Naval News From Around the World VI

Member for

7 years 3 months

Posts: 58

Damage to four merchant ships in UAE waters.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48264499

Obviously no confirmation who/how or what caused the damage but can't help to raise already heighted tensions in the area.

Interestingly after months of training to integrate with the Abraham Lincoln CSG, the attached Spanish frigate has been withdrawn at the request of the Spanish Government after just a couple of days in the 5th Fleet area.

"For the moment the frigate Mendez Nunez has left the combat group," a defence ministry spokesman told the AFP news agency. "It's a temporary withdrawal... as long as the American aircraft carrier is in this zone."

Profile picture for user LMFS

Member for

1 year 9 months

Posts: 484

Some fun at China Sea, almost made the third accident where a USN Destroyer was involved:

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2019/06/07/us-russia-navy-destroyers-near-collision-incident-video-vpx.cnn

Unfortunately for the opinion defended by US side, there are things called nautical rules that regulate how to handle such situations, and they state clearly that the Russian ship had the preference and should keep course and speed, while the US one should have taken early and substantial action to avoid the collision. But I guess reporting the USN vessel was behaving lawlessly instead of using the opportunity to take a cheap shot at the Russians would be anti-patriotic or something. Incredibly they don't know or cant report the essential regulatory frame which is the most basic starting point to clarify the incident.

From Moon of Alabama:

The Handbook of Nautical Rules lists as the International Maritime Organization Rule 15: [INDENT]When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel.[/INDENT]
The book explains further:
[INDENT]Rule 15 requires the vessel that has the other on its starboard side to stay out of the way, and to pass behind. The vessel on the right becomes the stand-on vessel and must follow Rule 17 (Action by Stand-on Vessel). The vessel on the left becomes the give-way vessel and must follow Rule 16 (Action by Give-way Vessel).
...
The give-way vessel is required (if the circumstances of the case admit) to pass behind the stand-on vessel and so a turn to starboard would be in order. To keep the area to the left of the stand-on vessel clear for the give-way vessel's maneuvers, Rule 17 directs the stand-on vessel to refrain from turning to port.[/INDENT]
Rule 16 says: [INDENT]Every vessel which is directed to keep out of the way of another vessel shall, so far as possible, take early and substantial action to keep well clear.[/INDENT]
and Rule 17: [INDENT]Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way the other shall keep her course and speed.

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/06/us-navy-cruiser-ignored-rules-at-sea-caused-near-collision-with-russian-destroyer-.html#more[/INDENT]

Member for

7 years 3 months

Posts: 58

Except in this case it doesn't look anything like a crossing situation (one covered by Rule 15), but rather with the Russian ship approaching from astern, it seems much more like an overtaking situation (one covered by Rule 13).

R

ule 13 (Overtaking)
(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules of Part B, Sections I and II, any vessel overtaking any other shall keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken. (b) A vessel shall be deemed to be overtaking when coming up with another vessel from a direction more than 22.5° abaft her beam, that is, in such a position with reference to the vessel she is overtaking, that at night she would be able to see only the sternlight of that vessel but neither of her sidelights.
(c) When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether she is overtaking another, she shall assume that this is the case and act accordingly.
(d) Any subsequent alteration of the bearing between the two vessels shall not make the overtaking vessel a crossing vessel within the meaning of these Rules or relieve her of the duty of keeping clear of the overtaken vessel until she is finally past and clear.

Additionally there is more to Rule 17 than just section (a)(i) that you quoted above.

Rule 17 (Action by stand-on vessel)

(a)
[INDENT] (i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way the other shall keep her course and speed.
[/INDENT] [INDENT] (ii) The latter vessel may, however, take action to avoid collision by her manoeuvre alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these Rules.
[/INDENT] (b) When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.
(c) A power-driven vessel which takes action in a crossing situation in accordance with subparagraph (a)(ii) of this Rule to avoid collision with another power-driven vessel shall, if the circumstances at the case admit, not alter course to port for a vessel on her own port side.
(d) This Rule does not relieve the give-way vessel of her obligation to keep out of the way.

Which basically states that it is every ships responsibility to avoid collision. So whether an overtaking situation or a crossing situation, both ships are at fault for allowing themselves to get that close. The Collision Regulation rules leave no doubt on the fact that there is no such thing as a collision that is 100% the fault of one ship.

Regards,

Steve

Profile picture for user LMFS

Member for

1 year 9 months

Posts: 484

Good points, thanks.

I guess we would need evidence (that is traces on radar, recordings etc.) to know which of both situations was (which was the exact bearing when the crossing / overtaking started) and what was really going on with the ships speeds, courses and communications. Sadly we are not seeing anything of the like and only a lot of noise. Hopefully we will see a proper debriefing.

As to Rule 17, well, it was applied in the end which avoided the collision, even when unnecessarily late.

Profile picture for user paralay

Member for

14 years 3 months

Posts: 1,344

The crew of the cruiser USS Chancellorsville (CG 62) once again proved its incompetence...

https://news.usni.org/2014/06/27/document-investigation-uss-chancellorsville-drone-strike

[ATTACH=JSON]{"alt":"Click image for larger version Name:\td6UxGEAa8j0.jpg Views:\t0 Size:\t85.1 KB ID:\t3864831","data-align":"none","data-attachmentid":"3864831","data-size":"full","title":"d6UxGEAa8j0.jpg"}[/ATTACH]

Attachments
Profile picture for user roberto_yeager

Member for

13 years 9 months

Posts: 946

The crew of the cruiser USS Chancellorsville (CG 62) once again proved its incompetence...

https://news.usni.org/2014/06/27/document-investigation-uss-chancellorsville-drone-strike

[ATTACH=JSON]{"alt":"Click image for larger version Name:\td6UxGEAa8j0.jpg Views:\t0 Size:\t85.1 KB ID:\t3864831","data-align":"none","data-attachmentid":"3864831","data-size":"full","title":"d6UxGEAa8j0.jpg"}[/ATTACH]

2014 old news?

1Saludo

Profile picture for user paralay

Member for

14 years 3 months

Posts: 1,344

two stories about one ship, unable to perform combat missions and simply unsafe for other members of the movement