2012)

from what I read, she is really getting battered, the waves have turned her sideways onto the reef. Seeing as she is mostly constructed of wood with an external coat of glass-reinforced plastic, I am going to say this reef is going to claim a new wreck soon.

According to the news... the chart "misplaced" the reef by 8 miles


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Wow. That's quite a sad picture. Those are my tax dollars there! Obviously, there was a problem with lookout regardless of what charts they were using. Looks as if there would have been sound as well as the white from the break. The water looks like it's really moving. Even on a dark night, if someone was paying attention, should have been able to detect this. 

Completely understandable if it was foggy and charts were wrong. It looks like it gets shallow quickly so watching depth may not have helped much other than providing a second or so to say "AW S$^T" before the crunch. These ships must have forward scanning sonar? If so, then there's no excuse.


----------



## mad_machine (Dec 16, 2012)

I would assume they have foward sonar as they are designed to find and destroy both floating and submerged mines


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

It'll take a miracle to get her off there now.


----------



## mad_machine (Dec 16, 2012)

smurphny said:


> It'll take a miracle to get her off there now.


I doubt they will get her off in one piece. Even if they do... she's done.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

mad_machine said:


> According to the news... the chart "misplaced" the reef by 8 miles


An error in the cartography that great seems very difficult to imagine... The report I saw said the the GUARDIAN's _navigator_ misplaced the reef by that amount, someone might be leaving a bit of wiggle room there...

Considering the US took possession of the Phillipines in 1898 after our defeat of the Spanish navy at the Battle of Manila Bay, and Admiral Nimitz's fleet managed to sink an impressive number of Japanese ships in the Sulu Sea during the Second World War, it's a bit perplexing that it has supposedly taken the US Navy until now, to figure out where Tubbataha Reef is, plus or minus 8 NM...


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

As Jon noted earlier, this is not a remote location. Looks like just a screw up attributable to lack of "attention to detail," as the Navy would put it.


----------



## billyruffn (Sep 21, 2004)

Lake Superior Sailor said:


> I was taught never to rely on one piece of information , use charts, depthfinder, radar, sonar, Chart plotter, and what ever else you have. A pilot is nice!...Dale


You're right, of course, but if you look carefully at the photos showing the ship lying perpendicular to the reef you'll notice the bow on the coral and the stern in dark blue water. There could be 200-300 feet of water under the stern. My guess is the depth sounder wasn't much help -- one minute you're in hundreds of feet of water and within fifty yards or so you're stuck on the coral. One of the thing that makes reefs like this great dive spots are the reef walls -- which are often near vertical and rise hundreds of feet from the sea bed to within a foot or so of the surface. At 15 knots the ship does 100 yards in 10-12 seconds, so by the time the depth alarm goes off (even with forward looking sonar) you're already on the reef.

Radar doesn't help either -- can't see under water and many of reefs in this part of the world never dry out. The wave line / break might show up on radar, but in relatively calm conditions you might mistake the break for normal ocean swell.

Real long range sonar (not just a forward looking depth sounder)?? Don't know if minesweepers are rigged with sonar that can see something 1/4 to 1/2mile ahead.

Visual watchkeeping might have been the only way to have seen this coming, but reef breaks are very hard to see when viewed from the seaward side especially if it was a relatively calm night with little moon (waxing crescent ~ 1/4 moon on that day).

And remember 100 yards of travel every 10-12 seconds....doesn't leave much reaction time. Say you're the lookout stationed on the wing of the bridge. You're responsible for maintaining a look out in a 180 deg arc on your side of the boat. You've panned astern and you begin a pan forward -- you think you see something a couple of hundred yards ahead, but you're not sure. You take a second look, adjust the zoom on your binoculars, refocus, think about it for a few seconds and reach for the intercom. "OD, I think I see something....not sure if it's anything.....". OOD says, "OK, I'll be right out. Puts down his coffee cup and walks to the bridge wing. Could 30 or 40 seconds have elapsed and the ship traveled 300-400 yards? Sure.

A career ender? Usually that's the case, but let's see what happens at the inquest. A faulty electronic chart is possibly a big mitigating factor. My guess is that a lot will depend on how far off the chart was. If it was a few hundred yards off, the skipper is toast. If it was several miles out, and if this was a reef with nothing showing above the water....well that might be another matter althogether.


----------



## ShoalFinder (May 18, 2012)

Just a WAG here, but it may have gone like this... (totally fictional)

USS Minesponge, South Pacific Exiting Subic Bay, P.I. 0300 

Ship's heading: 090

OOW: "Helmsman, come right to 080 degrees"

Helmsman: (Realizing the OOW would not want to turn a full circle while transiting a reef and meant to say come LEFT) "Orders to the helm, sir...."

OOW: (One year out of USNA, already picturing the star on his collar) "I SAID, come right to 080 degrees"

Helmsman: (Cutting a glance to BMOW) "Orders to the helm, sir!"

OOW: (now extremely irritated that he is being questioned by an enlisted man) "COME RIGHT, SAILOR, TO 080! THAT IS AN ORDER!"

Helmsman: "080 degrees, aye. Coming RIGHT to 080 degrees, SIR"


OOW: "YOU'RE COMING ABOUT! YOU'RE COMING ABO..."

Helmsman: "Aye sir. Coming about as ordered to RIGHT to 080 DEGREES, SIR!"


(ship's alarm) Doo-Doo-Doot! Doo-Doo-Doot! ALL HANDS, BRACE FOR COLLISION. ALL HANDS, BRACE FOR COLLISION.

CAAAAHHHH-----RRUUUNNNCCCCHHHHH!!

Boatswain's Mate of the Watch: "Sir, shall I wake the skipper?"


----------



## fryewe (Dec 4, 2004)

Er-r-r...no. The thread title is not quite right. The ship hit the reef. The chart is in error. Not yet known that the faulty chart even contributed to the grounding. Article doesn't even say whether the faulty chart was in use.

Elaborate procedures are in place to prevent this result. Rigorous voyage planning and reviews by five levels of chain of command using detailed checklists should have been done.

