Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Redlands18]

i

I think the controversy was more to do with the way how both the Australian Naval Board and the government of the day accepted or rather cowed to the disgusting decision made by the USN BOI to put much blame for the collision onto Melbourne and ignore the total incompetence displayed by the two Officers of the Watch/Deck on Frank E Evans. This was a political decision due to the relentless kowtowing by the government to seek US favour during the VN war.

Fact, the two Evans watchkeepers had less bridge time than me, a lowly phase 3 Midshipman aboard Melbourne qualified to do little more than sharpen the OOW pencils.
Fact, the CO of EVans was asleep during a complex, close quarters manoeuvre at night, and,
Fact, all COs had been briefed and warned by CO Melbourne about this very circumstance only 3 days prior in Manila.

I may be biased but like others here, I was there and I will never lose respect for CO Melbourne and I will always wonder about the generalist training of USN junior watchkeepers.

Sorry i am somewhat confused here are we talking about the Evans, the Fitzgerald or the McCain here, all sounds somewhat familiar

 

[Tasman]

Sorry i am somewhat confused here are we talking about the Evans, the Fitzgerald or the McCain here, all sounds somewhat familiar

i

i

I think the controversy was more to do with the way how both the Australian Naval Board and the government of the day accepted or rather cowed to the disgusting decision made by the USN BOI to put much blame for the collision onto Melbourne and ignore the total incompetence displayed by the two Officers of the Watch/Deck on Frank E Evans. This was a political decision due to the relentless kowtowing by the government to seek US favour during the VN war.

Fact, the two Evans watchkeepers had less bridge time than me, a lowly phase 3 Midshipman aboard Melbourne qualified to do little more than sharpen the OOW pencils.
Fact, the CO of EVans was asleep during a complex, close quarters manoeuvre at night, and,
Fact, all COs had been briefed and warned by CO Melbourne about this very circumstance only 3 days prior in Manila.

I may be biased but like others here, I was there and I will never lose respect for CO Melbourne and I will always wonder about the generalist training of USN junior watchkeepers.

i

I think the controversy was more to do with the way how both the Australian Naval Board and the government of the day accepted or rather cowed to the disgusting decision made by the USN BOI to put much blame for the collision onto Melbourne and ignore the total incompetence displayed by the two Officers of the Watch/Deck on Frank E Evans. This was a political decision due to the relentless kowtowing by the government to seek US favour during the VN war.

Fact, the two Evans watchkeepers had less bridge time than me, a lowly phase 3 Midshipman aboard Melbourne qualified to do little more than sharpen the OOW pencils.
Fact, the CO of EVans was asleep during a complex, close quarters manoeuvre at night, and,
Fact, all COs had been briefed and warned by CO Melbourne about this very circumstance only 3 days prior in Manila.

I may be biased but like others here, I was there and I will never lose respect for CO Melbourne and I will always wonder about the generalist training of USN junior watchkeepers.

Interesting that the USN subsequently made a training video called "I Relieve You Sir" based on the collision which, well after the event, points out many of the shortcomings on the Evans bridge.

Unfortunately recent events suggest that there is still much to be learnt re the training of watchkeepers in the USN!

Tas

 

[Todjaeger]

Sorry i am somewhat confused here are we talking about the Evans, the Fitzgerald or the McCain here, all sounds somewhat familiar

Some of the recent discussion has been about the late Capt. J. P. Stevenson RAN, who was the CO of HMAS Melbourne (R21) in 1969 when the Allen M. Sumner-class DD USS Frank. E. Evans crossed the bow of the Melbourne (twice I believe) before a collision. This damaged the Melbourne, caused the bow of the Evans to sink, killed 74 USN personnel, and led to the Evans being struck from the USN and scuttled.

Capt. Stevenson recently passed away 30 Jan. 2019. Distinguished officer gone but not forgotten

 

[Todjaeger]

Interesting that the USN subsequently made a training video called "I Relieve You Sir" based on the collision which, well after the event, points out many of the shortcomings on the Evans bridge.

