Operation Guardian

As you can see in the picture, the USS Guardian (MCM 5) has taken a pounding as she has been hard aground on the Tabbahata Reef. On the day this photograph was taken Rear Admiral Tom Carney told the media during a press conference the ship is approximately 20-30 meters from the edge with several hull penetrations, as you can see clearly in this photograph. Over the past several days I have been accumulating as much information as possible related to the USS Guardian (MCM 5) grounding, and unfortunately, there really isn't any good news to share except that no one has been hurt by the incident.

First, I think the Rear Admiral Tom Carney has done a great job. We often discuss the diplomatic role that naval power serves for the nation, and as the fleet disperses across the world naval officers often find themselves serving in the role of a diplomat. Given the overreaction by some in the Philippines it is clear that Rear Admiral Carney has executed his role as an American diplomat with nothing but class in the face of what is obviously a challenging situation. I also very much appreciate the assistance of several PAOs in helping me track down information related to the USS Guardian (MCM 5) situation - in particular LT Anthony Falvo and LCDR Christopher Servello.

As you might imagine when a wooden ship crashes into a coral reef at about 13 knots, the ship immediately got lodged into the coral and became unable to pull out. All indications are that the little wooden minesweeper simply didn't have the engine power to pull itself off the reef, but even if she would have had enough power, backing off the reef could have caused even more damage to the wooden hull and potentially ripped the ship apart further thus sinking her right there on the reef. From what i understand, the ship took on water almost immediately upon grounding. In many ways, this is a worse case scenario where a wooden ship meets coral and loses, where as a steel hulled vessel with more engine power likely would have suffered much less damage and would potentially have been able to dislodge itself.

USS Guardian (MCM 5) is flooded internally to the tide line, with the Auxiliary Machine Room and Pump Room completely flooded. There is coral underneath the hull in both the Auxiliary Machine Room and the Engine Room. The internal bulkhead between the Auxiliary Machine Room and the Engine Room is no longer water tight, and the several internal bulkheads are slowly losing integrity. There are also several cracks in the superstructure, and as you can see in the photo there are several holes in the hull along the length of the ship.

Because even US Navy ships made of wood are well built and engineered for survivability, and despite all the damage the ship has taken being stranded on the reef for over 10 days, no fuel apparently leaked from the fuel tanks, and the tug Vos Apollo has removed all of the fuel and replaced the fuel with seawater to keep the ship stable on the reef. All indications are that all hazardous materials have been removed from USS Guardian (MCM 5), and as of Saturday the ship was not in immediate danger of a catastrophic failure. The latest news today is that the Navy continues to remove everything possible from the ship that can be removed safely.

In a press conference on January 24, 2024 Rear Admiral Tom Carney told media the ship could not be towed off the reef or to port, indeed he specifically said the ship would likely sink if they tried. The ship must be lifted off the reef and carried via ship back to port. SMIT owns the NAVSEA 00C salvage contract for the Pacific region, and SMIT Borneo and SMIT Cyclone are reportedly en-route to USS Guardian (MCM 5) to salvage and recover the vessel. While the Navy is yet to publicly say so, the ship is almost certainly lost, and this will almost certainly be a salvage and recovery operation primarily designed to protect the Tabbahata Reefs National Park, and not recover the ship for future use.

On location is the guided missile destroyer USS Mustin (DDG 89) with embarked helo det; the oceanographic survey ship USNS Bowditch (T-AGS 62); the rescue and salvage ship USNS Salvor (T-ARS 52); M/V Trabajador; and the Malaysian tug VOS Apollo in supporting operations. P-3s from Commander Task Force 72 are also supporting with daily overflights. SMIT Cyclone (1,000-ton crane), the SMIT Borneo (500-ton crane), and the SMIT Andaman (barge) are en route from Singapore and should arrive on Friday. As of last week the Navy was also investigating the availability of Jasper 25 (PDF) for salvage and recovery operations, but I have not heard a status on that. Regardless, none of these crane vessels will be capable of lifting Guardian intact, which again informs us where this is likely going.

