Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 07, 2019

U.S. 7th Fleet Cruiser Ignores Rules At Sea - Nearly Collides With Russian Destroyer

The accident prone U.S. 7th fleet is again in trouble.  CNN sensationally reports of a near collision of a U.S. navy ship with a Russian navy one:

The United States and Russian navies are at odds over an apparent near collision in the Pacific Friday with each side blaming the other. The US and Russian warships came somewhere between 50 feet and 165 feet of each other, according to the two opposing reports, with both sides alleging their ships were forced to perform emergency maneuvers to avoid a collision.
...
"A Russian destroyer .... made an unsafe maneuver against USS Chancellorsville, closing to 50-100 feet, putting the safety of her crew and ship at risk," US Navy spokesman Cmdr. Clayton Doss told CNN in a statement.

"This unsafe action forced Chancellorsville to execute all engines back full and to maneuver to avoid collision," Doss said.

The US guided-missile cruiser was traveling in a straight line and trying to recover its helicopter when the incident occurred, he said. "We consider Russia's actions during this interaction as unsafe and unprofessional," Doss said.

There are international nautical rules that apply to any ship at sea. Those rules give no special right to any ship that is traveling in a straight line or tries to recover a helicopter.

The Russian navy says that its ship had the right of way and that the U.S. ship hindered its passage:

Russia has voiced a protest to the US command after its guided-missile cruiser hindered the passage of the Admiral Vinogradov anti-submarine destroyer some 50 meters in front of it, forcing the vessel to perform a dangerous maneuver, the Pacific Fleet’s press service told reporters on Friday.

The incident occurred at 6.35 a.m. Moscow Time in the southeastern part of the East China Sea, when a task force of the Russian Pacific Fleet and a US carrier strike group were heading in parallel directions. "The US cruiser Chancellorsville suddenly changed its course and crossed the Admiral Vinogradov destroyer’s course some 50 meters away from the ship. In order to prevent a collision, the Admiral Vinogradov’s crew was forced to conduct an emergency maneuver," the press service said.

The U.S. Navy provided CNN with a picture of the incident taken from a helicopter. It clearly shows that U.S. ship was in the wrong and that the Russian view of the incident is the correct one.


bigger

The picture shows both ships with their bows towards the camera. The ship seen on the left is the Russian destroyer Admiral Vinogradov. The ship seen on the right side of the picture is the U.S. cruiser Chancellorsville. The stern waves show that the Russian ship was on a straight course and made a last-minute maneuver by taking a sharp turn to its right to avoid an imminent collision.

To judge the situation one must take the view of both bridge crews at the time before the emergency maneuver happened. The crew of the U.S. cruiser saw the Russian ship coming up on its right or starboard side. The crew of the Russian ship saw the U.S. ship coming up on its left or port side. The rules for such a crossing of courses at sea are clear.

The Handbook of Nautical Rules lists as the International Maritime Organization Rule 15:

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.

The book explains further:

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.

Rule 16 says:

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.

and Rule 17:

Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way the other shall keep her course and speed.

It is evident from the picture that the U.S. navy cruiser had the Russian destroyer on its starboard side and that both ships were on a collision course. It was therefore the U.S. ship that had the duty to 'take early and substantial action' to keep out of the way and that it had to avoid crossing ahead of the Russian vessel. The Russian ship correctly kept its speed and course until the situation required a last-minute maneuver to avoid an imminent collision.

In the breathless video report of the incident the CNN Pentagon reporter explicitly says that Russian ship was on starboard of the U.S. ship, but repeats the nonsense claim by the U.S. navy spokesperson that the U.S. ship was in the right and that the Russian ship made an "unsafe maneuver".

The crew of the Chancellorsville should call itself lucky. Russian ships are build with a strong bow to travel in icy waters. Had the Admiral Vinogradov not made the emergency turn to its right, its bow would have cut their ship in half.

The home port of the Chancellorsville is Yokosuka, Japan. It belongs the U.S. 7th fleet which has a record of bad seamanship. Two years ago the Washington Post reported:

The collision of the USS John S. McCain and an oil tanker on Aug 21 — which left 10 sailors dead — was the culmination of more than a decade of nonstop naval operations that has exhausted the service.
...
In January, the guided missile cruiser USS Antietam ran aground in Tokyo Bay, leading to the commander’s dismissal. In May, the cruiser USS Lake Champlain collided with a South Korean fishing boat. And roughly a month later, the USS Fitzgerald collided with a container ship in the approach to Tokyo Bay. Seven sailors died and the destroyer’s commanding and executive officers were relieved.
...
The Antietam, McCain and Fitzgerald are all in the 7th Fleet based in Yokosuka, Japan, raising questions over whether there are particular problems in that command. The 7th Fleet is responsible for 48 million square miles in the Pacific and Indian oceans, the Navy said. Swift also dismissed its commander, Vice Adm. Joseph Aucoin.

All the above incidents were caused by the crews of the U.S. navy ships. When one reads reports of those incidents one finds that the 7th fleet ships are undermanned and badly maintained. Its crews are insufficiently trained. They obviously do not know the basic international rules at sea or how to handle their ships.

It should be CNN's task to point that out instead of blabbering about 'Russian harassment of U.S. ships'.

---
This is a Moon of Alabama fundraising week. Please consider to support our work.

Posted by b on June 7, 2019 at 14:51 UTC | Permalink

Comments
« previous page | next page »

@ Carl Nyberg | Jun 7, 2019 10:37:51 PM #100

It finally occurred to me to check and see if any carriers were in the neighborhood.

http://www.gonavy.jp/CVLocation.html

It seems the USS Reagan was nearby. If that's the case, shooing away a snooping Russian is something they'd want to do, for it would be watching and listening in on all operations.

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 8 2019 2:48 utc | 101

Funny , everytime B posted something truthful , massive influx of trolls suddenly flooding the comment section accusing B of making a mistake .. this feels so obvious astroturfing from US troll farms , any regular of MOA can easily discern such blatant attempt in this foolish astroturfing..

Posted by: milomilo | Jun 8 2019 3:13 utc | 102

USNI: USS Chancellorsville (CG-62) was attempting to recover a helicopter when it was approached by a Udaloy-class destroyer at about 11:45 a.m. local time, according to a Friday statement from 7th Fleet. While Chancellorsville was recovering its helicopter on a steady course and speed when the Russian ship DD572 maneuvered from behind and to the right of Chancellorsville accelerated and closed to an unsafe distance of ~50-100 feet. . .here

But as karlof1 has noted in his 85, and we can see, in the videos there is no helicopter approaching from the rear. So the Chancellorsville is obviously not conducting a helicopter recovery, which is a helicopter landing on the rear deck, because there is no such helicopter in the videos. Therefore the Chancellorsville (also with no signals) was not "a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver" and should have given way. Am I not correct? (I'm army.)

