I have to wonder: To which extent would this have been sanctioned or ordered by high command? Would the captain of the DD572 have been furnished with orders to the effect of “Seek out and harass a US warship, preferably trading some paint” or would it have been more like “Loiter and show 'em who is boss”?
An exercise in trying to “mushroom stamp” the other guy that will eventually end in people’s deaths if it keeps up. For what?
1 Like
Either way, if not by direct order the captains (COs) aren’t doing it without tacit approval from their superiors.
2 Likes
Hard to tell for sure but by the wake it looks like the Russian Destroyer might have goosed it, the decay of the wake is not gradual. It also looks like there was a course change before that, further back from where the wake gets suddenly more prominent.
Also from the bow wave the russian is moving considerable faster.
2 Likes
Plain to see who the aggressor is. Lying sacks of bat guano.
2 Likes
I was having similar thoughts to KC. Very good driving if he is right. Exactly on the aft/stb sector line so they can claim crossing vessel.
Looking carefully at the photo, I think the Russian was running parallel to the US, then turned to port and later corrected to stb and accelerated.
I am surprised they don’t have some sort of recording of the radar plot.
Been there, done that myself… I will assume you were on a TAGOS. Had those Pueblo thoughts more than once, especially off N. Korea.
Y’know, maybe we’re looking at this through the wrong lens.
Like, perhaps Ivan was practicing UNREP’s…
From CG62 to IVAN DD: “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. “Romeo” is at the dip, not closed up.”
From Ivan: “Commencing my approach”. My “Romeo” closed up."
From CG62: “Emergency breakaway”. . .
See. That narrative could fit the pictures. . . 
2 Likes
Again…none of us were there. It’s real fuzzy about who was overtaking (or not) and who had right away, if in fact there was an overtaking situation…or not.
Which leads me back to the original question; Why do nothing? US ship had options. Obviously the Russians were the aggressors. But to claim “We were engaged in Helo recovery Op’s!” sounds a bit wimpish to me. Then they kept going in a straight line while Russians danced around them.
What’s more important? Recovering the Helo and crashing ship? Or delaying the recovery and keeping ship and crew safe and afloat?
With all due respect to the men and women out there onboard the US Navy ships…what are they being taught at school? And by who? Are US Navy SW officers just being taught the same old bad ideas by people who learned the same old bad ideas years before them? I have zero confidence that the Navy is making any earnest attempt at wholesale change in training and education of OODs and NOT only how to navigate and handle a ship, but what to do to avoid these childish games…which will continue as long as the Russians (and more Chinese in the future) are lead to believe that the American OODs will continue to choose not to engage and steer straight ahead. Or in this case, as has been reported, go to “Back Full” and let Ivan pass ahead.
It’s a test. The game is started by them. When will we learn to play…to win? Or can we?
1 Like
I don’t quite see what you mean. It seems to me that the captain did exactly what was needed to keep his ship and crew safe and afloat. Exactly what course of action do you propose would have been better suited to avoid these childish games?
It looks like the U.S. won this round, with no harm done and the Russians looking to all the world like juvenile bullies.
1 Like
The DDG should have put one across his bow.
Yeah, I am sure that would have shown who had the bigger dick and done a lot of good.
2 Likes
The US ship could simply have turned to port and avoided being that close alongside another vessel, regardless of the Russians ’intentions’
Why was it necessary (in the mind of the US CO or OOD) to hold his course and speed?
In fact, the COLREGS require that even the stand on vessel take action if you think a situation of ”in extremis” is developing. So even from that standpoint, the US vessel didn’t do the right thing.
1 Like
“Why do nothing? …what are they being taught at school?”
There was/is a ‘military reason’ for USA not avoiding at say 2nm. If you do that, you allow the Russian ships to herd you, away from your operations. . . . turn you away from anti-sub sweep, or in an extreme case, a couple of russians vessels could turn an entire carrier fleet away from its destination.
The colregs don’t address that because it does not envision vessels having a desire/incentive to force/pick and roll others off course. But the colregs also do not state a specific distance to avoid because this differs by vessel and situation, and these are two quite maneuverable vessels with (presumably) fully manned bridges, so the risk of a collision close in is rather less than in a typical commercial situation (putting aside the US navy’s spate of incompetence for a moment).
4 Likes
”…so the risk of a collision close in is rather less than in a typical commercial situation (putting aside the US navy’s spate of incompetence for a moment)…”
Precisely. I was trying to avoid bringing all that up. But it underscores my greater point. Foreign naval officers have every reason to believe US navy OOD’s are ’barely’ qualified to be at the conn. The repeated ”bullying” at sea reinforces their belief.
People can disagree. But the evidence is all there.
Gotcha. I thought you meant wimpy as in “not sufficiently assertive towards the Russians” 
There’s another angle to consider, though. He had a bird in the air burning fuel at a constant rate, and a belligerent Russian playing bumper boats. It must have been in his highest interest to get the heli back on board ASAP, not knowing how far the Russian was going to go on his first approach and how many goes he was up for.
1 Like
Unless playing the poltical and face saving angle was more important than recovering the helo, all stop was an option.
Stop the ship and recover the helo. If the Russian kept screwing with them the video would have been much more embarrassing for the Russians than the Navy.
For helo ops I recall 30/30 as a general rule of thumb. Thirty kts of wind 30 degrees on the bow. Ship maintains steady course and speed.
Other less optimal solutions work as well of course.
Any time a helicopter is aloft the ship with the ready deck considers herself restricted in her ability to maneuver. In reality an aircraft can be launched and stay aloft for hours while the ship maneuvers freely while claiming to be RAM.
If the aircraft were being launched or recovered, or on deck with its blades spinning, then that’s a real dangerous time for course changes. But if the ship with the ready deck was RAM by virtue of her aircraft simply being aloft then it could be considered ‘cheating’ the rules of the road just as a sailboat operating on sails and engine could be ‘cheating’ the rules if she simply wanted to be the stand on vessel and cut her engines off just to make it so.
I’ve seen the ‘RAM because my aircraft is aloft’ used many times.
I’m not saying this incident was or was not that case. I’m just commenting on your question.
3 Likes