For those interested in the digital map issue, several in this community have been contributing to this discussion over at Panbo. Not only is the post interesting, but the comments are very informative.

Submaine Collision in the Arabian Gulf

YOKOSUKA, Japan (Nov. 15, 2012) The Los Angeles-class fast attack submarine USS Jacksonville (SSN 699) moored at Fleet Activities Yokosuka. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communications Specialist 1st Class David Mercil/Released)

This happened yesterday.

No one was hurt when the periscope on USS Jacksonville (SSN 699), a Los Angeles-class submarine, struck a vessel while operating in the Arabian Gulf Jan. 10 at approximately 5 a.m. local time.

Jacksonville surfaced from periscope depth to ascertain if there was any damage to the unidentified vessel. The vessel continued on a consistent course and speed offering no indication of distress or acknowledgement of a collision.

Damage appears to be limited to one of Jacksonville's two periscopes. The reactor remains in a safe condition, there was no damage to the propulsion plant systems and there is no concern regarding watertight integrity.

A U.S. P-3 Orion aircraft conducted a search of the area and saw no debris in the water or vessels in distress. The airborne search of the area is complete.

The incident is under investigation.

Jacksonville is on a scheduled deployment to the U.S. 5th Fleet Area of Responsibility.

After the submarine got hit, they tried to raise the first periscope and could not, so they raised the second periscope and were able to ascertain a bit of understanding of the damage before surfacing.

Due to accidents, the number of submarines in the force able to report as fully prepared is steadily dropping in number. This marks the third nuclear attack submarine put out of action due to damage in an accident; USS Miami (SSN 755), USS Montpelier (SSN 765), and now USS Jacksonville (SSN 699); all in the last 10 months.

While USS Jacksonville (SSN 699) hasn't officially been sent home from deployment yet, unless the Navy is able to completely mitigate the damage, the submarine will likely be sent home. Even the slightest damage to one of our nuclear attack submarines can disrupt the stealth advantage of the submarine, and because they do dangerous work every day that no one should be talking about publicly, I do expect for the Navy to send the submarine back to homeport in Pearl Harbor.

The littorals are becoming more crowded. It is not unreasonable to assume this type of accident will happen from time to time, indeed it is probably more unreasonable to assume that every single instance of something like this happening can be mitigated by the vessels crew.

With that said, with the zero-tolerance policy environment for Commanding Officers of ships, submarines, and aircraft in the US Navy today, I suspect the career of the CO is likely over. I personally find sympathy with both sides of the argument regarding whether the policy is good or bad for the Navy, and I can't say the verdict regarding the effectiveness of that policy is cut and dry.

Collision in the Strait of Hormuz

The following is the official US Navy release on the collision of USS Porter (DDG 78) and the Japanese owned bulk oil tanker M/V Otowasan.

No one was hurt Sunday morning when a U.S. Navy guided missile destroyer and a large Japanese owned merchant vessel collided near the Strait of Hormuz.

The collision between USS Porter (DDG 78) and the Panamanian-flagged bulk oil tanker M/V Otowasan occurred at approximately 1:00 a.m. local time.

Porter transited under its own power to Jebel Ali, UAE and is now pierside for assessment and repair.

The incident is under investigation.

USS Porter is on a scheduled deployment to the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility conducting maritime security operations and theater security cooperation efforts.

5th Fleet has released a short video on YouTube of the damage. More pictures are here. That second picture appears to show some water being pumped out, some sort of flooding control from broken pipes maybe?

Check this out from AIS.

That has to be about the location of the incident, but that is very odd considering the damage on the destroyer was on the starboard front. The last AIS report before it pulled that Crazy Ivan maneuver above was 14.1 knots heading 74 degrees at 12:51am. At 12:55am the ship was slowed to 9.7 knots heading 122 degrees, so presumably the collision had already occurred? If you zoom in you can see see the track where a small box forms, which may be the area where the destroyer came to a full stop and the tanker circles around the ship passing behind, across the port side for a bit, then circles around and passes in front of the destroyer before resuming course.