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 8 2019 3:15 utc | 103

A commonly used memory aide for the ‘colregs’ or International Collision Regulations at sea with regards to right of way when two vessels are in proximity has it thus: ‘If to Starboard RED appear, ‘‘tis your duty TO KEEP CLEAR’
Red referring to the port side light signal of any vessels sea as viewed from another vessel. Those who comment that the Russian vessel was overtaking the US vessel are mistaken in that both vessels are on converging courses with the Russian vessel quite clearly to the starboard side of the US and thereby clearly showing her port side (red colour) navigation light. The Russian vessel is therefore clearly the ‘Stand On Vessel’ meaning that she is obliged, under the International Collision Regulations ‘to maintain course and speed’. While speed is difficult to determine from the available photographic evidence, course is apparent from the wake or track. The American vessel should have followed the International Regulations and altered course and/or speed so as to keep clear of the Russian vessel. As indicated by others here, similar actions by US navy have in the recent past had tragic consequences.

Posted by: Sandpiper | Jun 8 2019 3:31 utc | 104

These are actions that bully's take trying to start fights. The US Navy has no honor and are acting as traitors to American defense by their aggression.

At some point one of the spinning plates of late empire is going to get deservedly slapped like Grieved writes.

In the interim failing empire continues to educate the world about the depths of its perfidy by its actions

Posted by: psychohistorian | Jun 8 2019 3:45 utc | 105

the Navy Tweet claiming that a helicopter was landing on the Chancellorsville. . .
U.S. Navy

@USNavy
BREAKING: While recovering its helicopter #USSChancellorsville was forced to
execute all engines back full to avoid collision with #Russian destroyer
Udaloy I, which had come from behind and alongside within 50-100 feet in the
Phillippine Sea.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 8 2019 3:58 utc | 106

We already know that the US navy don’t know how to operate ships, so this is not really news. It looks like the US is playing the victim in order to get sympathy for how they are so hard done by. The same tactic as the Israelis use when justifying shooting dead Palestinians throwing stones. This sort of story is created for dick heads to consume.

Posted by: Aspnaz | Jun 8 2019 3:59 utc | 107

an interesting thread:

https://twitter.com/miladvisor/status/1137121744970485771

Posted by: truth seeker | Jun 8 2019 5:23 utc | 108

Peter AU 1 @ 66:

Producers of spin, in other words.

Posted by: Jen | Jun 8 2019 6:00 utc | 109

Incidentally news of the near-collision between the Russian destroyer and the US 7th Fleet cruiser reminded me of the November 2018 incident in which the Norwegian frigate Helge Ingstad collided with an oil tanker in a fjord and sank. A US Navy officer was on the bridge of the frigate at the time of the incident.

The most recent news I could find was that three suspects have been named by Norwegian police but no-one has yet been charged.

Posted by: Jen | Jun 8 2019 6:12 utc | 110

Should I repeat all the evidence and provide all the links I already have on this thread proving the USN ship was at fault beyond reasonable doubt? The only evidence that could prove otherwise is the full video from the stand-off helo and the ship's log--both would be required to prove the Russian ship at fault.

The stupidity of trolls is amazing! I provide the direct citation from the regs as to which signal flag is to be ordered flown along with its meaning, yet the troll says a different flag is what's required without providing any evidence regarding what authority is able to override the body that issued the reg I cited! I checked photos of the USN ship to see exactly where such flags would be displayed then checked the much clearer photo provided to CBS, and there's nothing there--no flag or signal semaphore is displayed where it ought to be! As I wrote yesterday: One lie followed by another, then another, then another, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, ad infinitum!

Why not just state the truth: We didn't want to allow the Russian ship to get any closer to the task force, so we were ordered to take action to fend it off and make certain it altered its course. Yes, we broke some navigational rules, but we had to do what we had to do!

The continuous prevaricator, otherwise known as a pathological liar, always comes out with the lie first without thinking that the truth might be a better explanation. Such behavior fits the MO of the Outlaw US Empire to a T. Such a goof could be seen as slapping yourself!

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 8 2019 6:21 utc | 111

US navy has its own sailing rules, or a kind of small penis syndrome. Or both.

Posted by: y | Jun 8 2019 6:34 utc | 112

From the quote in Don Bacons post @106 "While recovering its helicopter #USSChancellorsville was forced to execute all engines back full to avoid collision"

From the photos it is quite obvious that if both ships went full astern without changing course, they would have collided. What is a ships maneuvering like when it goes full astern.
I suspect to turn hard, a ship would use full power to increase water velocity on the rudder to kick back end of the ship around.
The US ship had changed course to coverage on the Russian ship then went all engines back full when they were in front of or nearing the Russian ship rather than change course. Russian ship holds its course thinking a perhaps a normal harassment manoeuver with the US ship turning away from collision at the last moment. Russian ship realises a collision is inevitable unless they turn hard, goes to full power to get the ship swung around fast....


Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jun 8 2019 7:05 utc | 113

The US Navy is claiming that the USS Chancellorsville was not required to give way to a vessel on its starboard because the act of recovering its helicopter meant that it met the definition of a "vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre".

It is an interesting argument, but afaik a vessel so restricted must display these signs:
1) "three all-round lights in a vertical line where they can best be seen. The highest and lowest of these lights shall be red and the middle light shall be white"
and/or
2) "three shapes in a vertical line where they can best be seen. The highest and lowest of these shapes shall be balls and the middle one a diamond,"

If the Chancellorsville was not displaying those signs then it is at fault.
If the Chancellorsville was displaying those signs then the Russians are at fault.

karlof1 mentions a CNN interview with "expert" Admiral John Kirby, and in that interview he claims that the American ship was "flying visual indicators".

I'm not willing to take his word for it, to be honest.

Anyone seen either of those two visual indicators on any of the videos?

Posted by: Yeah, Right | Jun 8 2019 7:07 utc | 114

The Russians were sunbaking on the helipad at the stern of their vessel. No wonder the yankees freaked out, nobody takes them seriously anymore. Might have been different if it was a merchant freight vessel.
USA clowns.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Jun 8 2019 7:37 utc | 115

Forgive the skepticism but the two fairytales about Yanks challenging lighthouses for ROW are too tall to swallow. In daylight a lighthouse would be visible to an approaching vessel. At night the unique the flash pattern of the beacon would make the lighthouse instantly and specifically identifiable.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 8 2019 9:34 utc | 116

Hi non-english native b,

When speaking about ships (on water, of any type) the left of the ship is called "port" and the right is called "starboard". Thus, the following (very clear) sentence:

The stern waves show that the Russian ship was on a straight course and made a last-minute maneuver by taking a sharp turn to its right to avoid an imminent collision.

Could be better expressed as:

The stern waves show that the Russian ship was on a straight course and made a last-minute maneuver by taking a sharp turn to starboard to avoid an imminent collision.

Not complaining. Trying to help.