Unfortunately recent events suggest that there is still much to be learnt re the training of watchkeepers in the USN!

Tas

Some of it I suspect is a training issue, and based off what I have read about the Melbourne-Evans collision, I suspect some of it was a discipline issue.

IIRC the CO of Evans was asleep at the time of the collision, but had also issued orders that he be awakened if the Evans was ordered to change her course or position and the officers on duty did not wake the CO, or check the position of the Evans prior to making an incorrect change in course. To me, making an incorrect course change, as well as failing to properly check the ship's position prior to initiating a course change, are all training issues. However, failing to follow the captain's order to notify him of the order to change position to me is a discipline issue, or perhaps indicates a lack of respect for the CO on the part of the ship's officers, or even a degree of arrogance on their part.

 

[Redlands18]

Some of the recent discussion has been about the late Capt. J. P. Stevenson RAN, who was the CO of HMAS Melbourne (R21) in 1969 when the Allen M. Sumner-class DD USS Frank. E. Evans crossed the bow of the Melbourne (twice I believe) before a collision. This damaged the Melbourne, caused the bow of the Evans to sink, killed 74 USN personnel, and led to the Evans being struck from the USN and scuttled.

Capt. Stevenson recently passed away 30 Jan. 2019. Distinguished officer gone but not forgotten

Yes Mate im aware of this, my comment was about the similarities about where the fault was laid in 3 incidets 48 years apart in the same Navy. The Watchkeeping Comments are very similar to the 2 more recent incidents.
I actually saw a Photo a year or so back that showed the Evans completely cut in half. Fortunately the Fitzgerald and McCain got of relatively lightly compared to the Evans and the Voyager.

 

[ASSAIL]

Sorry i am somewhat confused here are we talking about the Evans, the Fitzgerald or the McCain here, all sounds somewhat familiar

It certainly does and for most of the same reasons, a total lack of bridgecraft and situational awareness.

 

[foxdemon]

The KNM Helge Ingstad is another recent example. Apparently efforts are h derway to recover the ship.

Norway aims to refloat Spanish-built frigate that sank after collision

One result of the affair has been the suggestion that the Navantia design is flawed.

 

[spoz]

And of course 15 years or so before Melbourne/Evans, USS Hobson had been cut in half in almost identical circumstances by USS Wasp.

Although M/V showed that the loss of situational awareness when (possibly) combined with an unwillingness to contradict a CO could cause the same consequences in any Navy. “Never cross the senior ship’s bows”, maintain all around awareness, watch CPAs and look for steady bearings were certainly drummed into us. As was, usually, if you think it’s not right speak up or take action (as appropriate), although there was the occasional Captain whose manner didn’t encourage that much independence.....

 

[weegee]

On a happy note I came across these images of 4 Collins class out at sea together on twitter. What a beautiful site to see! I must say i am a bit surprised that 4 crews are available at one time, seems that we might be moving in the right direction in regards to Sub crewing going forward.

 

[spoz]

There's actually at least five crews at the moment I think. The submariners in our neighbourhood have been celebrating their high levels of operational availability recently

 

[rossfrb_1]

On a happy note I came across these images of 4 Collins class out at sea together on twitter. What a beautiful site to see! I must say i am a bit surprised that 4 crews are available at one time, seems that we might be moving in the right direction in regards to Sub crewing going forward.

What sort of maneuver are the 4 submarines performing in the first image?
I initially thought they were 2 and 2 passing across each other, however looking at the wake it looks like they are zigzagging.
rb

 

[StingrayOZ]

Probably just breaking a line formation.. two go port two go starboard. Judging by their wake.
Great shot. Great to see four operational.