The destroyer is underway under her own power. USS Porter (DDG 78) is one of the few east coast ballistic missile defense capable AEGIS destroyers and is scheduled to be homeported in Rota, Spain in the future. Neither the destroyer nor the tanker is reporting any leaks as a result of the collision.

This was the weather forecast, but I am not sure where to find reliable weather data for that point and time. Depending upon conditions visibility can get rough this time of year there at 1:00am in the morning.

I am very curious if there was Iranian small boat activity at the time, whether there were any squalls, and if the surface search radars on the ship were functioning properly. The lack of situational awareness in hindsight of this incident suggests some explaining is necessary, because one would think a modern US Navy AEGIS destroyer could avoid ramming a 300,000 ton super tanker that reportedly has 95% of her 2 million barrels of fuel loaded and is apparently using AIS.

It is a great thing no one was injured. It is also worth pointing out that if a 300,000 ton ship rams a 9000 ton ship that isn't as well built as a US Navy destroyer, there is a very good chance that other ship probably sinks.

Hornet Engine Explosion on USS John C. Stennis

I suspect that by the time most of you read this, the Navy will have more information out in the media. Until then, from the Washington Post.

A jet fighter’s engine exploded and caught fire Wednesday as it prepared to take off from an aircraft carrier off California, injuring 10 sailors, the military said.

The F/A-18C Hornet was starting a training exercise when the accident occurred about 2:50 p.m. on the flight deck of the USS John C. Stennis, according to Cmdr. Pauline Storum.

Four sailors were flown to Naval Medical Center San Diego where they were in stable condition. The six others were treated for burn injuries on board the carrier. None of the injuries was life threatening, Storum said.

The pilot was not hurt.

The fire was quickly extinguished, and there was no significant damage to the ship, Storum said. The cause of the fire was under investigation.

Storum said the Hornet sustained at least a million dollars’ worth of damage.

First and foremost, lets keep these sailors in our prayers this morning.

USS New Orleans in Dry Dock

I posted some pictures here you may want to see.

Navy Ships Collide in Strait of Hormuz - Updated -Bumped

Early reporting, so the details may or may not be accurate.

A US Navy submarine and a US amphibious vessel collided in the Strait of Hormuz on Friday leaving 15 sailors slightly injured, the US Navy Fifth Fleet said.

"The collision between USS Hartford (SSN 768) and USS New Orleans (LPD 18) occurred at approximately 1:00 am local time (2030 GMT on Thursday)," the Bahrain-based navy command said.

"Fifteen sailors aboard the Hartford were slightly injured and returned to duty. No personnel aboard New Orleans were injured," it added.

Middle of the night. The condition of the submarine at the time of the accident, on the surface or submerged, will be an interesting detail to watch for. UNCLOS implications there you know.

Updated: As you might expect, the submarine kicked the amphibious ships ass. From the DoD press statement:

Overall damage to both ships is being evaluated. The propulsion plant of the submarine was unaffected by this collision. A fuel tank ruptured on the New Orleans, which resulted in an oil spill of about 25,000 gallons of fuel. Both ships are currently operating under their own power.

Not a good day. We just dumped oil on Iran's front lawn.

Is it time to be superstitious? Is the entire San Antonio class cursed?

Update2: Good discussion over at bubblehead's place. He has some early professional speculation.

Obviously, there are no specifics out yet, but if the submarine had that many people injured, it's safe to assume she was going faster that you might expect a submarine to go at periscope depth; or, if she was at PD, that she got spun over fairly far onto her side before righting herself.

He says he is at PD. Translation: he'll have more as details unfold.

Update3: Navy Times has a damage report.