Posted by: yesxorno | Jun 8 2019 10:33 utc | 117

Hmm, see there are a few ignorant attacks popping up on this blog. In fact zero hedge is now almost unreadable due to the stupidity and name calling in the comments. Generally no constructive counter arguments are offered just the insults and flag waiving of the intellectually challenged.
B offers a constructive analysis, if disagreeing then show why, otherwise just trolls. My take is that the media propaganda has gotten so bad now that any US military article is automatically suspect. In all probability B is correct in his breakdown.

Posted by: Rancid | Jun 8 2019 10:49 utc | 118

It's hard to believe that the most sufistacted warships in the world keep smashing into other ships. Are USA Navy navigation tickets only good on USA Navy boats?

Posted by: Justin | Jun 8 2019 11:29 utc | 119

@ # 50 who wrote> "...Having been an officer of the deck & navigator on a 7th Fleet ship homeported in Sasebo, Japan, this is a story I have a little relevant expertise.

In the big picture, warships from different countries that aren't conducting planned exercises should not be this close. Outside of being in straights or a channel... five..."

I cannot believe that 50 was an officer in any English-speaking navy. This is because he misspelled strait. A "straight" is something like a ruler. A strait is a narrow waterway.

Posted by: Walter | Jun 8 2019 12:48 utc | 120

Maybe Autocorrect is responsible for the misspelling straight.

Posted by: lysias | Jun 8 2019 13:27 utc | 121

Walter @121 said: "I cannot believe that 50 [is a native English speaker]... because he misspelled strait."

LMAO! This is actually proof that he is American! Americans are dumb as logs and proud of it. What else could explain their tendency to go about crashing their expensive military toys into other people's ships? So "an officer of the deck & navigator" cannot tell the difference between "straight" and "strait"; any wonder they get confused and screw up?

Posted by: William Gruff | Jun 8 2019 13:31 utc | 122

@ Yeah,Right 114
If the Chancellorsville was not displaying those signs then it is at fault.
If the Chancellorsville was displaying those signs then the Russians are at fault.

And recovering a helicopter necessarily requires a helicopter, does it not?

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 8 2019 13:52 utc | 123

Long ago I grew up on a fairly big lake where most people had real fast high-powered speedboats that would go Whap! Whap! Whap! by our house every day. They had very strict rules: The ice chest was required to be covered at all times to keep the beer cold. No fancy other rules, except maybe you had to be smashed to the extent that you would be unable to walk before you pulled on that cord to start the engines. The thing was, 'boating accidents' were extremely rare. Even though the lake was not that big.

We would also go to the 'real' ocean beach from time to time, and believe me, the ocean is pretty damn big! I am pretty sure that what is going on here with all these crashing naval vessels simply boils down to this: Nobody takes (surface) naval ships seriously anymore. Because they represent a concept that is completely obsolete. Sure, the can try to defend themselves with 'Star Wars' technology, but the ships cost billions of dollars, and the new rockets that can turn them into scrap metal in five minutes are dirt cheap. So the naval vessels are now useless except against petty pirates. Hell, even the pirates probably have the rockets these days.

So who really cares if these naval vessels smash into things? It don't matter. And besides, the 'need' to build replacements puts even more money into the giant pockets of the shipbuilding companies. It's all great fun, and a general all-around win-win!

Posted by: blues | Jun 8 2019 14:11 utc | 124

@ blues
Yes, Navy thinks ships, especially giant carriers, are needed to 'show the flag' and impress the dumb foreigners, who (e.g. Iranians) actually say: 'Great more missile targets for us.'
There's a great future in plasticsmissiles. Think about it.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 8 2019 14:23 utc | 125

Speaking of ship vulnerability to missiles:

The Navy plans to replace 6th Fleet’s four destroyers in Europe with newer ones that have upgraded missile defense capabilities, 6th Fleet announced this week.
The newer destroyers are equipped with Baseline 9 missile defense systems, which enable them to simultaneously target high-altitude ballistic missiles and counter closer-range threats such as guided missiles fired from enemy aircraft and ships. The fleet’s current destroyers can’t do both at the same time. . .here

Good luck on that. Multiple offensive missiles (ballistic and guided) can easily overcome any missile defense.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 8 2019 14:31 utc | 126

About "strait"..and ignorance of deck officers. A friend used to teach mathematics at Cal Maritime Academy in Vallejo. The students were unable to compute stability and navigation problems, and their grades were failing. The dean called my friend into his office... With the result that the students were then given higher scores when they remembered to write their names on their exam papers. Their scores were raised by degrees until the average was high enough to pass the class. They still, however, were unable to calculate stability or position.

This is factual, no BS. And when was it? About 1977 as I recall. Since then, as everybody knows, standards have fallen. As we see...

And yes, the ships were far too close to one-another. Let us hear the VHF dialogue between the ships...if any.

The Soviets used to call the Americans "cowboys"....#50 seems to have also failed grammar, by the way. Was he an Academy grad, or NROTC? Or did he attend rodeo school?

Does it matter?

The US empire is essentially thalassocratic. If it cannot manage ships, the method has failed. Russian empire and Chinese empire are tellurocratic, but they handle ships pretty well.

What does this tell us?

Quiz on Monday, kiddies...and no, you do not get free points for putting your name on the quiz papers.

Posted by: Walter | Jun 8 2019 15:20 utc | 127

Hm, nice to see a pretty balanced discussion here.

Yeah, the usual black/white seeing folks that only follow their reflexed, automatically blaming (Evil) Russia or the (Evil) US.

But also some folks not trapped in their hatred, with pretty insightful contributions..

All in all, anyone who at this point believes themselves to judge clearly just opens themselves up to being wrong and a tinfoil hat wearer later..
Only thing that is clear is, that both sides continue to ramp up the pressure. Be in on the sea, the air, on land, in economic war, digital war (hacking) and of course - The information war.

Posted by: DontBelieveEitherPr. | Jun 8 2019 15:26 utc | 128

Really? Just because the Russian took a collision course towards the US Navy ship it’s the US ship that’s in the wrong? As a retired US Navy veteran I’ve personally witnessed this many times in the Mediterranean where Russian vessels knowing that we are performing underway replenishment will still maintain collision course with our ships and it is we who have to move. While it’s correct that they have a right to free sail as well they gave absolutely no respect for vessels that are conducting operations and will do their upmost to hazard that operation. They are always imposing on others to move out of their way which is typical Russian belligerence. That ship knew the we were conducting helicopter recovery and they just wanted to push their way rather than avoid the whole thing altogether. I have no respect for any maritime force that intentionally intimidates other forces by bullying and that’s what the Russians are known for.

Posted by: Michael Gruhlke | Jun 8 2019 15:42 utc | 129

129 'DontBelieveEitherPr.'

Only thing that is clear is, that both sides continue to ramp up the pressure. Be in on the sea, the air, on land, in economic war, digital war (hacking) and of course - The information war.