Wonder if the consolidation of ratings that eliminated the dedicated quartermaster rating and assigned their duties to electronics technicians may have contributed? No better way to get poor performance in an area than to deemphasize it.


----------



## fryewe (Dec 4, 2004)

Er-r-r...no. The thread title is not quite right. The ship hit the reef. The chart is in error. Not yet known that the faulty chart even contributed to the grounding. Article doesn't even say whether the faulty chart was in use.

Elaborate procedures are in place to prevent this result. Rigorous voyage planning and reviews by five levels of chain of command using detailed checklists should have been done.

Wonder if the consolidation of ratings that eliminated the dedicated quartermaster rating and assigned their duties to electronics technicians may have contributed? Any way you slice the decision it still deemphasizes the importance of navigation.


----------



## AKscooter (Jan 18, 2009)

Associated Press
MANILA, Philippines - A U.S. Navy minesweeper ran aground on a coral reef in the Philippines on Thursday, but there were no injuries to the crew and Philippine authorities were trying to determine if the ship caused damage to a marine park in a protected area.
The Navy said in a statement that the crew of the USS Guardian was working to find out the best method of safely extracting the ship.
It had just completed a port call in Subic Bay, a former American naval base west of the Philippine capital, when it hit the reef in the Tubbataha National Marine Park, a World Heritage Site in the Sulu Sea, 400 miles southeast of Manila.
The ship was not listing or leaking oil but about 15 percent of the bow appeared to have struck the reef, said Angelique Songco, head of the government's Protected Area Management Board, after flying over the ship in a Philippine Air Force plane. "It does not appear to be damaged."
She said it was unclear how much of the reef was damaged. She said the government imposes a fine of about $300 dollars per square meter (yard) of corals that are damaged.
In 2005, the environmental group Greenpeace was fined almost $7,000 after its flagship, the Rainbow Warrior, struck a reef in the same area.
Songco said that park rangers were not allowed to board the ship for inspection and were told to contact the U.S. Embassy in Manila. Their radio calls to the ship were ignored, she said.
She said the ship may be able to float free during a high tide later Thursday.
U.S. Navy ships have stepped up visits to Philippine ports for refueling, rest and recreation, and joint military exercises as a result of a redeployment of U.S. forces in the Asia-Pacific region. The Philippines, a U.S. treaty ally, has been entangled in a territorial dispute with China in the South China Sea.

Read more: US Navy ship runs aground on coral reef in the Philippines | Fox News


----------



## AKscooter (Jan 18, 2009)

Here is an update on the navy vessel in question and a response from the Vice Admiral. 
It is being followed very with great interest in the Philippines. This article is from an expat newspaper there. What it is of great interest is the attitude that the US Navy has towards the locals.......shame really...




MANILA, Philippines - The US Navy expressed regret after the minesweeper USS Guardian ran aground and damaged the protected Tubbataha Reef in the Sulu Sea last week.

“As a protector of the sea and a sailor myself, I greatly regret any damage this incident has caused to the Tubbataha Reef,” said Vice Admiral Scott Swift, commander of the US 7th Fleet, in a statement released by the US 7th Fleet.

“We know the significance of the Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park and its importance as a World Heritage Site. Its protection is vital, and we take seriously our obligations to protect and preserve the maritime environment,” he added.

The USS Guardian, which just completed a port call in Subic Bay, ran aground at Tubbataha last Thursday due to strong waves.

In an initial statement, the United States Pacific Command (USPACOM) blamed the mishap on wrong map navigational data being followed by the vessel.

“Rear Adm. Thomas Carney, commander of the Logistics Group Western Pacific, has been tasked as the on-scene commander effective Jan. 21 to oversee recovery efforts for the Guardian,” the US 7th Fleet statement said. Carney is based in Singapore.

Headlines ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1

“Carney will embark the destroyer USS Mustin (DDG 89) which, along with several other US Navy vessels, is focused on preventing any further environmental damage to the reef and surrounding marine environment,” the statement said.

Strong waves had dislodged the 68-meter USS Guardian from its original position, causing it to make a 90-degree turn, possibly increasing the more damage to the reef that has been declared as a World Heritage.

Once the minesweeper is recovered, the US government will continue to work with the Philippine government to assess the extent of damage to the reef and the surrounding marine environment caused by the grounding, the 7th Fleet said.

The USPACOM would deploy a missile-firing warship to Tubbahata Reef as part of its salvage operations for the minesweeper.

Aside from the USS Guardian, the USPACOM has already deployed five support vessels to the country’s declared marine protected park – USS Bowditch, a pathfinder class oceanographic ship; three salvage tugs and MV-C Champion, a transport ship.

The US Navy had prevented four ships from the Philippine Navy and Coast Guard to go near the disabled USS Guardian.

US Navy officials have also barred rangers of the Tubbataha Marine Park Management from boarding the minesweeper to conduct an investigation.

US ship ignored warnings

Palawan Rep. Antonio Alvarez said the USS Guardian’s crew ignored the “no navigation” markings in maritime maps released by the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority that had long declared Tubbataha as a “no navigation” zone.

“It willfully trespassed. It wasn’t lost. It was the voyage of an intruder,” Alvarez said.

Alvarez said even tuna boats in General Santos City are equipped with global positioning systems and the US vessel is equipped with better navigation tools, so it is improbable that the vessel lost its way.

He said the crew of the ship “wanted to take a quick dip in the reef famous for its pristine corals and clear waters and they should just admit it was an R-and-R (rest and recreation) gone wrong.”

Zambales Rep. Milagros Magsaysay said the US Navy should pay for the damage the vessel had caused on the reef.

Sen. Gregorio Honasan asked yesterday the US government to explain why its military ship was in Tubbataha Reef, a Philippine territory.

In a press conference of the United Nationalist Alliance (UNA), Honasan said the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) should demand an explanation from the US government on the presence of the US warship in Philippine territory.

Former senator Juan Miguel Zubiri asked Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario to require US Ambassador Harry Thomas Jr. to explain why the US government allowed its ship to enter Philippine territory.