Campbell said initial assessments showed two ballast tanks on New Orleans were ruptured, resulting in seawater flooding that required the ship to be stabilized. A fuel tank was also ruptured, causing an estimated 25,000 gallons of marine diesel fuel to spill into the gulf.

“She had flooding in three distinct compartments,” Campbell said. “The flooding is secure, and the ship is making way on her own power.”

P-3 Orion aircraft flew over the area looking for a sheen of spilled oil, but “there’s no indication of that,” she said.

Hartford suffered “visible” damage to the sail and to a bow plane. Campbell could not say if components of the sail such as masts and periscopes are damaged.

More at Navy Times. Sounds like it has been a busy day at the damage control locker on New Orleans. Wasn't the USS Mesa Verfe (LPD 19) the first San Antonio class to have a shock test? Early lessons for a class of ship that can't seem to catch a break.

More on Port Royal Damage

AP report on Port Royal damage.

The U.S. Pacific Fleet on Friday said propeller blades, the sonar dome and underwater hull were among the damaged parts of the guided-missile cruiser USS Port Royal.

It says the ship sustained between $25 million to $40 million in damages when the warship ran aground on a coral reef for three days.

Navy officials dispute a report Monday by The Navy Times that a Navy preliminary assessment cited the ship's damaged ballistic missile defense capabilities.

Previous discussion regarding the Navy Times article here. If you recall, the Navy Times article was important because it noted a shortage of maintenance funding. It would have been nice if officials would have addressed that issue.

Expensive.

Port Royal Damage Serious, Raises Maintenance Concerns

The USS Port Royal (CG 73) grounding is going to be expensive, at least I expect it to be. There are a lot of things that can get damaged when a ship goes aground, and tries to pull itself off the coral reef several days in row. A lot of the damage being reported by Navy Times in this article makes sense, but some of the damage bothers me a bit.

The hatches of the forward and aft vertical launch cells, which hold Port Royal’s arsenal of missiles, were damaged as the ship’s hull rolled and flexed with the waves.

The antennae and other equipment on the ship’s mast endured “severe shock” as the ship rolled on its reef. The shocks also affected the alignment of Port Royal’s Aegis radar arrays and other sensitive gear, costing the ship the use of its Aegis sensors as well as its ballistic-missile defense capability.

The VLS damage has me wondering if we are seeing an unfortunate side effect of VLS as opposed to rail launcher system, and I would appreciate some expert opinions on this. VLS is very economical for space, and allows the Navy to increase the weapon payload of our ships. Will this make opening all the VLS hatches a standard procedure for future groundings? Would we have seen a similar problem with a rail system? Shock and buckling from a ship being flexed isn't unique to being grounding, the effect of many weapon systems hitting a ship would produce the same effect.

The the article goes on to note something I had previously missed.

After the grounding, all surface ships were tasked with completing a series of internal reviews by Feb. 27, in a safety standdown ordered by Naval Surface Force commander Vice Adm. D.C. Curtis. The review was prompted by the cruiser mishap and the loss of a sailor during a boat-lowering operation in the Middle East earlier that week.

The crews of other ships have watched with trepidation to see how much money it would take to repair the Port Royal, said a second retired cruiser captain. The unexpected repair bill could get so high that it could draw money from other ships, forcing them to scale back or postpone scheduled maintenance.

A further complication was a Feb. 2 order — which came three days before the Port Royal grounding — that froze all maintenance spending for surface ships. The Navy had deferred about $450 million in payments, but Navy spokesmen would not say why.

With INSURV information being classified, it sure becomes easier for the Navy to conceal any side effects that come from deferring $450 million in maintenance spending for surface ships. I believe the current CG and DDG forces are the most important ships to the future Navy, particularly now that the Navy intends for them to serve 40 years. The material condition of those ships matters a great deal, and preventing the public from knowing the material condition of our ships with INSURV information insures that we do not get valid information that results from policy changes related to maintenance funding.