No, not clear at all.
News media (like MoA) always ramp up the pressure.

Posted by: Den Haag | Jun 8 2019 15:44 utc | 130

Don't know how old you are or if you are a native English speaker, but the word is "utmost" not "upmost". Its just one word, but an important one and it damages your credibility.

I am inclined to think that you've been saying "upmost" since you first learned the word.

Refer to comment 128 for further clarification.

Posted by: fastfreddy | Jun 8 2019 16:18 utc | 131

@ MG 130
>How do you know that "the Russian took a collision course towards the US Navy ship" and not that Navy did it?
>Your experience with "performing underway replenishment " is irrelevant.
>"That ship knew the we were conducting helicopter recovery". . .how did they know this?
>"they just wanted to push their way". . .how do you know what they wanted, are you psychic?
>Isn't it possible that the Navy's seamanship has declined since your service, given all the recent fatal collisions?

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 8 2019 16:31 utc | 132

Comment by Michael Gruhlke @130 is a perfect example of psychological projection. Note: "I have no respect for any maritime force that intentionally intimidates other forces by bullying."

Yet bullying is the entire point of the US military operations in the South and East China seas, and Baltic and Black seas too for that matter.

It is entertaining to observe the bully whining about being bullied.

Michael Gruhlke @130 must therefore have no respect for the American military as it is obviously the world's biggest and most violent bully.

Posted by: William Gruff | Jun 8 2019 16:39 utc | 133

Does anyone know, is the USN autopilot by Tesla?

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Jun 8 2019 16:49 utc | 134

kudos to all the posters not responding to the stupidity... i guess it has to run it's course..

see @66 peter au post for more clarity on some of the posts here..

Posted by: james | Jun 8 2019 17:01 utc | 135

The US aren’t bullies, they’re just moderately rebellious.

Posted by: Featherless | Jun 8 2019 17:19 utc | 136

I see that since my 111, nothing's been added that refutes. Again, where's the entire video taken from the stand-off helo as that would establish the headings of the two ships over what's presumably 15-20 minutes worth of time, or perhaps longer. Obviously, the ship's log won't be available until it makes port. I also presume the minimum of voice recording from the bridge of orders given to the helm and possibly video of same from CCTV, both of which could be downloaded and transmitted, then played for the world to hear/see. I also don't see anyone disagreeing with what I proposed is the actual truth of the incident.

Does anyone here doubt that if the USN was actually in the right that it would have released all such evidence proving such? My Step-Grandfather was a Lt. Commander who captained a Fletcher Class Destroyer in the Pacific during WW2 and participated in many major actions. He was very proud of his career and seamanship, of which I learned a few things. I don't think he'd fare well within today's USN given numerous factors, one of which is what appears to be a disdain for good seamanship. It's his voice at 111 telling it like it is instead of issuing the constant parade of lies. Honesty, Honor and Valor were all rolled into one. I had school buddies who served in USN and Coast Guard who told plenty of sordid stories. My daughter lives amongst sailors at Virginia Beach and confirms that those sordid stories continue and worsen. What was once a symbol of national pride is becoming a symbol of national disgrace, shaming the memories and deeds of millions of sailors, seabees and marines.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 8 2019 17:24 utc | 137

karlof1 139

Like Boeing, US navy has a fix for the problems you list. Mass communication specialists.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jun 8 2019 17:34 utc | 138

Plenty of 'retired' US navy types commenting on this thread.

Pat Lang on 'retired'.
"Flynn is RETIRED from the US Army. That means he is still a member of the US Army rather than being a FORMER member of the US Army."
"Military retirees do not receive pensions. They receive pay at a reduced rate appropriate to the rank and length of service."
https://turcopolier.typepad.com/

Retired or navy mass communication specialists. Either way they are taking pay from the US navy.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jun 8 2019 17:44 utc | 139

@ CN 99 100
The silence from Navy on the entire situation answers your questions, IMO. But if Navy suggests any sort of incorrect behavior it might encourage a Naval Board/Court of Inquiry which they seem eager to avoid, especially since there was no collision and no casualties.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 8 2019 18:12 utc | 140

JoeG Why don't you actually comment on the issue and facts at hand instead of whining about bias?
Oh, that's right, the facts don't back you up so you have to do what the MSM does: spew bulls**t to distract.

Posted by: Brian | Jun 8 2019 18:26 utc | 141

Even though I receive a military pension as a retired lieutenant commander of the U.S. Naval Reserve, I am not going to defend the U.S. Navy here. The recent dismal safety record of the Seventh Fleet persuades me that it was probably the U.S. that was at fault here.

Posted by: lysias | Jun 8 2019 18:53 utc | 142

@ Lysias who wrote
"
The recent dismal safety record of the Seventh Fleet persuades me that it was probably the U.S. that was at fault here.
"
While I respect your position, what should be quite clear is that this was more of aggression on the part of the USN doing what it is told rather than a potential safety issue.

Present and past military need to come to grips with the role they play in the continuation of empire so an elite can pretend to be gods.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Jun 8 2019 19:09 utc | 143

Posted by: Carl Nyberg | Jun 7, 2019 3:27:32 PM | 50

Thanks for the sober & persuasive remarks.
I think you summed up the situation best with this observation...

"In the larger sense, both the captains were behaving irresponsibly if they were not under orders to manufacture this sort of thing."

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 8 2019 19:12 utc | 144

Peter AU 1 @140--

Yeah. I recall Clancey's premise for Ramius's actions in The Hunt For Red October had to do with lies that covered for other lies that caused the death of his wife and many others. These provide the justification for treason--not just by him--but by his hand selected wardroom (ship's chain of command). A similar culture is undoubtedly being cultivated within the entire armed forces of the Outlaw US Empire. If I'd accepted the invitation to attend Officer Candidate School, I'd likely be within that budding culture provided I survived the illegal acts waged that began in 1980. I could never be a Colin Powell-type. But becoming an officer wasn't in my plans, so I declined--three times. Clearly as Butler revealed the rot being discussed began prior to WW1 and has escalated/deepened from that point. I say to those pukes reading this thread and trying to counter the truth to think about your oath of service and whether anything honorable can be derived from dishonesty; or are you the type who thinks wealth outranks honor?

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 8 2019 19:19 utc | 145

Hoarsewhisperer

My guess is it was the Russian ships job to keep track of the submarines with and gather intelligence the carrier group and the US ships job was to move the Russian ship away.Russian captain may have thought the US ship would harass but avoid collision. Instead, the US ship ran across the front of the Russian then slowed so if the Russian ship did not turn, collision was inevitable. What was so important the US did this. Something they did not want the Russians to see or just biggus dickus attitude on the part of the US captain.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jun 8 2019 19:21 utc | 146

@116 hoarsewhisperer... you forgot to mention the possibility of fog and extremely low visibility which is a common feature of boats getting close to coastal areas - which is where lighthouses typically are... otherwise, skepticism is good...

Posted by: james | Jun 8 2019 19:24 utc | 147

On June 8, 1967, 34 American servicemen were killed and 174 were wounded during an Israeli attack on the USS Liberty.

According to former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas Moorer, “Those men were then betrayed and left to die by our own government.” The survivors are still awaiting justice.

http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/new/?page_id=130

Posted by: truth seeker | Jun 8 2019 19:30 utc | 148

truth seeker @150--

Are you aware that the Outlaw US Empire refused to pay reparations to Vietnam which resulted in the non-repatriation of remaining POWs--an act of deceit covered-up ever since? This provides the basis for that assertion.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 8 2019 20:05 utc | 149

When I first heard of this incident I immediately thought of the old story of the Canadian Lighthouse vs the US Navy. The US Navy always denied that the lighthouse event happened but given their piss poor performance in avoiding collisions with Oil tankers, fishing trawlers, cargo ships, reefs, shoals, sandbanks and whales it certainly sounds like something the US Nacy would do.

Posted by: Kadath | Jun 8 2019 21:21 utc | 150

@ karlof1 | Jun 8, 2019 4:05:00 PM #151

I couldn't help but notice that your link author didn't provide a speck of evidence for his claims.

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 8 2019 21:22 utc | 151

Look, if the Russian navy was involved, 9 times out of 10, you will be right if you assume the Russians screwed up. Remember we are talking about the Russian Navy. If you browse through the history of the Russian navy, the brightest highlight was the Battle of Tsushima. That tells you a lot. Now of course, the old saying that the Russians always win in the end is true but first, they must make every screw up possible before finally getting it right. Then they win. But that only applies to the Russian army, not the Russian navy.

I love Russia and Russians for so many reasons but competence is not one of those reasons.

Posted by: Jag | Jun 8 2019 21:31 utc | 152

Here are the sun bathing Russian sailors on helicopter pad - - -
https://mobile.twitter.com/m3t4_tr0n

On another point the photos of this incedent were clearly taken from the U S helicopter !
That for me is conclusive proof of U S premeditated action. They planned to place their ship on a collision course and have the helicopter in the optimum position to record the incident ! Then used
the presence of the helicopter as an excuse for not changing course.
Clear planning and ‘prior knowledge’ Guilty !!
Also of course the US have a long long list of similarly fabricating false evidence to incriminate Russia, Syria, Venezuela, China ect ect.
When you put this in context of the ‘big picture’ there is no doubt ! Is there ?
Those on this thread lamely attempting to suggest otherwise are in denial !
It may work with joe public but here it looks a bit foolhardy.

Posted by: Mark2 | Jun 8 2019 21:38 utc | 153

Zach @153--

How could you miss this big blue link in the top third of the article--6th paragraph to be precise.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 8 2019 21:40 utc | 154

Jag @154--

New troll trying a different strategy, but just as fallacious as what came before. Don't these things do recon anymore to see what they're up against? Given the prose, hubris and related arrogance flavor its choice in alcohol.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 8 2019 21:45 utc | 155

@ karlof1 139
re:. . . issuing the constant parade of lies.

Navy wouldn't cover up and lie, would it?
from Navy Times--
Worse than you thought: inside the secret Fitzgerald probe the Navy doesn’t want you to read

A scathing internal Navy probe into the 2017 collision that drowned seven sailors on the guided-missile destroyer Fitzgerald details a far longer list of problems plaguing the vessel, its crew and superior commands than the service has publicly admitted.
Obtained by Navy Times, the “dual-purpose investigation” was overseen by Rear Adm. Brian Fort and submitted 41 days after the June 17, 2017, tragedy.
It was kept secret from the public in part because it was designed to prep the Navy for potential lawsuits in the aftermath of the accident. . .here

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 8 2019 21:46 utc | 156

To add to my @155
Of course there is no proof that the photo of sunbathing Russians photo was taken at that particular time ! Prob more fabrication. How sad US has lost all credabilty.

Posted by: Mark2 | Jun 8 2019 21:49 utc | 157

DefenseNews, June 6, 2018
Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfalls in basic seamanship

WASHINGTON — A three-month internal review conducted by senior U.S. surface fleet leaders found some or significant concerns with the ship-handling skills of nearly 85 percent of its junior officers, and that many struggled to react decisively to extricate their ship from danger when there was an immediate risk of collision, according to an internal message obtained by Defense News.

Led by the Surface Warfare Officer School, officer of the deck competency checks were conducted on a random selection of OOD-qualified first-tour division officers (the newest officers in the fleet) in underway bridge navigation simulators fleet-wide between January and March. Of the 164 officers who were evaluated, only 27 passed with “no concerns.” Another 108 completed with “some concerns,” and 29 had “significant concerns,” according to the message, which was released by the Navy’s top surface warfare officer Vice Adm. Richard Brown. . .here

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 8 2019 21:51 utc | 158

note: my 158 is b's "reports" link in his penultimate paragraph.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 8 2019 22:33 utc | 159

"Regardless, the incident occurred in international waters and unusually far away from Russia, Schuster said.

"The Russians normally harass our ships when they are operating in waters the Russian consider to be within their sphere of Influence (Black Sea, Barents Sea and the waters off Vladivostok," said Schuster, who spent 12 years at sea on US warships."

Is the South China Sea near the US?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/07/politics/us-russia-navy-near-collision-intl/index.html

Posted by: daffyDuct | Jun 8 2019 22:36 utc | 160

@ daffyDuct 162
re: . . .unusually far away from Russia

Russia is is such a bad actor, even in Russia. . .
...from a recent mil-blog comment:
It's really hard to say what the Russians were thinking in this case. Along their borders they have been extremely aggressive in a coordinated effort to intimidate US Aircraft and Ships on patrol.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 8 2019 22:51 utc | 161

"...We operate under those same directives...The substance of the directives under which we operate is that we shall use our grant making power to so alter life in the United States that we can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union."
Pft98
Thank you, that is such an absolutely bizarre statement. What do you envision their "merged" entity was to be and now that the USSR is gone, what do you guess the new "directives" for union, assuming a union is still envisioned, to be??

Posted by: frances | Jun 8 2019 23:21 utc | 162

Some here may not know how the Honda Point FUBAR happened. There's a wiki. And if you look for pretty pictures those too are, well, astonishing. How? Lead ship misread the lights...and the following ships, ah, followed...near full speed too, right up into the beach...

At school they taught us the usn captin's creed. when in danger or in doubt, steam in circles toot and shout.

Posted by: Walter | Jun 8 2019 23:34 utc | 163

Thanks Don. Downright sorry isn't it. Tragic that what was once proud and exemplary could become so sordid and is now seems beyond redemption. I know this is reality not Hollywood, but perhaps there's a tiny shred of goodness left as was the case with Darth Vader--that goodness would be present in the form of military personnel who actually hold to their oath of service and do what that duty calls for by dealing with the Current Oligarchy in the manner that the Constitution would call for since they're treasonous.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 9 2019 0:08 utc | 164

Featherless | Jun 7, 2019 2:46:34 PM | 42:

Google?   So yesterday.   It's << Alexa!   Where's Starboard? >>

Posted by: Ian | Jun 9 2019 0:37 utc | 165

The single pic you post is not adequate to judge the situation. Russians, recently, and the Soviets during the cold war, made a habit of setting things like this incident up to harass the US. To give a very good example of the sort of stunts Russians have pulled; A Soviet destroyer steamed between two ships, one an oiler, the other a destroyer which was being refueled from the oiler. The Soviets did it so they could observe emergency breakaway procedures. The "diplomatic protests" made by Ivan were blown off as just more of the same BS they always pulled. The Soviets and Russians, after them, never stopped the provocations.

The Helo recovery allows more flexibility than fixed wing aircraft, but if the US ship was recovering aircraft, and it needed to be on that course, than the US ship was in the right and had the right of way.

The problem with this speculation, as well as that in the article, is there is insufficient data to make a judgment of fault. I can make judgments from the pic, but the potential for being wrong is very high. As it stands, the US may be at fault, but Ivan may be as well. Without full info on the incident, we have no way of telling.

Posted by: Quartermaster | Jun 9 2019 1:27 utc | 166

@ karlof1 | Jun 8, 2019 5:40:56 PM #156

The 2008 story by Mr. Sidney Schanberg didn't have the sort of evidence I was looking for. Locating the link was quite a job, for The Nation doesn't have it anymore, and the holding place has another name. After routinely saving the file, I had a reason to review it, and to my amazement neither Chrome nor Firefox would open it. Now I'm curious, and started looking for more information.

Mr. Schanberg wrote the first version of this in 1994 for Penthouse, and in 2004 he allowed Village Voice to reprint it. John McCain was mentioned 5 times. In 2008 the author rewrote it to cast McCain as the main villian with a total of 157 mentions. This theme is beginning to look like some sort of retirement income for the man. From the POW/MIA wiki:

For critics and skeptics, the allegations fail to convincingly answer the question as to what reason the Vietnamese (and other neighboring countries) would have to hang on to living prisoners. They could have been returned post-war, or being inconvenient witnesses to abuse more easily simply murdered.

No motive! In wars military men are sometimes blown to bits. Sometimes they parachute into trackless jungles or lakes and disappear. All too often they're captured, questioned, then murdered. Often the "question" part is skipped.

There has been a cottage industry milking desperate relatives of missing men. Google terms like MIA fraud. Example - http://www.miafacts.org/fraud.htm

Real conspiracies exist, but I strongly doubt the Vietnam MIA/POW one is a valid one.

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 9 2019 1:41 utc | 167

Refresh my memory (I'm getting old): What is the US Navy doing in the East China Sea and the South China Sea?

It is such a tragedy that the poor US Navy is getting harassed and provoked while they are busy on the other side of the planet from the USA innocently harassing and provoking.

Posted by: William Gruff | Jun 9 2019 1:48 utc | 168

@ Quartermaster | Jun 8, 2019 9:27:35 PM #168

As you say, this stuff goes on all the time, and the guilt tends to float around quite a bit. In this case I suspect the Russians were set up, and the reason no photographs (of the proper flag/light setup for restricted maneuvering of the US cruiser) haven't been released is because there aren't any. Somebody just forgot to add that little detail.

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 9 2019 1:55 utc | 169

@ William Gruff | Jun 8, 2019 9:48:58 PM #170

What is the US Navy doing in the East China Sea and the South China Sea?

That's a lot like asking why China keeps building icebreakers and has a huge presence in Antarctica.

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 9 2019 2:00 utc | 170

What is the US doing everywhere? Once the US starts to lose somewhere, it will start losing everywhere. The 800 overseas bases are meant to prevent that.
That's why Iran is an enemy, it has defied the US for fifty years and set an example for others (China, North Korea, etc) to follow. Therefore the "increased tensions" with Iran.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 9 2019 2:18 utc | 171

The US conducts FONOPS (Freedom of Navigation Operations) in other places besides the South China Sea. . .here The US reserves the right to sail anywhere at any time.

But the SCS situation represents a change in US policy, which until recently was not to contest sovereignty claims. Now the US Navy is sailing in China's territorial waters not under the "innocent passage" doctrine which recognizes sovereignty, but because these are "contested and disputed' islands w/o territorial waters. . . (contested and disputed by guess who)

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 9 2019 2:28 utc | 172

@124 "And recovering a helicopter necessarily requires a helicopter, does it not?"

Not sure that it really matters, Don.

If a US navy ship is displaying the signals for "a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre" then it really isn't under an obligation to explain why, and other ship captains don't really possess a right to subject the American duty watch to cross-examination.

If a US navy ship display the signals then you are obliged to stay out of their way. Full Stop.

If it display those signals as part of some ruse then that is an act of perfidy, which is an action that should be condemned in the strongest possible language.

But that comes after the event, not during.

Maybe it is true, I don't know: maybe US Navy vessels do hoist the "vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre" signals as soon as an incompetent captain find himself on the port side of a collision course that he himself has initiated.

Perfidy personified, if true.

But if you are the captain of a Russian ship who sees a US Navy ship pulling that caper then you bite your lip, do the right thing by getting out of its way, and then inform your superiors that the US Navy are a bunch of dishonest jackasses who are rorting the rules because they don't know how to sail their ship.

Then you leave it up to the diplomats to do their job, because as sure as hell you've just done yours.

Posted by: Yeah, Right | Jun 9 2019 5:07 utc | 173

one can find us dollars very far away from the usa too! funny though, as it is much harder to find russian rubles far away from russia... and alas - the mechanics of financial power is on display, but if the equation is going to change it will come about with some sort of hard power event that challenges the supremacy of the financial system we have at present.. so, for russian and chinese and usa military power to be expressing itself in various different regions of the world is no surprise as they are the top 3 powers.. however, at present the usa system with the us$ is still in the top position..

it seems to me that it is having to work harder to maintain the position.. the reason i say this is due the financial sanctions that are being expressed to a number of countries that are less willing to comply with the agenda of eternal us$ supremacy... so, we see continued challenges and brinkmanship on the seas and in the world today..

if the world was a fair place, things would look very different.. but, it isn't.. we can aspire for it to be and we can draw attention to the many inequalities that plague the world today... the supremacy if the us$ is definitely one of them.. whatever it takes to move from a system where a small number of people hold much of the power, to one where the power is used for the good of all, is the world i want to live in... how long will it take to get their? will the planet still be around when it does? the prognosis isn't promising as i see it.. stupid shit like this is a reflection of it, regardless of which country is responsible..

from what i witness in syria - the usa has its priorities all wrong and is serving israels agenda.. it is the same deal with regard to the usa's attitude toward iran and for the same purpose - serving israel... as for the usa's actions towards russia and china - not positive either... same deal towards venezuala... i am sorry, but based on what i see, the usa is working from the wrong position and bound to suffer defeat until they change tack and learn how to merge with others by not just sharing the water ways of the world, but by learning how to accept others into a place of equality, as opposed to having to be subservient to their financial leverage and more frankly - bullying.. it can't last..

