Another Navel Frigate collision. And Who owns the yacht, My Dr. No.

a reply to: Zaphod58


USS Donald Cook vs Sukhoi 24
USS McCain vs oil tanker
USS Fitzgerald vs container ship
USS Laboon vs scuba diver?
KNM Helge Ingstad vs oil tanker (Is it KNM or HNoMS?)

Could all be part of the same pattern. And those are only the incidents that became public. It might only be the tip of the iceberg. The USS Laboon incident is not very well known:

Mystery Persists Over Possible Incursion at Naval Station Norfolk

The Navy Is Still Baffled By The Mysterious Scuba Diver Reportedly Spotted At Naval Station Norfolk

a reply to: MindBodySpiritComplex

The Donald Cook incident, where it was supposedly shut down, was BS that never happened. The EW system that was allegedly used can't be carried by the Su-24. It fits the wingtip rails of the Su-34 and was specifically designed for the Su-34 and later. The later buzzing by the Su-24 happens. It's not like they can stop it in international airspace and waters.

Fitz and McCain were crew training errors caused by lack of training time.

The Laboon was in port docked when the possible driver was spotted, and not really sure how that ties with the others.

a reply to: Zaphod58


Zaphod, I have the highest respect for your well informed posts and I even agree that those points you mentioned are the more likely explanations. However I also like to keep an eye on less likely scenarios. And it's not like official sources would openly advertise it if they found out that U.S./NATO systems are indeed vulnerable to EW, hacking, cyber attacks or plain ole sabotage. And for good reasons too. So I will always take the official version with a grain of salt.

I am aware that because I like to explore the road less traveled I can come across as a crank.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Shortly after the initial sightings, nearby ships turned on their active sonar – which would likely cause a diver to surface – and found nothing. Neither did a team of Navy divers. No explosives or other devices were found planted on ships or piers.

I´m a certified diver, why would a diver surface because of active sonar? Because of his ears?

Edit: Okay, I found out myself that it isn´t very healthy...


It´s not a surprise they could not find him, if he had 2-3 bottles and nitrox mix or similar (or rebreather), staying around 10m would give him a long time without even the need for decompression around 5m.

I checked my logbook, once I did a 136minute dive with 5l/215Bar on pressurized air (no nitrox). Certainly possible for a more trained diver to do this with normal mixture let alone if he had a one of those electric jets.

a reply to: MindBodySpiritComplex

The far more likely explanation, is usually the correct one. No they wouldn't admit to vulnerabilities, but in at least one case, there's no vulnerability to admit to. If something isn't designed for use by an aircraft, that aircraft isn't going to use it. I get looking for less likely scenarios, but there's a point where if it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's almost certainly a duck.

a reply to: Violater1


Someone is tacticly removing critical observational capabilities....something might be up.

a reply to: one4all

That's a total of 3 Aegis equipped ships. There are a total of 105 active hulls worldwide (including the three damaged ships) that are equipped with the Aegis system. It's kind of a slow way to remove them.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: one4all

That's a total of 3 Aegis equipped ships. There are a total of 105 active hulls worldwide (including the three damaged ships) that are equipped with the Aegis system. It's kind of a slow way to remove them.

But is it possible that they ( enemy) are testing us to see if we have found the vulnerability yet?

a reply to: Violater1

Remotely. It's far more likely that at least Seventh Fleet was a training breakdown based on their ops tempo. It's too early to say on this one.

a reply to: MindBodySpiritComplex

Very interesting link there about the USS Laboon!

Curious why the Navy discounted it. What the Petty Officer described is precisely a rebreather set up. SCUBA tanks are often silver in color with a red band for identification by dive companies. Two other witnesses saw the same thing, but....they're all wrong (according to the Navy). No, it was a seal, or a manatee.

Now, granted, my first reaction was to turn on active sonar, but if they waited an hour to do this the diver could have been far away (I can swim a long way under water in 60 minutes). The tank the sailor saw was likely the bailout tank. The diver very well might have had wing tanks which would let him stay submerged for hours (and hours). If he stayed above 30 feet no extensive decompression would have been required.

Yes, the active sonar would have pushed him to the surface almost immediately (unless he was deaf), but all he would have to do is get his ears and throat above the surface. At several hundred meters this would be easy to do with no one seeing.

The Navy knows! Someone got through the nets that day, and they're worried about it...I guarantee it. The rest is just a smokescreen so people won't worry.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

It's a very real, and likely possibility that it was a Red Team, in which case the Navy isn't going to say anything about it. They don't discuss Red Team activities, period. The only people that would know they were there, and coming would be high up in the command. They wouldn't tell anyone on the docks or ships, because that would defeat the purpose.

a reply to: verschickter

An active ping from a modern Naval ship or submarine can easily travel several hundred miles. And yes, it would deafen, maybe even kill, a person almost immediately if they were within about 400 meters or so. A 400 meter net is a pretty big net. A sonar ping is about 200+ decibels which is off-the-scale loud underwater. 160dB will kill a person above the water.

a reply to: Zaphod58

**have this mental image of some senior officer pulling the finger off a sailor's active sonar ping button and saying he was never there** (ala..Red October, but different).