“The US Navy is not the US government. It does not represent the US government. The US government must be the one to apologize to the Philippine government. Our friendship with the US must be reciprocal,” Zubiri said.

A militant fishermen’s group sent yesterday a letter to US President Barrack Obama to protest the alleged flagrant violation of Philippine sovereignty over the damage caused by the US Navy ship that ran aground at Tubbataha Reef.

“Mr. President, what is also lamentable is the extreme political arrogance displayed by US military officials under the Asia Pacific

Command,” said the letter sent by the Pambansang Lakas ng Kilusang

Mamamalakaya ng Pilipinas (Pamalakaya) to the White House in Washington.

Pamalakaya lamented that US authorities even prevented Philippine officials from inspecting the USS Guardian, as if Tubbataha Reef and the entire archipelgo are within the territory of America outside the US mainland.

Members of the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) staged a rally near the US embassy in Manila to protest the damage caused by the US Navy ship to Tubbataha Reef.

“The Philippine government must assert its sovereignty on this matter, and send a clear message to Obama that we will not allow our national interests to be trampled on. Otherwise, it will be four more years of shameless subservience and mendicancy for the Philippines. That’s another four years where sovereignty is sacrificed in the name of special relations,” said Bayan secretary-general Renato Reyes.

Reyes said that unless the Phl-US Visiting Forces Agreement is abrogated, more maritime disasters would inevitably take place in the country. – With Pia Lee-Brago, Paolo Romero, Jose Rodel Clapano, Rhodina Villanueva, Ding Cervantes


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

It sounds as if "military intelligence" is being employed.


----------



## fryewe (Dec 4, 2004)

smurphny said:


> It sounds as if "military intelligence" is being employed.


So cute and so witty...


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Damn, this is sounding worse all the time...



> The comments from the superintendent of Tubbataha Marine Park, Angelique Songco, added to growing anger in the Philippines over the incident, for which the U.S. Navy has apologized but may still face fines.
> 
> *Park rangers radioed the USS Guardian to advise it was nearing the Tubbataha Reef on Thursday, but the ship captain insisted they raise their complaint with the U.S. embassy, Songco told reporters.*
> 
> ...


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

We found that Max C, The Captain and the paper charts in the Philippines were all a bit off in certain areas....The MKII eyeball was the key, even then we did manage to briefly clean the bottom of the keel.


----------



## Slayer (Jul 28, 2006)

I recently saw an episode of "Monk" (a rerun) where a navy submarine ran aground and the commander blamed the grounding on old and erroneous charts, which he had surreptitiously swapped twith he actual charts he was using to cover his ass. And then.....well never mind, but another example of life imitating art (or situation comedy).


----------



## dacap06 (Feb 2, 2008)

Be wary of a rush to judgment. It is obvious to me we do not yet have the whole story, and probably never will. The Captain's response to take warnings and protests up with the embassy makes me wonder if they were conducting operations in the area rather than simply transiting.

I am not surprised that the USN would prevent the local rangers from boarding the stricken ship. Even the lowly minesweep has classified equipment and material.

Tom


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

There is no doubt that the Cap should not have allowed anyone on board. That's not surprising at all. Whatever the reason she got in that predicament, I just wonder why they didn't haul her off asap when she was bow-to. She must have been badly holed from the start and in danger of sinking if pulled free.


----------



## NCC320 (Dec 23, 2008)

ShoalFinder said:


> Just a WAG here, but it may have gone like this... (totally fictional)


Why such a post? You and none of the rest of us know what took place. Instead of some idiot watch officer, maybe it was some idiot enlisted helmsman who misunderstood the order, or maybe some idiot enlisted man who decided to check out and do maintenance on the emergency steering down below. Or more likely, there were no idiots, officer or enlisted. Just people, officer and enlisted, trying to do their jobs. Clearly something went wrong, and that will come out in the investigation.


----------



## mad_machine (Dec 16, 2012)

NCC320 said:


> Why such a post? You and none of the rest of us know what took place. Instead of some idiot watch officer, maybe it was some idiot enlisted helmsman who misunderstood the order, or maybe some idiot enlisted man who decided to check out and do maintenance on the emergency steering down below. Or more likely, there were no idiots, officer or enlisted. Just people, officer and enlisted, trying to do their jobs. Clearly something went wrong, and that will come out in the investigation.


sadly, but I can see the original tongue in cheek post happening. As a Navy Brat who comes from a LONG line of Navy men (I am 4F, or I probably would have gone into the USCG) I have seen and heard of some pretty stupid stuff happening aboard ships.. especially with freshly minted "ring tappers"

But then, My father's last ship was the USS Holland, a Sub Tender that was stationed in Spain (where I was born) and while most tenders stay chained to a pier 24/7.. this captain liked to go out every third week. Considering the amount of nuclear materials and classified paperwork aboard a tender.. and you really have to consider how much it cost the navy and taxpayers to take her out once a month.. as she never ran anywhere without a fast attack escort and other support ships


----------



## luck66 (Jul 4, 2011)

I know nothing about navy ships or their protocol, which gives the give the responses more value.


----------



## mad_machine (Dec 16, 2012)

it does make sense they would not want anybody aboard. Not only would the USS Guardian be full of the latest technology, but I am sure in the aftermath of such a grounding, things are chaotic at best and unsafe at worst.

That said.. the Captain was wrong and arrogant to dismiss the warnings of the reef with a "take it up with the embassy"


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

ShoalFinder said:


> Just a WAG here, but it may have gone like this... (totally fictional)
> 
> USS Minesponge, South Pacific Exiting Subic Bay, P.I. 0300
> 
> ...


Kind of like this?


----------



## paulk (Jun 2, 2000)

We may want to wait to find out what really happened. Even here in this thread we're seeing made up exchanges of "orders on the bridge". Who's to know if eager Phillippine newspaper reporters aren't doing the same at their end in order to inflame passions and sell more papers? It works for Rupert Murdock, why not others?