Posted by: james | Jun 9 2019 5:11 utc | 174

@ james with the brinksmanship on the seas concept related to the financial world.

I think brinksmanship, similar and even more potentially damaging, will come soon to the financial overlay of the war the world is in.

The elite are taking advantage of the world-wide leveling of nations by reducing the safety net aspects of the social contracts in the "1st" world countries...similar to the Shock Doctrine rape of South America. I expect they think Western nations will continue to knuckle under the debt jackboot and the war/financialization economy meme forever. I agree with you that it can't last.

Another thought I have had about the boating incident is noticing how close the Russian captain was able to come to the USN boat without touching. I worked for 20+ years around tug boats and have seen some serious skill in maneuvering huge barge fleets. I can see the Russian captain has similar skills and I expect he knew exactly when and where to do what to produce the scene in the picture. Since the Russian ship did not touch the USN ship the bullies do not have reason to further their perfidy and they have to keep trying to get out of the corner the REAL world powers have them in....as the world watches example after example of........late empire behavior

Posted by: psychohistorian | Jun 9 2019 6:06 utc | 175

For me everything looks like US ship was trying to stop Russian ship from going where it was going and deliberately put itself on it's course. Russians are turn away. Both ships behave dangerously but not one is baddy, nothing is happened, both was doing it thing. News hype it into {sexual} harassment story but otherwise it's nothingburger.

Posted by: Zzz | Jun 9 2019 6:18 utc | 176

Report on the events on the Philipines Sea with unpayable footage with real sound.... ( Bold in the translated text, and trnaslation, is mine....)


On Friday there was a serious maritime incident along the coasts of the Philippines that gives the measure of the current extreme tension between the great powers, in this case between the United States and Russia.

A missile cruiser of the Ticonderoga Chancellorsville class (CG-62) tried to block the way to a Russian destroyer, who had to assert his right to free maritime navigation near the East China Sea, where the United States Navy claims that same right against China.

The Russian destroyer Udaloy I DD 572 came dangerously close to the American cruiser to reaffirm its right and, as a result, the Philippine Sea narrowed too much for the two ships.

Such incidents were very frequent among the ships of the American and Soviet navies during the Cold War and, apparently, things have not changed at all.

The captain of the Russian destroyer had to prove to the United States Navy that the sailors of his country are not as educated as the Chinese.

The maneuver he carried out from behind and then down the right side of the Chancellorsville cruiser while waiting for the return of a helicopter was the only salute they exchanged on the seas of the Far East, and it was not friendly at all.

The rights are not such because they are written on a paper with many official stamps but because the owner shows that he is willing to use force to enforce them. This is what Juan de Mariana taught in Spain in the 17th century and it is called the right to resistance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmJbGza5hN4

Posted by: Sasha | Jun 9 2019 11:24 utc | 177

This particular US Navy ship has poorly trained officers if they don't know the navigation rules of the sea. Rules 15, 16, 17, clearly state the Russian ship had the right of way, and the US ship had the onus to turn to avoid a collision. Every US officer on the bridge should be immediately reprimanded and discharged from the Navy. They dishonor the US Nave.

Posted by: Annapolis | Jun 9 2019 11:59 utc | 178

As for the lie of "a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre" signal flag claim, that can be dismissed by US evidence, that the US ship was put in full reverse. So the vessel was functional, by its own admission. Lying defames the US Navy officers. The captain needs to be stripped of rank and discharged from the US Navy.

Posted by: Annapolis | Jun 9 2019 12:07 utc | 179

Retired or navy mass communication specialists. Either way they are taking pay from the US navy.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jun 8, 2019 1:44:41 PM | 141

As Pat himself. Then go to see who in the "alt-media" Pat promotes and praises...

Anyway, as Pat explains in his note aout Flynn, all these "retired" people, "retire" with all the health beneffits the US Armed Forces provide to its employees, no wonder they vote almost all for Trump for the tax cut, obviously, they save money on medical expenses and so give a damn if a public health service exists or not for the rest, while they enjoy theirs payed by all US taxpayers, included those whpo must pay for their medical attention....

Of greedy people, the world is full...An so we go....

Posted by: Sasha | Jun 9 2019 12:09 utc | 180

@ Yeah, Right 175
@124 "And recovering a helicopter necessarily requires a helicopter, does it not?" . .Not sure that it really matters, Don. . . .If a US navy ship is displaying the signals for "a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre" then it really isn't under an obligation to explain why

Navy didn't say they were displaying signals, the Navy Tweet claimed that a helicopter was landing on the Chancellorsville. . .
U.S. Navy
@USNavy
BREAKING: While recovering its helicopter #USSChancellorsville was forced to
execute all engines back full to avoid collision with #Russian destroyer Udaloy I, which had come from behind and alongside within 50-100 feet in the
Phillippine Sea.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 9 2019 13:36 utc | 181

@182 It is my understanding that the rules don't require that the ship has to be suffering from some mechanical fault to justify hoisting those signals.

One example given is a ship laying undersea cables; clearly a cable-laying ship can go full astern if needed, but doing so would damage the cable.

The same would be true of recovering a helicopter.

I'm not saying that this ship WAS recovering a chopper, or even that it DID have those signals hoisted, just saying that such a task would fully entitle a ship to display those signals.

Posted by: Yeah, Right | Jun 9 2019 13:48 utc | 182

Now if these professional sailors had looked at their ECDIS or Radar when five miles from each other versus 500’ they could of made an intelligent decision and a reasonable course change and went on their merry way. But they did not. Thus you get imbecilic pictures like these being questioned by the taxpayers of both countries.
Or when you see Red get out of the way.

Posted by: Bobo | Jun 9 2019 13:53 utc | 183

81,84,

This is very awkward.The story about the US Navy ship heading on a crash course into a lighthouse,I heard about it,and saw a video on you tube,(only audio with pictures)and at that time it reportedly took place near the spanish coast,and the lighthouse was spanish.Now William Gruff comes up with a video (that I consider to be staged) where the event takes place in the irish sea.And B4real places it in Canada territorial waters.Who is creating this bullshit?I'm all aware of the fact that seventh fleet collision have been real.Also the Donald Cook narrative about it losing all communication in the Black Sea caused by the approach of russian SU-24.I personally have been wondering if the downing of the RedArmy's choral was caused by the state of the art french vessel in the vicinity.One has to question all this in the light of the same narrative video in three different places.How can we be sure of anything these days?