The bigger problem is Congress doesn't get good information either. Lets face it, unless they ask for it specifically, they will be unfortunate victims of the 'failed to mention that' syndrome that always trumps full disclosure.

Interesting News Story - Check the Details

Air Force Times has an interesting story. There are a ton of things to think about in what is otherwise a very short news report.

An unmanned aerial vehicle crashed Sunday in Iraq, according to the Air Force.

The crash of the MQ-1 Predator, flown out of Joint Base Balad, occurred at 4:30 p.m. after an Air National Guard crew lost communications with the remote-controlled plane. The wreckage was discovered about 45 minutes later.

The crash is the second of a Predator this month. An Air Force special operations MQ-1 went down Feb. 8 in Afghanistan.

The Predator is designed to continue flying on auto-pilot if it is not able to receive directions from crew members on the ground. However, often a communications loss is the result of mechanical or electrical problems that the auto-pilot cannot handle, resulting in a crash.

An accident investigation board will look into what led to the loss of the plane, worth about $3.5 million.

Note the cost of the aircraft. Note the reason for the crash. Note the most likely causes for communication loss.

Anyone know where to find good records for accident rates of the Predator? I bet it has a great flight time record based on number of hours since the aircraft actually flies a whole bunch of hours in one sortie. I would be curious to know for sure though.

This technology may still have a long way to go to replace traditional aircraft, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't stay focused on developing the future. I still say the X-47B is more important to the long term future of naval aviation than the F-35C.

The X-47B is decades away from being any sort of replacement for the F-35C, but should never be considered an optional program for carrier aviation. The learning curve for the X-47B will be very steep, best to start the journey now.

Russia Leaks Oil Off UK Coast

I would ask where the Royal Navy was during this little incident just off the UK coast, but that would be salt in wounds at this point. From the AP:

Irish authorities said Tuesday they are monitoring a major oil spill that is drifting toward the Irish coast — the largest spill in the waters around Ireland in a decade.

The Irish Marine Department said the oil slick was discovered close to where a Russian aircraft carrier was refueling in the Celtic Sea between western Britain and the southern coast of Ireland.

The department said Tuesday it was too early to predict how much of the spill, thought to be around 500 tons (3,750 barrels), will come ashore. The oil slick is about three miles long and three miles wide.

Environmental groups aren't happy, rightfully so. I appreciate the absurdity of the Russian response.

Russia's chief of general staff Gen. Nikolai Marakov confirmed that a Russian aircraft carrier had refueled in the area but denied there had been any problems.

"We have no reason to think that anything went wrong during refueling," he told reporters.

The pictures seem to suggest something went very wrong. The deployment of the Admiral Kuznetsov has been mostly quiet by Russian domestic propaganda standards, suggesting they are taking their deployments more seriously than a simple domestic news production. Ever since the fire during an exercise earlier this year it has been very quiet in the English press regarding the activities of the Russian aircraft carrier.

It is noteworthy the Admiral Kuznetsov does not appear to have an escort home from its Med deployment, with the ships previous escort RFS Admiral Vinogradov (DDG 572) being sent to fight pirates. There was news of an emergency deployment of RFS Admiral Chabanenko (DDG 650) to the Med theater, but I have not seen any news regarding where the ship was sent to. Based on the pictures above produced by the European Maritime Safety Agency, RFS Admiral Chabanenko (DDG 650) does not appear to be with the carrier.

What are the odds the Russians will help with the costs of cleaning up their oil spill should it wash up on the Irish coast? I'd wager somewhere between slim and none, trending none.

Applying the Perfect Standard... Inconsistently

That didn't take long.

The commanding officer of the cruiser Port Royal was sacked Monday, only hours after salvage ships pulled his cruiser off the shoal where it had been stuck since Thursday night.

Capt. John Carroll was “temporarily relieved of command pending the results of the ongoing investigation to determine the cause of the ship’s grounding,” according to a Navy announcement.