----------



## mad_machine (Dec 16, 2012)

very true, Paul. the inquiry will put everything straight.. and then they will "hang" the captain because he was in charge and even if everything was done by the book, he will still be at fault.


----------



## ShoalFinder (May 18, 2012)

NCC320 said:


> Why such a post? You and none of the rest of us know what took place. Instead of some idiot watch officer, maybe it was some idiot enlisted helmsman who misunderstood the order, or maybe some idiot enlisted man who decided to check out and do maintenance on the emergency steering down below. Or more likely, there were no idiots, officer or enlisted. Just people, officer and enlisted, trying to do their jobs. Clearly something went wrong, and that will come out in the investigation.


Someone needs to grow a sense of humor, or perhaps stop tapping that ring on the desk so hard before you give yourself a headache. I take it you aren't a fan of Broadside comics?

Of course it could have been an idiot boatswains mate who spun the wheel the wrong way, just like you say.

Or an EM could have been doing PMs on the steering- at night time- without telling anybody, during sea and anchor detail in a restricted passage. Sure.

For all we know the hydraulic pump failed on the steering gear or the rudder trunion failed, or the generator tripped off the line and they lost steerage altogether. Who the hell knows?

Or just maybe... the charts were wrong. Just like they said.

My tongue in cheek post came from a funny episode that happened on the USS XXXXXXXXXX (redacted) sometime in the 90's somewhere in the Med during UNREP. Luckily, the watch officer realized the error in his orders to the helm when the helmsman responded "orders to the helm." A quick look at the big circle with all the white numbers on it made it clear to him that he was asking to come about. In fact, he even broke protocol and said, "Thank you" and smiled after the correct order was given and acknowledged. Yes, I know. Smiling on the bridge is indeed frowned upon, but we won't tell anyone.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

McHale's Navy, F Troop, Hogan's Heroes, Mash...we love to make fun of the Catch-22s in the service but we also know they do one hell of a job under the worst imaginable conditions, willingly putting their lives on the line to follow often questionable decisions of politicians.


----------



## ShoalFinder (May 18, 2012)

For sure. Anyone who's been in the military will poke fun at the silly things that happen and the giant f*** ups that occur. Anyone who has been in any job for long enough will have stories about stupid things they've seen and done.

If you want to hear about EXTREMELY STUPID things that I have done, I have an endless list. I'll be the first to poke fun at myself. Lord knows I've done some really dumb stuff in my time.

Case in point, the ship that ran aground could have been a victim of a mistake I once made myself. I was on watch on the EPCC (Electrical Plant Control Console). I was paralleling generators and rather than dial down the oncoming generator until the synchroscope was just creeping, I was letting it haul ass. You know, because I was being Quick Draw McGraw because I thought I was s**t - hot. 

Well, I managed to parallel the generators out of phase and therefore trip all of the generators off the line. We went cold, dark and quiet while running full steam. Alarms going nuts, battle lanterns on (the only lights on...) and the bridge calling down on the ***** Box because they lost steering and the ship is at full speed with no control. 

It took me a minute to get the ship powered back up again, but a lot can happen in a minute, especially if you are in a restricted maneuvering situation - which thank God we weren't.

I like to be funny. But I know full well that I've screwed up as royally as anyone I make fun of.


----------



## dongreerps (May 14, 2007)

Not knowing for sure, I post this as a query. It is my understanding that in a trip such as this mine sweeper undertook there are a number of preliminary steps. First the ships C/O is ordered to go from here to there by his superiors ashore. He in turn orders junior officers to make preparations - provisions, watch lists, etc. Included in these preparations is the navigating officer plotting out the course, making sure the appropriate charts are aboard, etc. The navigating officer then presents his proposed course to the captain, who signs off on it, and in turn presents it to the shore based authorities, who also must sign off on the course. Only after the shore based US Navy authorities have given their OK (clearance) which I understand has to be writing, can the lines be cast off, and the voyage begin.
If this is correct, the radio response of the C/O to the park ranger makes more sense. The C/O hears some minor Phillipino functionary telling him he is in a prohibited area. He has written clearance from his admiral, who is supposed to clear things between governments, to proceed the way he is going, and assumes it is a conflict between two governments, and so he tells the Phillipino government official he already has clearance to go where he is going, to check it out with the US Embassy. Not understanding it is a good guy trying to prevent trouble, assuming it is just another port authority with his hand out.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Reports are that she now has a bunch of holes and they're going to try to get the fuel off. That's a tricky proposition unless they can get in on the reef side with some sort of air cushion or shallow draft rig. Then the plan is to get it up onto another boat. That's got to be some kind of trick.


----------



## NCC320 (Dec 23, 2008)

dongreerps said:


> Not knowing for sure, I post this as a query. It is my understanding that in a trip such as this mine sweeper undertook there are a number of preliminary steps. First the ships C/O is ordered to go from here to there by his superiors ashore. He in turn orders junior officers to make preparations - provisions, watch lists, etc. Included in these preparations is the navigating officer plotting out the course, making sure the appropriate charts are aboard, etc. The navigating officer then presents his proposed course to the captain, who signs off on it, and in turn presents it to the shore based authorities, who also must sign off on the course. Only after the shore based US Navy authorities have given their OK (clearance) which I understand has to be writing, can the lines be cast off, and the voyage begin.
> If this is correct, the radio response of the C/O to the park ranger makes more sense. The C/O hears some minor Phillipino functionary telling him he is in a prohibited area. He has written clearance from his admiral, who is supposed to clear things between governments, to proceed the way he is going, and assumes it is a conflict between two governments, and so he tells the Phillipino government official he already has clearance to go where he is going, to check it out with the US Embassy. Not understanding it is a good guy trying to prevent trouble, assuming it is just another port authority with his hand out.


I'm hesitant to comment because my experience was a long time ago and procedures and techniques change over time. However, I believe that the exact course that the ship will take is (at least was) decided on board the ship. But if it was some politically sensitive situation, then shore based management/authorities might make the approval. Generally, the ship was instructed to move from one point to some other point within a certain departure date/time and arrival date/time timeframe, with perhaps general instructions of the movement area, but the ship's captain and navigator picked the exact course. And at times for various reasons, a ship could/would depart from that course.

Otherwise, the procedure you laid out was essentially correct (for my time) except for the exact course shore approval point (and might be correct here too now). The captain being "sure" of his position, would not be inclined to take movement instructions from a foreign national, even if he was some low level of authority.


----------



## AKscooter (Jan 18, 2009)

_ We may want to wait to find out what really happened. Even here in this thread we're seeing made up exchanges of "orders on the bridge". Who's to know if eager Phillippine(sic) newspaper reporters aren't doing the same at their end in order to inflame passions and sell more papers? It works for Rupert Murdock, why not others?
_

Or maybe Paul some of us actually travel to these parts and speak a bit of the dialects, cebuano for example. Perhaps just maybe there is a "bit" more to the story including the words arrogant, stupid, hubris and the local people are stupid and insignificant.

The US Navy has a large history of shiatting on people that they have ports with. Why just the other month or two I was reviewing documents concerning the continuing contamination of Subic Bay/Olongapo region. With the poisoning of the drinking water supply, fish, painting of vessels etc. I even got to review the "research" the navy did, the environmental impact study. Of course it was primarily conducted from behind a desk with little to no actual sampling being done. I will let you guess what their conclusion was, as I would not like to insult your intelligence, but it suffice to say I would easily take a natives word over the US Navy.


----------



## fryewe (Dec 4, 2004)

“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt.” ― Mark Twain

...clearly needs to be applied liberally in this thread.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Some good news - they've managed to get all the fuel off the GUARDIAN before a major spill occurred...

this is gonna be one hell of a salvage operation. She will have to be _LIFTED_ on to another barge or ship, having been holed in several places, and is now too badly damaged to be taken in tow... Or, maybe dragged off, and into a floating drydock before she sinks, perhaps?

Grounded


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Fact check: The USN turned over Subic Bay to the Philippine Navy in 1992. The USN hasn't been there (other than port calls) in twenty years. Any pollution is locally generated.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

smurphny said:


> McHale's Navy, F Troop, Hogan's Heroes, Mash...we love to make fun of the Catch-22s in the service but we also know they do one hell of a job under the worst imaginable conditions, willingly putting their lives on the line to follow often questionable decisions of politicians.


SNAFU, SUSFU and FUBAR were all created by the military but the incredible capabilities of the U.S. military are undeniable.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

GeorgeB said:


> Fact check: The USN turned over Subic Bay to the Philippine Navy in 1992. The USN hasn't been there (other than port calls) in twenty years. Any pollution is locally generated.


I think any Naval base that operated for 100 years, mostly before "environment" was a word in widespread use, would be able to pollute prodigiously for longer than 20 years after closing.


----------



## mad_machine (Dec 16, 2012)

if you think Subic is bad.. next time you are in hawaii.. go to the uSS Arizona memorial. That harbor is foul. For a tropical paradise, the water is so murky taht divers sent down to check out the arizona's rate of decomposition could barely see the ship


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

A couple more little "fun" facts: Subic backed up against Olongapo City - 250,000 inhabitants and inadequate sewage treatment. Is it possible they have something to do with the water quality? How about all the Philipino shipyards that ring the bay? Mount Pinatubo dumping a foot of ash in the Bay had a lot more impact on the fisheries than the USN ever did. For most of its existence, Subic was pretty minor repair facility for the USN. It's big build up happened during the Viet Nam days. As you guys obviously haven't seen the base, here is a picture during its heyday in the late 70's and a shot of it today.



















Pearl's problem is it was mostly a man-made harbor carved out of the mangrove delta of the Pearl River. The East Loch was dredged in part, to create a flushing action in order to maintain water quality and harbor depth. Alas, now that the Navy has reduced their footprint, they are allowing the Loch to silt back in and return to mangroves affecting water quality. I read somewhere that the biggest source of pollution at Pearl is the Arizona herself. But as a gravesite, there are no plans to disturb her by pumping her oil tanks.


----------



## billyruffn (Sep 21, 2004)

> As a Navy Brat who comes from a LONG line of Navy men ..


Didn't someone tell you that the Navy doesn't have "brats"....the Army has "brats". The Navy has "juniors": I know, cuz I was one!


----------



## Selkie60 (Apr 24, 2009)

billyruffn said:


> Didn't someone tell you that the Navy doesn't have "brats"....the Army has "brats". The Navy has "juniors": I know, cuz I was one!


I remember the Navy's quixotic attempt to ban the word "Brats". I also remember Commander Dad lining us up and explaining that the Navy was wrong, we were in fact "Brats", and he would continue to address us as such.


----------



## AKscooter (Jan 18, 2009)

Here is an update from the local press here regarding the latest:

US Navy must pay for breaking PH laws-Aquino
'Apology for Tubbataha not enough'
12:03 am | Sunday, January 27th, 2013

President Benigno S. Aquino III. Malacañang Photo Bureau

DAVOS, Switzerland-"Excuse me, we sustained damage. Do we leave it at that?" President Aquino said on Friday.

The United States Navy will be held answerable under Philippine laws for the damage caused by the grounding of a US 7th Fleet warship in Tubbataha Reefs, Mr. Aquino said.

Talking with Filipino reporters after the World Economic Forum meeting here, Mr. Aquino said he had ordered Transportation Secretary Joseph Emilio Abaya to investigate the grounding of the minesweeper USS Guardian in the Unesco-World Heritage protected area in the Sulu Sea on Jan. 17.

The Philippine government's priority, however, is to remove the ship from the reef to prevent further damage to the marine environment.

"How did they actually get into a protected area? How did their navigation systems, [supposedly among the most sophisticated in the world], fail?" Mr. Aquino said.

Asked whether the apology issued by the US government would suffice, the President said it only showed that the United States respected the Philippines as a sovereign state and was "very careful" about its sensitivities.

"But that doesn't exempt them from having to comply with our laws," Mr. Aquino said.