Posted by: willie | Jun 9 2019 13:59 utc | 184

The guided-missile cruiser USS Chancellorsville was in the news eighteen months ago, acting against China territory.
from SCMP--
Chinese navy sent to confront USS Chancellorsville in latest South China Sea stand-off

China said on Saturday it had deployed its naval forces to warn off a US warship sailing through disputed waters in the South China Sea.
A statement released by the [China] Southern Theatre Command said the guided-missile cruiser USS Chancellorsville had entered the waters around the Paracel Islands on Wednesday without the approval of the Chinese government.
US Pacific Fleet spokesman Nathan Christensen said in a statement on Thursday that the US warship conducted the operation near the islands – known in China as the Xisha Islands – to challenge China’s claim to them. . .here

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 9 2019 14:26 utc | 185

@ Bobo 189
Now if these professional sailors had looked at their ECDIS or Radar when five miles from each other versus 500’ they could of made an intelligent decision. .

Yes. . .from Navy
USS CHANCELLORSVILLE's primary mission is to operate with aircraft carrier battle groups or as part of surface action groups in extreme threat environments well into the 21st century. The purpose of the ship is to detect, classify and track hundreds of potential targets simultaneously in the air, on the surface, and under the sea. It can destroy targets using a variety of weapons: ship and helicopter launched torpedoes, deck guns, surface-to-air and surface-to-surface missiles, rapid-fire close-in weapons, and electronic jammers and decoys.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 9 2019 14:31 utc | 186

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D8eFM6hXkAIBy4J?format=jpg&name=medium

Look at the respective tracks in the water. The US track shows a straight and steady course. The Russian track clearly shows that it maneuvers and accelerates to get itself into position for the “game.”

Posted by: Iv | Jun 9 2019 14:48 utc | 187

@Posted by: Sasha | Jun 9, 2019 7:24:15 AM | 179

Well, the sound was not real...but really a spoof...indeed..

Posted by: Sasha | Jun 9 2019 15:43 utc | 188

So a few hours after the initial furore, and minutes after this piece and a few others came out, the story died.
I don't think a single mass media wrote on the story after late afternoon Friday (UK time).

So we all know what happened, but no apology from the US Navy or from the western media. Many will just believe what they heard, and many more will just be unaware of the dishonesty of US Navy and media.

Posted by: Michael Droy | Jun 9 2019 16:52 utc | 189

@MD 191
Yes, you're correct, not a peep from Navy in two days, nothing beyond the initial charges.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 9 2019 17:43 utc | 190

Why is the Outlaw US Empire fooling around in the seas next to China, Japan, and Philippines?

Spanish-American War of 1898 had the fledgling Empire involved in Philippines until recently, controlling it as a colony then as neocolonial controller. Chinese involvement dates to the Opium Wars when US used Turkish opium to do what the British were doing using Indian opium. Then came the Open Door Policy beginning in 1899; please click the link then clink on the political cartoon for greater understanding. T. Roosevelt was a great champion of the Open Door, and the policy continues today. And prior to both in 1853-54 was Perry's foray to Japan to force it to trade. 100% Imperialism, all of which is against the current rules set forth by UN Charter. Now as then, it was justified as being in the National Interest.

Since USN hasn't released the entire video taken by the stand-off helo, it's fair to assume the USN is at fault in this incident based on the logic I've discussed in many comments above.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 9 2019 17:48 utc | 191

@ Den Haag | Jun 9, 2019 4:37:39 PM #195

I don't pay much attention to the numbering, but I've noticed that when posts get deleted by the site owner the link numbers become lower.

I've never noticed them moving upwards, but as I said, I seldom pay any attention. What if somebody's earlier post went into "moderation" for a while. Inserting it into the proper position would mean bumping all the later ones upwards, wouldn't it?

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 9 2019 21:40 utc | 192

@Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 9, 2019 5:40:45 PM | 196

Indeed, I noticed that my initial missing post, of which I was talking in my about four posts or so that followed, finally appeared, and "b", obviously, deleted all my other related posts which came to mean this one as a whole, with which the numeration of posts could get a bit altered, yes, after all.

Apologies if that causes turmoil to anybody.

Posted by: Sasha | Jun 9 2019 21:57 utc | 193

There is a lot of uniformed commentary on this thread. Sad to read. Getting right to the point, the picture displayed in the article doesn't tell the whole story. Here's the point - if the Russian vessel was overtaking the American vessel from behind, the American vessel has the 'right of way', i.e., the privileged vessel. We don't have enough information thanks to 'fake media' to make a irrefutable claim, one way or another. If the vessels were crossing, the American vessel was at fault. If the Russian vessel was overtaking (at a higher speed) and created the crossing situation, the Russian vessel was at fault. Get more information my friends before jumping to a conclusion, unless that is if you're an America 'hater'.

Posted by: buffalo lips | Jun 9 2019 23:47 utc | 194

buffalo lips @198--

Your comment was torpedoed long ago. Try doing some recon before you make a fool of yourself again.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 10 2019 0:12 utc | 195

@183 Don Bacon "Navy didn't say they were displaying signals,"

Then I will refer you back to my original comment back @114.

It matters not if there is a helicopter hovering around the arse-end of the ship.
What matters is whether (or not) the Chancellorsville has hoist those signals.


Posted by: Yeah, Right | Jun 10 2019 0:35 utc | 196

@189 iv and @194....without further info my quick take is the opposite of yours- boat on the right is in the wrong...

Posted by: james | Jun 10 2019 1:12 utc | 197

@198 " Here's the point - if the Russian vessel was overtaking the American vessel from behind, the American vessel has the 'right of way', i.e., the privileged vessel."

You appear to be attempting to apply the rules for overtaking in a congested waterway. That is very obviously not the case here.


Posted by: Yeah, Right | Jun 10 2019 2:02 utc | 198

FYI: There's an entire, lengthy article on the travails of basic ship handling, maintenance, crewing and what not published on Propublica.
They also specifically point out 7th fleet as problematic.
The article and the people speaking within are due to the 3 collisions the USN has suffered recently, 2 just this year, in which sailors/servicemen died.

Posted by: c1ue | Jun 10 2019 17:33 utc | 199

Radar in USS Enterprise (both bridge radar) were inoperative when she docked in Viet Nam, according to a friend who fixed one of them - a shorted capacitor, 50 cents. Long time ago... But the point is that assuming operative radar is not necessarily a valid assumption.

Further, radar and electronics, as well as understanding proper customs and procedures, often suffers from a dead short between the ears.

That said, there is a pattern of behavior by the US military generally that looks more and more like a game of chicken. Or perhaps Russian Roulette...

A pattern of behavior defines a policy more clearly than any documents or voice.

Posted by: Walter | Jun 10 2019 17:59 utc | 200

« previous page | next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.