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: one4all

That's a total of 3 Aegis equipped ships. There are a total of 105 active hulls worldwide (including the three damaged ships) that are equipped with the Aegis system. It's kind of a slow way to remove them.

Understood...no matter....we stll have a definable hole in the umbrella...unless there are spare Aegis Systems laying around they can just plug in....the secret egress door on the Trojan Horse was smaller than Oprahs waistline and look what happened there.Thef first patrol that ship missed was a tangible window of opportunity for SOMETHING....is SOMEONE wanted there to be a something.

a reply to: one4all

There are dozens of ships in both the Atlantic and Pacific that can deploy to replace the damaged Burkes, and if necessary can help cover for the Norwegian ship until another ship is ready or this one is repaired.

Just because this ship can't deploy until repairs are done doesn't mean that there's a hole somewhere. It just means they have to shuffle things around more. It's not like the Norwegian navy has a major area to patrol, or an operations tempo that the loss of one ship temporarily would hurt them badly.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: one4all

There are dozens of ships in both the Atlantic and Pacific that can deploy to replace the damaged Burkes, and if necessary can help cover for the Norwegian ship until another ship is ready or this one is repaired.

Just because this ship can't deploy until repairs are done doesn't mean that there's a hole somewhere. It just means they have to shuffle things around more. It's not like the Norwegian navy has a major area to patrol, or an operations tempo that the loss of one ship temporarily would hurt them badly.

Understood...simply pointing out that an immediate window of opportunity has already opened beginning when the accident happened and remains until things are adjusted …...I believe yes that they can still get their jobs done ….however the fact remains that we will never know if anyone or anything slipped through that small window...I was leaning to Special Ops or Drone type assets and a precision surgical advanced Recon/Ranger type insertion level window of opportunity....I am just trying to put to rest the olde I only put it in a little she cant be pregnant.excuse.A hole can be closed but it can never be un-opened.

a reply to: one4all

The ship wasn't on a patrol though. She was returning from Trident Juncture. She wouldn't have had all her systems running because the power of the Aegis radar would interfere with other radars.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: one4all

The ship wasn't on a patrol though. She was returning from Trident Juncture. She wouldn't have had all her systems running because the power of the Aegis radar would interfere with other radars.

Was she running operational status?It sounds like it.I understand the Aegeis System would not be fully engaged during routine transit...however we still have a hole unless there was a seamless filling in of either the Patrol the Ship was on or was scheduled to be on next...unless they had an Aegis defined System sitting around in a camouflaged Trawler somewhere they likely had all of their ships in full rotations...100% usage with no back-up ship sitting there waiting to fill a hole....maybe a replacement can be put into rotation before any hole happens at all.

a reply to: one4all

She had basic radar operating, that's it. Losing her does hurt, but they don't have the kind of commitments that larger fleets have. They don't need to have one going on patrol as one is coming back in, or replacing it on station. It will require shuffling, as I said, but they'll be fine. They have enough other systems backing up the ships to plug holes.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: one4all

That's a total of 3 Aegis equipped ships. There are a total of 105 active hulls worldwide (including the three damaged ships) that are equipped with the Aegis system. It's kind of a slow way to remove them.

Only a third of which have BMD capabilities:

Today the Navy possesses thirty-eight destroyers and cruisers with ballistic-missile-defense enhancements

The U.S. Navy Won't Like China's New Ship-Killer Hypersonic Missile

Changes the odds a bit, doesn't it? I don't think the Norwegians upgraded to BMD but what about the U.S. ships I listed? And on top of that:

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson said in no uncertain terms on June 12 that he wants the Navy off the tether of ballistic missile defense patrols

“Right now, as we speak, I have six multi-mission, very sophisticated, dynamic cruisers and destroyers ― six of them are on ballistic missile defense duty at sea,”

“You have to be in a tiny little box to have a chance at intercepting that incoming missile. So, we have six ships that could go anywhere in the world, at flank speed, in a tiny little box, defending land.”

The unusually direct comments from the CNO come amid growing frustration among the surface warfare community that the mission, which requires ships to stay in a steaming box doing figure-eights for weeks on end, is eating up assets and operational availability that could be better used confronting growing high-end threats from China and Russia.

for every ship that’s forward on deployment, there is a ship back in the states that has just come back from deployment and is in surge status, another ship that is in maintenance and unavailable, and still another ship that is in its training cycle and preparing to relieve the ship on patrol.

With six ships underway doing BMD, that means there are 18 ships tied up in the cycle preparing to do the mission.

The US Navy is fed up with ballistic missile defense patrols

Now correct me if I am wrong but the Donald Cook, McCain, Fitzgerald and Laboon are all BMD capable, aren't they?