The Avenger-class USS Guardian, a 63-meter, 1,300-ton mine countermeasure vessel belonging to the US 7th Fleet, ran aground on the south atoll of the Tubbataha Reefs while sailing to Indonesia after making a port call at Puerto Princesa in Palawan.

US apology

US officials have apologized for the accident and the damage it has caused to the Tubbataha Reefs, which the Philippines considers a national treasure.

But for President Aquino expressions of regret, while appreciated, are nearly not enough, as the US Navy has caused such a big mess and the violation of Philippine laws cannot be ignored, even for the sake of friendship.

"Our laws are very specific," Mr. Aquino said. "When they got the diplomatic clearance to pass through our waters, this is a recognized, internationally recognized zone, that is, like an exclusive zone. They violated it. There are penalties."

But the process will come in stages. The top priority, Mr. Aquino said, is to remove the stuck ship and then to assess the damage.

At the same time, the President said he would like to know how the accident happened so that measures could be taken to prevent repetitions.

"But the other thing is the damage, the fines that will be levied," Mr. Aquino said.

Why are you there?

Philippine environmentalists and lawmakers have demanded to know why the warship proceeded to enter the marine park, 128 kilometers from Puerto Princesa, despite warnings from park authorities that it was entering a restricted area.

The US Navy said a navigational map that misplaced the Tubbataha Reefs or possible errors in the Guardian's navigational system caused the ship to stray into the protected area, famous for its magnificent marine life and coral that rival Australia's Great Barrier Reef.

Strong winds and big waves have been tossing the vessel around for days, damaging 1,000 square meters of reef, according to the Philippine Navy and environmental officials.

Salvage operation

Philippine and American authorities have decided to remove the Guardian by lifting the badly damaged ship off the water and loading it onto a barge.

Two heavy lift ship-borne cranes are arriving from Singapore at the end of the month to remove the vessel and take it to a shipyard somewhere in the region for repairs.

The US Navy has finished defueling the Guardian, with a Malaysian tugboat, the Vos Apollo, removing 57,000 liters of diesel fuel from the ship on Friday.

The salvage operation is expected to start, at the earliest, Feb. 1.

Damages

Transportation Secretary Abaya, a graduate of the US Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland, said earlier that the Philippine government would lodge a complaint for damages.

Angelique Songco, the marine park superintendent, said the damage to the reef could not be assessed until the ship was removed. But the Philippine government, she said, imposes a fine of $300 for every square meter of damaged coral.

In 2005 the environmental group Greenpeace was fined nearly $7,000 after its ship struck coral in Tubbataha.

While apologizing for the mess caused by the Guardian, the US government has said nothing about paying for the damage to the reef.

As usual, after the eruption of a controversy involving Americans, left-leaning groups are calling for a review of the Philippines' Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) with the United States.

Asked about it, Mr. Aquino replied, "What does the VFA have to do with the Americans' going to Tubbataha? There are no [joint military exercises there]. [T]his is really a question of violating certain ecological laws that we already have in the books." With a report from Tarra Quismundo

First posted 3:46 pm | Saturday, January 26th, 2013


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

So they want money.

You'll never see anyone limp so much as the driver of a 20 yr old beater after being hit by a brand new Mercedes.


----------



## Boasun (Feb 10, 2007)

If the USN ship was using digital charts. There is no simple way to correct them.... 
I have digital chart on my boat and I have Identified quite a few errors... It seems that the people who produce them, either don't know what they are doing or just too lazy to correct any known errors. The key word in that last bit is "known."
And for those of you who uses 'Maps' instead of 'Charts', Good luck to you. Seeing that Maps are for land use and not waterways


----------



## AKscooter (Jan 18, 2009)

Interestingly enough if a foreign military vessel struck say....the reefs off Florida or in Hawaii your panties would be all in a bunch but...The response by the DNR, Park service, Coast Guard, PETA, WWF, general populace, etc. would be overwhelming.

When it comes to taking responsibility for ones actions...and it is not in *YOUR* backyard well definitely then it is not a problem.......

_So they want money.

You'll never see anyone limp so much as the driver of a 20 yr old beater after being hit by a brand new Mercedes. _
They also want people with at least half a brain to pilot ships.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Boasun said:


> If the USN ship was using digital charts. There is no simple way to correct them....
> I have digital chart on my boat and I have Identified quite a few errors... *It seems that the people who produce them, either don't know what they are doing or just too lazy to correct any known errors.* The key word in that last bit is "known."


I don't know, I'd tend to believe that the folks at The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) probably have a pretty fair idea of what they're doing, and doubt such an error would have been due to "laziness"...

Sounds like the error might possibly have occurred during the digitizing of the known charts in the Sulu Sea... I'd love to know how accurately existing paper charts place the reef, but I'd put my money on the likelihood that they're not 8 miles off... (grin)



> While a review of the digital navigation charts (DNC) used by a U.S. Navy minesweeper that grounded last week in the Philippines found one additional error, the charts were declared safe Wednesday by the Navy's top navigator.
> 
> "Ships should continue to confidently navigate with DNC, using all standard safe seamanship and navigation practices," Rear Adm. John White, navigator of the Navy, said in messages sent Jan. 23 to Navy ships, commands and flag officers.
> 
> ...


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

AKscooter said:


> .......They also want people with at least half a brain to pilot ships.


If left to choose between foreign ships with better than half witted pilots and money, want to bet they will take the money.


----------



## mad_machine (Dec 16, 2012)

well.. the guardian is done. Just read this morning they are planning on stipping the hull and then cutting her up to get the ship off of the reef.


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

mad_machine said:


> well.. the guardian is done. Just read this morning they are planning on stipping the hull and then cutting her up to get the ship off of the reef.


Well, if it's an environmental disaster (*) they're wanting I can't think of a better way to do it.

Funny.. I thought this reef was supposed to be a highly-protected, tourist mecca etc. Maybe the US Navy at it's most clever??

* = If you don't know what happens when you cut up a ship on a reef, google "rena disaster" to find out.


----------



## mad_machine (Dec 16, 2012)

The fuel is already off.. so I doubt she will be dumping thousands of gallons of oil onto the reef


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

mad_machine said:


> The fuel is already off.. so I doubt she will be dumping thousands of gallons of oil onto the reef


Maybe not thousands of gallons... but I wasn't referring to the fuel.

It's the rest of the crap that gets washed away whilst cutting up a ship on a reef that causes the environmental damage: paint flakes (probably the worst contaminant to the ecosystem of a reef), bits of plastic and general rubbish that simply cannot be contained no matter how much money you throw at it. ..not to mention the wanton destruction of a wide area around the wreck caused by the salvage barges, prop wash from tugs and simply big pieces of the ship moving on the coral.

I feel for any locals who rely on the tourist diving for their income.. because if that's what your Navy has planned, it sounds like that reef, in particular, is stuffed already.


----------



## schelli (Apr 3, 2012)

Going to be a long process!


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

Hartley18 said:


> It's the rest of the crap that gets washed away whilst cutting up a ship on a reef that causes the environmental damage: paint flakes (probably the worst contaminant to the ecosystem of a reef), bits of plastic and general rubbish that simply cannot be contained no matter how much money you throw at it. ..not to mention the wanton destruction of a wide area around the wreck caused by the salvage barges, prop wash from tugs and simply big pieces of the ship moving on the coral.
> 
> I feel for any locals who rely on the tourist diving for their income.. because if that's what your Navy has planned, it sounds like that reef, in particular, is stuffed already.


As a case in point, it seems the salvors for the _Costa Concordia _stuff-up are currently fixing the wreck in position, planning to re-float it and then tow it away to be cut up - to avoid precisely what I describe above. ...and they're saying it'll be the largest effort of it's type ever.

If a bunch of civilians have the wherewithall to do that with one of the world's largest passenger liners, surely the Mighty US Navy can do something similiar with this tiny ship? 

..or maybe they just don't give a stuff?


----------



## ShoalFinder (May 18, 2012)

It's a crap situation and the Navy is to blame. But at this point what would you have them do?

The Navy will have to pay someone. They Navy is not in the ecological salvage industry. The Navy does salvage, but not on the order of what's being proposed. It's not that the Navy doesn't care- the reality is "what are their options?" There is no magic wand to make it all go away. 

In the Navy of my day, they'd have had several tugs pull the wreck to deep water and deep six it so it could become part of the reef itself, just like the other wrecks that lie in deep water not so very far from this wreck.


----------



## mad_machine (Dec 16, 2012)

Hartley18 said:


> As a case in point, it seems the salvors for the _Costa Concordia _stuff-up are currently fixing the wreck in position, planning to re-float it and then tow it away to be cut up - to avoid precisely what I describe above. ...and they're saying it'll be the largest effort of it's type ever.
> 
> If a bunch of civilians have the wherewithall to do that with one of the world's largest passenger liners, surely the Mighty US Navy can do something similiar with this tiny ship?
> 
> ..or maybe they just don't give a stuff?


well.. I imagine they would have to cut away part of the reef to get in there to patch the Guardian up enough to refloat her. At this point it may be best to strip her where she sits, clean her out as best then can.. weigh her down, and yank.. and once clear, she drops to the bottom to become part of the reef she damaged


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

]


Hartley18 said:


> As a case in point, it seems the salvors for the _Costa Concordia _stuff-up are currently fixing the wreck in position, planning to re-float it and then tow it away to be cut up - to avoid precisely what I describe above. ...and they're saying it'll be the largest effort of it's type ever.


Speaking of the COSTA, if you haven't seen the piece 60 MINUTES did on the salvage operation, it's worth a look... incredible project...

Click on the title to get it to play...

Costa Concordia: Salvaging a shipwreck - 60 Minutes - CBS News


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

mad_machine said:


> well.. I imagine they would have to cut away part of the reef to get in there to patch the Guardian up enough to refloat her. At this point it may be best to strip her where she sits, clean her out as best then can.. weigh her down, and yank.. and once clear, she drops to the bottom to become part of the reef she damaged


I'm no salvage expert by any means, but given the expected outcomes of the on-going salvage efforts for two very recent cases of ships coming to grief in environmentally-sensitive areas, I'd have thought that the preferred (and likely most expensive, but then looking at the "Rena" budget, maybe not) and most *responsible* thing to do would be to strip the wreck and refloat the hulk for scrap or otherwise...and not simply cut her up where she is, as proposed.

JMHO


----------



## AKscooter (Jan 18, 2009)

What does this even mean?? English, do you speak it? _ If left to choose between foreign ships with better than half witted pilots and money, want to bet they will take the money.
_ 
Seriously, who was it that drove a perfectly good ship, with unlimited electronics, in excellent weather onto a reef??? A feriner??? Nope. Probably one of them thar fancy Annapolis graduates. 
How much was that ship worth.....bwahahahahaha...glad I do not pay taxes in the US anymore. I do not support stupid.


----------



## mad_machine (Dec 16, 2012)

Hartley18 said:


> I'm no salvage expert by any means, but given the expected outcomes of the on-going salvage efforts for two very recent cases of ships coming to grief in environmentally-sensitive areas, I'd have thought that the preferred (and likely most expensive, but then looking at the "Rena" budget, maybe not) and most *responsible* thing to do would be to strip the wreck and refloat the hulk for scrap or otherwise...and not simply cut her up where she is, as proposed.
> 
> JMHO


once stripped.. I am not sure that the guardian has a salvage worth. She is wood and glassfibre.. which means that once stripped, she should come off of the reef easier than a metal ship


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

mad_machine said:


> once stripped.. I am not sure that the guardian has a salvage worth. She is wood and glassfibre.. which means that once stripped, she should come off of the reef easier than a metal ship


If that's true it really would be *very* irresponsible to cut her up in situ.

Hopefully they'll do something like you suggest - and sooner rather than later - but I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens...


