[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
news

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 13378)
Message
File  []
close
3000.jpg
133781337813378
>> No. 13378 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 3:47 am
13378 spacer
Ten American sailors are missing and five injured after the guided-missile destroyer USS John S McCain was damaged in a collision with an oil tanker off the coast of Singapore.

Once is a tragedy, twice is a coincidence. I always think there are no such things as coincidences - how come all of a sudden American naval ships are colliding with commercial shipping? This is these second time in two months. Weird.

I'm saging for the implicit /boo/ in this post.
Expand all images.
>> No. 13379 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 3:54 am
13379 spacer
>>13378
As with all conspiracies the first step in testing their plausibility is working out how many people would need to be sworn to secrecy.

First you've got the entire crew of the destroyer. Then the entire crew of the commercial oil tanker - assuming it exists, and if it doesn't, there will be records with the shipping firm that would need to be falsified, and everyone there would need to be silenced...
>> No. 13380 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 4:03 am
13380 spacer
>>13379
I wasn't thinking of a conspiracy per se, more perhaps are these actually attacks? Either way, these vessels are bristling with the finest technology known to man and highly trained and competent crew. It just seems very odd that two have collided with commercial ships in such a short space of time.
>> No. 13391 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 12:16 pm
13391 spacer
>>13380
OK then, well if they were attacks, why hasn't the military voiced that theory themselves? They appear to be more pissed off with their own sailors' seamanship.
>> No. 13393 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 1:30 pm
13393 spacer

Screen Shot 2017-08-21 at 13.29.50.png
133931339313393
>>13391
I think its almost certainly just (another) monumental cockup rather than a conspiracy, just staggering that it has happened twice in such a short space of time. One does not just creep up on a guided missile destroyer.

Can you imagine being the one who has to make the phone call to US Navy CENTCOM telling them you've just bashed up your boat (and a load of mens lives).

Also seems weird that the point of impact on this boat is at a very similar place to the previous one that happened, aft on the port side. The International Regulations for the Prevention of Collision at Sea are quite clear about what the drill is for power boats passing by each other.
>> No. 13396 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 3:00 pm
13396 spacer

714PH4X5FRL.gif
133961339613396
>>13393

Navigation at sea is a lot harder than it looks. Vessels collide, run aground and experience near-misses on a daily basis. A large oil tanker takes several miles to do a 180 degree turn; a minor confusion or misunderstanding can very easily turn into a disaster. By the time you've realised that you've misjudged your speed or distance, it may well be too late. The COLREGs are very clear on paper, but they're far less clear when you're navigating difficult waters in poor conditions and the other vessel isn't responding to hails or is captained by someone who barely speaks English.

Back in 2010, HMS Astute ran aground off the coast of Skye. After becoming beached, one of the tugs sent to rescue it collided with the stricken submarine. Like most accidents, it was a series of minor lapses of judgement that turned into an almighty cock-up. The officer of the watch was inexperienced, he hadn't been properly briefed, he was rushing because the vessel was late for a rendezvous, the bridge crew were inadequately trained and unfamiliar with their navigation equipment. The stars aligned in just the wrong way and a billion quid's worth of submarine crashed into the bottom of the sea.
>> No. 13398 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 5:28 pm
13398 spacer
>>13396
> A large oil tanker takes several miles to do a 180 degree turn;

I get that, but a naval destroyer can turn around very quickly - there are plenty of videos of them showing the small turning circles they have - I've also been on a British Naval destroyer, which are similar enough for comparison purposes, they're very agile in the water.
>> No. 13408 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 6:46 pm
13408 spacer
Maybe the US Navy is a bit short of cash, and they're trying their hand at a bit of insurance fraud?
>> No. 13412 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 7:06 pm
13412 spacer
>>13396

As a former officer of the watch I can tell you that avoiding other ships at sea is a piece of piss. Under most circumstances, incompetence is to blame for a collision (or booze, or lack of sleep.)
>> No. 13413 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 7:07 pm
13413 spacer
>>13412

Actually I'm guessing you're also a seaman.
>> No. 13421 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 9:12 pm
13421 spacer
>>13413
Huge ships are full of them.
>> No. 13422 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 10:11 pm
13422 spacer
>>13421
Wanna know what else is full of seamen?
>> No. 13425 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 10:54 pm
13425 spacer
>>13422

Boats.
>> No. 13426 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 11:00 pm
13426 spacer

GettyImages-656768818-1160x773.jpg
134261342613426
>>13422
A submarine.
>> No. 13427 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 11:05 pm
13427 spacer
>>13422
UR MUM M8

Return ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password