It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are Merchant Ships Being Intentionally Weaponized in Deliberate Attacks Against US Navy?

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: DupontDeux

They're not going up. If you throw out the statistical anomalies in the last 10 years, the Navy Class A Afloat rate is almost exactly the same. But we're seeing accidents and incidents we shouldn't.

I use the Asiana San Francisco crash a lot because it highlights the problem. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the aircraft at the time of impact. The crew was using the FLCH mode of the autopilot to descend into the airport. They assumed that when the aircraft reached the programed altitude it would adjust the power setting to hold altitude, and the set speed.

Because of this incorrect understanding, they basically ignored the instruments as they prepared to land. Since FLCH doesn't tie to the throttles, they kept sinking, and no one noticed until they were far too low to get out of the crash.




posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: DupontDeux

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ConscienceZombie

The Navy is running into the same problem we're seeing in the aviation industry. The automation is getting to the point where the crew relies on automation, instead of their skills and knowledge. ...


But would automatization not normally mean that FEWER accidents were to be expected?

As with aviation most accidents are caused by human doing things they should not or not doing things they should - relative to that systematic errors occurs seldomly. Everything else being equal, the less human intervention that is needed, the lower the rate of accidents should be.



Wrong, wrong, wrong on all accounts!

I don't know if technology will ever replace humans. If it ever does, it is certainly not at that point now.

The technology that we currently have can enhance human management, but it is not able to replace it. The problem is thought patterns like yours, that since we have a computer on the job, the carbon-based life forms can check out.

My illustration of the blonde (yes, she was a blond) with the back-up camera is a perfect example. Let that same thing happen on Navy Destroyer or an airplane, and you have disaster!



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: incoserv

You are a sharp cookie,methinks this is true,low cost,furtive,extremely effective hitting sweetspots every time,wonder if any of the offending ships were reinforced shortly before the accidents.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: incoserv

Those big lumbering ships are no match in speed or maneuverability against those small destroyers with their equipment and (supposed) lookouts. The tankers cannot be blamed except for perhaps not alerting the destroyers that they were approaching on a collision course. --This last collision was most definitely a 90-degree hit. Perhaps a war game of "chicken" that didn't work out right?

Bottom line, the US Navy is slipping, avoidable collisions, the new destroyer breaking down twice....actually, several sectors across the US military have serious problems that mock our ability of readiness for serious work. Is it the complexity of the equipment and the human reliance upon them that allows these misfortunes to happen in easily avoidable ways or is it a lack of training across the whole spectrum because no really believes that such equipment and efforts are really necessary anymore? (I know, a cryptic statement but not made without foundation.)



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: incoserv
There have been four collisions involving US navy vessels in the last year, and now the commander of the 7th fleet has been relieved of duty to fix it all.
.


Yeah, well, when some dude drives a car into a bunch of people on the roads, we call it "terrorism".

And when some dude flys a plane into a tall building, we call it "terrorism."

But, when some dude drives a tanker into a US Navy ship, somehow, that's an "accident."

At what point, after this happens over and over, do we begin to suspect "terrorism." ?


edit on 23-8-2017 by AMPTAH because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 08:20 PM
link   
double post
edit on 23-8-2017 by AMPTAH because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   
I guess the question, then, is if the two collisions were actually 100% avoidable by the navy vessels.

The answer seems to be that yes, they were (or should have been), given the navy vessels speed and maneuverability as opposed to the lumbering slowness and lack of maneuverability of the typical merchant ship. It seems that the naval vessels should have been able to avoid collision.

So, at least one element of the collisions is that the folks manning the naval vessels failed in their duties.

So, the next question would be whether this is nothing but incompetence on the side of the chain of command, or perhaps someone using the knowledge of this incompetence to carry out nefarious attacks.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: incoserv
There have been four collisions involving US navy vessels in the last year, and now the commander of the 7th fleet has been relieved of duty to fix it all.
.


Yeah, well, when some dude drives a car into a bunch of people on the roads, we call it "terrorism".

And when some dude flys a plane into a tall building, we call it "terrorism."

But, when some dude drives a tanker into a US Navy ship, somehow, that's an "accident."

At what point, after this happens over and over, do we begin to suspect "terrorism." ?



Good points, but more semantic points.

Murder is murder, unless the media and authorities tell us it is terrorism. Really?

Any public murder today cannot be judged, it seems, until the authorities review it and tell us which it is.

Are we attempting to do the same with transportation accidents? I certainly don't know, but I think the word "terrorism" is way over-rated.




top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join