Capt. John Lauer III, with Naval Surface Group Middle Pacific, will temporarily take over as the Port Royal’s skipper.

If only we had a zero tolerance policy when it came to the money the Navy spends on shipbuilding boondoggles, but incredibly no one ever gets relieved of command for that.

Put a dent worth a few million into one of the ships in the current fleet, and you will be fired. Blow billions in taxpayer money in poor requirements planning and enormous cost overruns for the future fleet, and you'll make Flag.

I'm not saying I necessarily have a problem with the decision in this case, just saying there appears to be inconsistency regarding the standards set by leadership in managing failures in Command across the entire Navy.

Port Royal Pulled Free

USS Port Royal (CG 73) has been pulled off the sand. Nice bit of reporting at Navy Times by Phillip Ewing, giving us some of the information I know people here are interested in.

He said the Navy knows the ship’s rubber sonar dome was damaged in the grounding, but he didn’t know how badly, nor how many other problems the grounding may have caused. A lighter barge brought alongside over the weekend was also slammed by waves against the Port Royal’s side, although it wasn’t clear whether that damage was serious.

To lighten the ship enough to pull it off the rocks, engineers emptied the cruiser’s tanks of seawater pumped in to compensate for the fuel oil burned by its engines. The ship also jettisoned its anchors and anchor chains, and offloaded more than 100 crew members, Gureck said. Then the Military Sealift Command salvage ship Salvor, the powerful tug Dove — which is used to tow the Sea-Based X-Band radar — and seven other Navy and civilian tugs worked at high tide for 40 minutes early Monday to pull the Port Royal off the rocks.

The article goes on to mention Rear Adm. Dixon Smith apparently went on the ship on Friday, after the grounding, to take charge of the salvage operations.

The ship had to remove 600 tons of stuff to be pulled free, and will be put into dry dock next week after a damage assessment.

Good job to those who pulled the ship loose. Most importantly, no injuries.

Observing the Salvage of US Airways Flight 1549

A little photo album from the salvage operation in the Hudson.

Official USCG Video of US Airways Flight 1549 Crash

The USCG has released 10 minutes of video, including the crash itself (wait for it...) of US Airways Flight 1549.

I think this video highlights the skill and training of the professional merchant mariners who responded and saved lives.

Also check out this USCG coxswain has he gives his account of the situation when he arrived on scene. I think he notes an important point, the larger ferry's made a huge impact in the effort because they could hold more passengers than the smaller boats operated by the Coast Guard and local law enforcement agencies.

Observing US Airways Flight 1549

The blog i'm not sayin, i'm just sayin has put together a flight plan of US Airways Flight 1549 using the live flight tracking log at flightaware.com. According to the various news reports, less than a minute after takeoff the Airbus A320 apparently ran into a flock of birds somewhere over the Bronx Zoo. With engines in trouble and eventually going dead, the flight path indicates the aircraft first positioned itself over the Hudson River, then appears to have avoided the George Washington bridge intentionally before centering itself over the Hudson again.

Looking at this graphic fills in extra spaces regarding the situational awareness, composure, and skill of the pilot the press and passengers are appropriately labeling a hero. While the pilot, Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, no doubt developed these skills during his seven years as a F-4 pilot in the Air Force, in examining his resume over at the Smoking Gun I couldn't help but note this is a man who has dedicated the majority of his life to be one of the best in his trade. He has clearly demonstrated that in the critical moments that define life and death for not only him, but his crew and passengers, he is exactly that.

Sector New York of the US Coast Guard is fully engaged as part of the Federal response. Commandant Thad Allen has updated his blog with a comment on the aircraft ditching:

Just left the Command Center and conference call with Sector New York. If you are following on television you can see that we have a number of small boats on scene as well as CGC RIDLEY. Passengers are being transported to Chelsea Piers where we are trying to account for all on board. I just briefed Secretary Chertoff and he is fully aware of the extent and status of the operation. We continue to monitor operations. Our personnel are responding in a professional manner and we can all be proud.