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Another example of environmental hysteria. So she crunched the reef, an isolated event. The world isn't coming to an end and the seas will not dry up nor will the sky fall. Drag her off and sink her. This reef damage thing is asinine, another issue for people with way too much time on their hands figuring out what to moan about next. Chicken Little all over again. I still want to know the particulars of how she managed to get in that spot but we'll probably never really know.


----------



## ShoalFinder (May 18, 2012)

I agree. Nobody likes to see a reef damaged, but we're talking about a few hundred feet on the top where all the sunlight and food in the world get to it. If this was fifty years ago they'd be blasting the reef out of existance as a hazard to shipping. Many ships have hit this same reef- the most recent I believe was a Greenpeace ship. It's unfortunate, but it happens. 

I would think cutting the ship up would cause more damage from leakage and debris than dragging the hulk off would ever cause. I have no idea what the idea is behind cutting the ship up. I wonder if it has more to do with saving the operational equipment before the hull is scuttled. 

I wonder how bad they holed the bow when it first hit. It must have been bad enough that no amount of coffer dams would do the trick. That they left it to die on the reef tells me that they knew the ship was toast immediately.


----------



## mad_machine (Dec 16, 2012)

ShoalFinder said:


> I
> 
> I would think cutting the ship up would cause more damage from leakage and debris than dragging the hulk off would ever cause. I have no idea what the idea is behind cutting the ship up. I wonder if it has more to do with saving the operational equipment before the hull is scuttled.
> .


Without a doubt.. some parts of those ships are put in before the hull is sealed up due to their size.. so the only way to get them out is to cut the ship up


----------



## ShoalFinder (May 18, 2012)

Agreed. I believe this ship has the Isotta-Fraschini diesel. That diesel and the reduction gear is probably half the value of the ship. Between those and the ROV / Mine Disposal System and the towed sensor array, the rest of the boat is relatively worthless.

A friend of mine is pretty sick over this. He served on this ship as a diver a number of years ago and like all sailors has sentimental attachment to his ship.

I had friends on sister ships of this class. It's odd- it wasn't so long ago these were being built. A guided missile cruiser I served on is being decommed next year, and that is heartbreaking to me. I would be horribly saddened to see my ship foundering on a reef and junked before my eyes in such a manner.


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

ShoalFinder said:


> A friend of mine is pretty sick over this. He served on this ship as a diver a number of years ago and like all sailors has sentimental attachment to his ship.
> 
> I had friends on sister ships of this class. It's odd- it wasn't so long ago these were being built. A guided missile cruiser I served on is being decommed next year, and that is heartbreaking to me. I would be horribly saddened to see my ship foundering on a reef and junked before my eyes in such a manner.


Perhaps therein lies the reason you guys usually strip the good bits off and sell what's left to our idiot politicians "fully fitted out" at bargain-basement prices instead. (Brilliant sales-job, BTW)

..and leave us to spend gazillions re-fitting them, none the wiser...


----------



## ShoalFinder (May 18, 2012)

There may be some truth to that. But when you buy used, you get what you get. 

We sold some old junk frigates to Israel many moons ago. One year when my ship pulled into Haifa, we saw those old hulks we sold to Isreal, only Isreal had turned them into much better versions than what they originally were. 

Then you have the Kidd class destroyers which were designed for Iran (before they took the hostages, which killed the deal.) When the sale to Iran fell through, these ships were put into the US fleet. They were designed with air-conditioned engine rooms (!) and sand separators for the air intakes. Both nice features. However, they also wanted actual livestock storage pens. The Kidd class destroyers were known throughout the fleet as the "Ayatollah Class." They were really nice ships. I never had an air conditioned engine room on anything I was on! But these were not old vessels sold off from the fleet, they were designed and purpose built.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

AKscooter said:


> What does this even mean?? English, do you speak it? _ If left to choose between foreign ships with better than half witted pilots and money, want to bet they will take the money.
> _
> Seriously, who was it that drove a perfectly good ship, with unlimited electronics, in excellent weather onto a reef??? A feriner??? Nope. Probably one of them thar fancy Annapolis graduates.
> How much was that ship worth.....bwahahahahaha...glad I do not pay taxes in the US anymore. I do not support stupid.


Let me make this clearer for you, as my quote was a take off on your "half witted" comment.

The Filipinos are going to be just as happy, if not happier, with the money they will get from the US over this than giving a darn about a human being having made a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes, even stupid ones.

The chip on your shoulder is quite obvious. Thanks for moving out. That was the noble thing to do.


----------



## AKscooter (Jan 18, 2009)

They are going to salvage the bow and stern sections.....the rest is basically fiberglass and wood in small pieces. They have/will remove the equipment first. The US Navy stated that they were going to restore the reef. (I really want to know how they are going to do that) 
No timeline has been given for this operation as tropical depressions have been rolling through the area........


----------



## AKscooter (Jan 18, 2009)

Well, the boat is finally off the reef, in a million pieces......Frickin' ring knockers.


----------



## fryewe (Dec 4, 2004)

Scooter. Buddy. Some Midshipman steal your girl? Most of those "ring knockers" would take your lunch in any competition from seamanship to arcade games. Get a grip!!!


----------



## AKscooter (Jan 18, 2009)

hmmmm...don't know about you but.....I do listen to those that have local knowledge....anyway...I be workin' on me second doctorate...them boys.....naw...they earned what.....??? Hittin' up some politician's office for an appointment???? Snort!

Very few earn it....a damn few........and that boy will be a boy all his life.


----------



## Boasun (Feb 10, 2007)

fryewe said:


> Scooter. Buddy. Some Midshipman steal your girl? Most of those "ring knockers" would take your lunch in any competition from seamanship to arcade games. Get a grip!!!


Nope! Will never happen... They aren't flexable enough in their thinking on Seamanship.

From a Retired Boatswain Mate.:laugher


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

For those that criticize the merits of the military academies. Which shoes have you spent a day in?

Forbes rates them among the best colleges in the country:

#7 West Point (Harvard was #6)
#35 Air Force Academy
#43 Naval Academy

These out of 650 that are ranked. It takes more than a political appointment to pull this off.


----------

