Thursday, October 06, 2005

Compare and Contrast

First:  Two US destroyers collide – and their CO’s are…?
Second:  US submarine and merchant collide, and its CO is…?

As a note, the Philadelphia article is the first one I have seen that gives some clue as to what was going on in the bridge of the Yasa Aysen – and it seems pretty clear that the merchant was in fact overtaking the sub.

Cross-Posted at The Discomfort of Thought


At 3:52 PM, Blogger Vigilis said...

Excellent point, PBS. The usual reference to confidence in the commanding officer ability was cited, but positively this time in favor of the surface COs.

The difference is due either to yet unknown facts (see below) or to discrimination (look at the training invested in submarine COs and crews compared to DDs), the relative values of the vessels, and potential consequences of collisions.

As far as undue discrimination, however, I may be wrong, but it's very tough (since discipline must be adequate to asure avoidable repeats) to believe that an admiral wants to appear lax (heard of any lax admirals in the surface fleet lately)?

So what fact could obtain the apparently conflicting results? In the Philly case Bubblehead quotes '...a complete breakdown of the command and control process.' For the destroyers, however, training involved'...aggressive ship-handling and high-speed, close-quarters tactical maneuvering.' This tells me the collision occurred when it was necessary to avert a more serious and imminent loss of life or equipment, as result of implementing an emergency maneuver that had is customary or had been pre-approved. Apples and Oranges.


Post a Comment

<< Home