According to Jim Dolbow of the Unofficial Coast Guard Blog, in addition to the USCGC Ridley (WPB 87328) acting as the on-scene commander, two USCG 25-foo response boats and 3 HH-65 helicopters were used in the rescue operation. He also reports a 47-foot lifeboat from Sandy Hook, NJ was being deployed as of 5:00pm.

From the various news reports I have read, you have to be very impressed with the quality of the Airbus A320. Apparently aircraft integrity was not compromised, the aircraft was able to maintain buoyancy and no water was in the passenger area even after the crash landing on the river. From the interviews I have read, the aircraft did not begin to take on water in the passenger area until after the side doors were opened to get people off the plane.

Enough praise for the New York and New Jersey first responders cannot be given. The pilot was able to save all passengers with the landing, but in the frigid Hudson on a cold New York day, that was not the end of the danger. One thing that stands out to me is how the first responder training paid off through the rapid response and all indications are it was a joint agency response at every level, and it is noteworthy the cooperation between two states, the city, the port authority, the Coast Guard, not to mention the city emergency services. The swift response by those emergency responders saved lives.

Check out the DoD discussing the pilot.

Karma in Somalia

Sounds like bad joo joo, according to the AP.

Five of the Somali pirates who released a hijacked oil-laden Saudi supertanker drowned with their share of a reported $3 million ransom after their small boat capsized, a pirate and a relative of one of the dead men said Saturday.

Pirate Daud Nure said the boat with eight people on board overturned in a storm after dozens of pirates left the Sirius Star following a two-month standoff in the Gulf of Aden that ended Friday.

He said five people died and three people reached shore after swimming for several hours. Daud Nure was not part of the pirate operation but knew those involved.

Abukar Haji, the uncle of one of the dead men, said the deaths were an accident.

"The boat the pirates were traveling in capsized because it was running at high speed because the pirates were afraid of an attack from the warships patrolling around," he said.

If the last sentence is true, then CTF-151 has successfully eliminated 5 pirates by apparently scaring them to death. The MV Sirius Star $3 million ransom was one of the largest to date. It is unlikely the survivors were able to bring much to shore.

Considering all the pictures of the money drop on the US Navy website, what are the odds that we were watching the pirates flee the tanker? Pretty good I'd bet.

In other words, the coalition forces were almost certainly watching the pirates and saw the accident occur, then intentionally decided for whatever reason not to offer any assistance. Is it inhumane to let pirates drown? Did we intentionally not help them knowing that we would end up with pirate prisoners? Don't dismiss that last part, the political and legal framework is so confusing it is probably an easy decision for a Naval officer to let pirates drown and die than rescue them and put them in jail.

Should we send a submarine with some divers and look around for the money? There could be quite a bit of money down there. I'm sure we watched the accident via UAV, so we followed the money right? Things that make you go hmm....

The Inside View of the Bridge Wing

Some additional pictures to go with the damage displayed in this post. This is what it looks like from the inside.
This is the view of the starboard side, the way it should look.

Like I said, it isn't very serious.

The Navy's Unforgivable Sin

Uh oh.

The Navy says the Norfolk-based destroyer Barry is being inspected for damage after it ran aground in the Black Sea.

Officials say the ship ran aground Thursday as it was preparing to dock at a port in Turkey. Tugs were able to free the ship with assistance from Turkish coast guard divers and is moored at the Samsun pier.

The Navy expects the ship to be able to continue its trip. An investigation into the incident also is planned.

Good luck Commander. The recent record of these incidents has led to a 100% command replacement policy. You know, because no where in history has an effective officer in the US Navy run a ship aground...

Oh wait, ...nevermind.

Update: The Phillip Ewing article in Navy Times gives one hope.

The destroyer was being maneuvered by tugs in the Black Sea port of Samsun, Turkey, when the aft section of the ship became caught on a sand bar, said Cmdr. Scott Miller, a 6th Fleet spokesman. No one was hurt.

And...

A Turkish harbor pilot was aboard the Barry when the ship grounded, according to a Pentagon official, but it isn’t clear if the pilot was in charge of navigating the ship or the ship’s crew was in control.

If the Turks ran our destroyer aground in their own harbor, it is hard to blame the CO. One would think. I still hate this policy, perhaps it has been the COs fault every single time, but that says more about widespread procedure problems in the Navy than just the competence of the ship COs to command their ship.

And btw, both TheCustodian and I are surprised no one caught this in the link above to the CDRs bio: "United States Pacific Fleet Shiphandler Award."

George Washington Fire FOIA Docs

Only going to make a few comments, and I'll let others weigh in on the findings themselves.

The Navy has done the right thing making these documents available. If I had one complaint, it would be that Admiral Robert F. Willard has a blog and doesn't use it to give an opinion or guidance on this rather important topic. When your name is in the media on a subject, and the subject is a $100+ million dollar screw up in the Navy where your name is signed, one would figure that is when a blog would be useful for comment.

I feel pretty confident that upon review, more than a few Navy bloggers will show him how Web 2.0 has an important role in this area of discussion.

Before you comment however, I would encourage a thorough read of the fire investigation and the investigation addendum. Don't stop half way through, because they both end strong...

Give credit to the Pacific fleet for strong follow through by releasing these documents. If I was CO on the forward deployed carrier, I would make it clear that the Chinese are reading the Navy's own conclusion regarding how poor the GWs DC capabilities are, just to make sure the point hits home.

USS Houston's Radioactive Water Leak

There is an interesting story being covered by some of the media, It would appear the USS Houston (SSN 713) has been leaking radioactive water, and no one is quite sure for how long. The leak was apparently discovered while the USS Houston undergoes routine maintenance in Pearl Harbor. We start with the Navy Times coverage of the story.

One of the shut valves associated with the boat’s propulsion system was “weeping” water at a rate higher than design specifications, he said.

“At no time was there any risk to the reactor plant, the safety of the crew or the safety of the public,” he said.

For context, he said the amount of radioactivity released was “less than the quantity of naturally occurring radioactivity in a bag of common lawn and garden fertilizer.”

One can hear the conspiracy theories now, but instead of looking what the conspiracy theory specialists are saying, we turn to the professionals to get a reaction. Joel Kennedy, who also got hit by the Google Gremlins, came online and jumped on the topic. You have to love bubbleheads, they have their own language when talking about what they can't talk about.

While us nukes know that this really isn't that big a deal, we really can't talk about it in the open like this. All of us know where the leak came from (it's obvious they weren't using the "drum" this time) but any discussion of coolant discharge is pretty much covered by NNPI, so we can't go there. For example, until this post, there's only one Google return for the search "coolant discharge log"; luckily for me, it's from an official Navy site (Vol. VI, Chapter 25, Para. 25.2.4 of the JFMM), but it only says that the discharge log can be used to determine the number of days in-port or in drydock for URO periodicity determination -- that brief mention at least allows me to mention that such a document exists.

As Joel goes on to note, and as a few readers have mentioned in email, the discharge log is one of the most audited administrative logs on a nuclear submarine. This is an example of how radioactive accidents can happen on US nuclear powered submarines, but they don't quite reach the level of hype that conspiracy theories would have one believe. Unfortunately, there will not be a three eyed offspring from a sailor currently serving on the USS Houston (SSN 713), much to the disappointment of the Sci-Fi channel B-movie makers.

A number of sub bloggers are covering this issue. Chap has full spectrum coverage, and Checks with Charts has an interesting take on this. The Sub Report is also covering, and has a link to this Seattle Times article noting the US Navy has alerted Japan that the leak could have been occurring during a recent visit by the USS Houston (SSN 713).