 

[ngatimozart]

What sort of maneuver are the 4 submarines performing in the first image?
I initially thought they were 2 and 2 passing across each other, however looking at the wake it looks like they are zigzagging.
rb

If it's meal time probably Officer Of the Watch manoeuvres

 

[spoz]

If it's meal time probably Officer Of the Watch manoeuvres

How very true. The manouevre looks like a turn by divisions. I’ll probably get this wrong and some silk handkerchief will correct me be but it’s something like Div pennant 1 Turn 6 tack Div pennant 2 6 Turn. (The “6” stands for 60 degrees relative, and is a WAG)

 

[ngatimozart]

How very true. The manouevre looks like a turn by divisions. I’ll probably get this wrong and some silk handkerchief will correct me be but it’s something like Div pennant 1 Turn 6 tack Div pennant 2 6 Turn. (The “6” stands for 60 degrees relative, and is a WAG)

I was never a bunting tosser. Our lot was generally "Pipe hands to dinner" Then about 10 minutes later "OOW manoeuvres full ahead both. Hard port / starboard wheel" Bastards. Playing chase the scran around the table & trying to grab your duff before some bloody stoker or greeny scoffs it. Bloody gannets that lot

 

[aussienscale]

If it's meal time probably Officer Of the Watch manoeuvres

You could set your watch to it mate

The manoeuvre is a set signal during OOW/Operations, a publication called ACP175 is used for all manoeuvres, but I will not go into any more detail than that, so yes intentional alternating turns to port and stbd

Cheers

 

[Stampede]

On a happy note I came across these images of 4 Collins class out at sea together on twitter. What a beautiful site to see! I must say i am a bit surprised that 4 crews are available at one time, seems that we might be moving in the right direction in regards to Sub crewing going forward.

I wonder how many navy's can put two thirds of their submarine fleet to sea at one time,even if it's just for a short exercise.
A great effort and a credit to all involved.
Most impressive.

Regards S

 

[DaveS124]

Some more pics posted by COMAUSFLT.

Now it's five boats, with USS Santa Fe popping by to see what all the fuss is about.

BTW last week theFBW FFs were very busy being buzzed by Learjets ex-Pearce, and the IPE19 TG departed Sydney for Perth a day or two ago.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Australia's Collins-Class Submarines Enter a 20th Year of Trouble

Australian Defense Minister Darren Chester is currently managing the renewal of the country’s submarine fleet, after 20 woeful years. The relatively small fleet of hunters has been plagued with such a flurry of technical and management problems that Australia has outright decided to re-brand the entire class, along with the change of models, with the unimaginative name: Attack-class. Tom Lewis, a former intelligence analyst for the Australian navy, writes “The Collins though wasn’t just a Swedish design assembled here. It was fiddled with; more capability was needed for one thing. It had to go further and stay there longer. And not having built submarines before – more complex machines than spaceships – we had a lot of problems.” And that’s putting it lightly.

Wait, so the Collins class is now the Attack class?
I thought Pyne was defense minister? Chester was assistant?

 

[alexsa]

Australia's Collins-Class Submarines Enter a 20th Year of Trouble

Australian Defense Minister Darren Chester is currently managing the renewal of the country’s submarine fleet, after 20 woeful years. The relatively small fleet of hunters has been plagued with such a flurry of technical and management problems that Australia has outright decided to re-brand the entire class, along with the change of models, with the unimaginative name: Attack-class. Tom Lewis, a former intelligence analyst for the Australian navy, writes “The Collins though wasn’t just a Swedish design assembled here. It was fiddled with; more capability was needed for one thing. It had to go further and stay there longer. And not having built submarines before – more complex machines than spaceships – we had a lot of problems.” And that’s putting it lightly.

Wait, so the Collins class is now the Attack class?
I thought Pyne was defense minister? Chester was assistant?

Wow .... all I can say is this is largely rubbish in the current context. Yes there were issues with build and yes it took time to fix .... but it was fixed and they are certainly not 'rebranding' the Collins as the Attack Class (as evident by announcements and images provided by defence and the minister). That error alone should provide a basis to how this article should be viewed ................... I suggest that is 'very dimly'.