ADVERTISEMENT

How in world does This happen?

We don’t exit or enter San Diego harbor as a strike force. It’s all individual ship transit.

Not even Coast Guard vessels available as traffic control? Wow...

The Med just above Port Said would seem amuch more dangerous area than San Diego however...

I think I've covered my thoughts on the topic fully...

It would seem to me that we're allowing our ships to simply become Targets if other vessels are allowed to get close enough to collide with them...

Appreciate both your service and your experience and expertise on the topic.

Hopefully an enemy doesn't someday take advantage of our peacetime considerations of the current rules of the road (sea lanes)...
 
Last edited:
Not even Coast Guard vessels available as traffic control? Wow...

The Med just above Port Said would seem amuch more dangerous area than San Diego however...

I think I've covered my thoughts on the topic fully...

It would seem to me that we're allowing our ships to simply become Targets if other vessels are allowed to get close enough to collide with them...

Appreciate both your service and your experience and expertise on the topic.

Hopefully an enemy doesn't someday take advantage of our peacetime considerations of the current rules of the road (sea lanes)...
We don't have the only Navy in the world, you know. ;) You don't think we should go around the world telling everyone we'll sink any vessel and destroy any aircraft that come within a mile or two of our strike forces, do you?

Don't worry, we have different procedures for entering a port like Bahrain than we have for Pearl Harbor or San Diego.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1
https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F2f23700c-86e6-4c85-8ae5-a771508862a9_1676x1168.png
 
CO wasn’t fired. If the diagram is correct, the carrier had the right of way (stand on vessel) and the freighter had the obligation to maneuver to avoid collision (give way vessel). I was correct to assume they were in congested sea lanes and the TRUMAN was apparently transiting to the Suez Canal to get to the Red Sea.
 
CO wasn’t fired. If the diagram is correct, the carrier had the right of way (stand on vessel) and the freighter had the obligation to maneuver to avoid collision (give way vessel). I was correct to assume they were in congested sea lanes and the TRUMAN was apparently transiting to the Suez Canal to get to the Red Sea.
What maneuver could the carrier have done to avoid the collision and how much time would that take? Wouldn’t those on the bridge have to have seen the danger?
 
What maneuver could the carrier have done to avoid the collision and how much time would that take? Wouldn’t those on the bridge have to have seen the danger?
In that situation the carrier is supposed to maintain course and speed and the freighter had the requirement to maneuver to avoid collision. The carrier may also have been restricted in ability to maneuver if in a channel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CO. Hoosier
In that situation the carrier is supposed to maintain course and speed and the freighter had the requirement to maneuver to avoid collision. The carrier may also have been restricted in ability to maneuver if in a channel.

Why wouldn't the Destroyer escorting the Carrier have detected the freighter and sheparded (or blocked) it away from the Carrier??
 
Why wouldn't the Destroyer escorting the Carrier have detected the freighter and sheparded (or blocked) it away from the Carrier??
Like I said, my guess was that they were in congested sea lanes (confirmed) and they may have been in channels (not yet confirmed) on the approaches to the Suez Canal or Port Said (which the freighter appears to have been departing from). Looks like the freighter was crossing the traffic pattern and that always requires that vessel to maneuver to avoid collisions or impede traffic. Still don't know exactly what happened, but one thing for sure is we don't do blocking in international waters unless we're damned sure it's a threat rather than a relatively routine transiting situation. I think you have a mistaken view of what is permitted and happens at sea. We don't sail around in international waters sinking anyone that we think is getting a little too close.

One article appears to confirm the CO was not fired. If he or any of the other COs (apparently had one destroyer in company) was even 1 percent at fault, he would have been fired.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT