Maybe not in the Navy but I’ve heard of it happening in the offshore fleet (on an AHTS to be exact).
It’s apparently not only on board their warship the US Navy have problems:
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-548
Being on a “new” ship myself, yeah there’s problems in the shipyards, at least the one I was at for a year.
In dealing with the current malaise that seems to be afflicting the U.S. Navy I think they should consider taking a page from the playbook of the British Navy back in the 18th century, when Britannia Ruled the Waves: Shoot an Admiral!_ It seemed to work for them back in 1757 when they shot Admiral John Byng, the British Admiralty stating that it was meant to emphasize to Royal Naval Officers their need to “do their utmost”. Voltaire sardonically commented that it was necessary for the British Navy to shoot an Admiral from time to time in order to “encourage the others” Seemed to work. I am pretty sure that shooting a U.S. Navy Admiral would at the very least gratify some personnel in the lower ranks.
1 Like
Love it!
As the French describe the process: Pour encourager les autres
For those who haven’t already decided that they KNOW what’s wrong with the Navy and why they get hit by merchant ships, this interesting article, reflecting on some Royal Navy history and command philosophy. I’m not expressing any opinion about whether this author is right or wrong…in fact he seems to not be sure himself…but it is nevertheless an interesting read worth reflecting on. For one thing, it reminds us that the Navy’s primary mission is not, in fact, safe navigation. Not to say that it’s not necessary to their primary mission, but getting the ship and it’s burden safely from point A to point B is NOT what the Navy is about. Draw you own conclusions. It’s an enjoyable sea story anyway.
(sorry, it’s a long winded link, but it works!)
Using that logic, no vessel’s primary mission is safe navigation. We all have an ulterior motive to be going where we are going, but it is “fundamental” I believe you said, “necessary.” I feel there is a slight but important difference.
Fundamental- forming a necessary base or core; of central importance.
(ie.something that is always present and utilised while accomplishing something else)
Necessary- required to be done, achieved, or present; needed; essential
(ie.something to be achieved so then you can proceed to engage to something else)
Certainly in the context of battle a Captain may knowingly take his ship into harm’s way, but that is a horse of an entirely different hue. A good Captain also wouldn’t abandon seamanship in the process.
It was a good read.
3 Likes
A multi-million dollar weapons platform in a stateside dry dock isn’t useful.
While the Navy’s primary mission may not be safe navigation, unsafe navigation certainly is costing them a lot of valuable time and money NOT accomplishing their primary mission. We get it, they gotta go shoot at and spy on stuff, but they can’t do that with a big hole in their hulls.
I entirely agree that “fundamental” is different and a good choice here. If I had been reflecting about it more, perhaps “necessary and fundamental” might have come to mind.
And make no mistake, I did NOT intend to suggest that different primary mission as a justification for any errors like the unfortunate recent events. I was presuming to interpret what the author appeared to be suggesting in the article: that maybe the war fighting mindset that underlies the training and operational philosophy might explain some things. Which does not necessarily justify them.
It would appear that it explains why they don’t transmit on AIS, and thank God they have rethought that one a bit!
Thanks for the comment.
1 Like
Neither is any other ship. A survey ships primary mission is surveying, a tug is towing, a MSC tanker is unrep, etc.
As others have said, it certianly is fundamental, and being such should be held in the highest regard, especially when it is causing more damage than the enemy.
1 Like
Warships in general, and Destroyers in particular are synonymous with speed and manouevering. Being dead in the water is bad for business. Therefore safe navigation is very essential.
Thanks for the comic relief.
If a Navy ship can’t get from A to B then it isn’t worth much when B stands for Battle does it?
What you wrote is like saying that a fighter pilot’s job is to shoot down the enemy or drop bombs, not to know much about how to fly an airplane to the field of battle.
Willy JP used a double negative, He is saying safe navigation IS necessary.
Just going by what he wrote, not what he or someone else might think. Words have meanings, internet grammar is notoriously bad, and text does not convey feelings unless the words match them.
Maybe that is why emoticons were invented …
I understood, that he meant safe navigation IS Necessary.
I just felt it was MORE than necessary, that it was “fundamental.”
Shooting free throws is a fundamental of basketball. Imagine Shaq’s stats if he had ever learned that fundamental. Free throws were “Necessary” so he went through through motions.
That’s the difference to me.
Minor point, but tankers transport and oilers unrep.
OK. I"ll admit that, to say in an internet post: “Not to say that’s it’s not…” is a POOR way to say that something “IS”. Almost as bad as Bill Clinton under oath! I guess it’s more like something you’d say in face to face conversation, which has a lot more cues to meaning than a cold line of type!
So, YES, I DID mean that safe navigation IS necessary to the Navy’s mission. And in my further post I agreed with Diesel that “fundamental” was an even better choice of words to express what I was trying to say.
To maybe further explain my post, it wasn’t intended to grind the axe that “the Navy isn’t/can’t be concerned about safe navigation because it has a different mission.” Rather, it was mainly to share that interesting article, with a fascinating historical perspective (if you’re at all interested in Naval History) that appeared in the daily posts on the Naval Institute website.
I’m not sure, but it seemed to me that, in that article, the author, was trying to make the point that this “different mission” point of view of the Navy has adversely affected training and operational philosophy with respect to safety (of navigation and perhaps other things?). At least that was the point of the story about the RN’s disastrous loss of HMS Victoria in the 1890s and its possible echo at the Battle of Jutland.
Clearly, something’s wrong and needs to be fixed and, eventually it will be. Ordering the AIS transmit turned on in at least limited circumstances is one good step taken. In another thread here I posted some comments about the revival of the old idea of the “Sailing Master”, professional pilot/navigators. If the skipper and his ODs have too many other concerns to insure safe navigation, I personally think that sounds like a good idea.
2 Likes
The AIS issue is a red herring. All merchant ships are aware that warships are NOT REQUIRED to use AIS. There are a whole lot of small vessels that don’t transmit on AIS. But all vessels are REQUIRED to display steaming lights at night. It is therefore not possible for a merchant ship to avoid detecting the presence of a warship.
We have to wait for the investigation report to know the immediate cause and the root cause of the accidents.
1 Like
I agree with you 100% JP. I wasn’t trying to be the grammar police with my post either…just emphasizing that a return to the basics was needed. lol
1 Like