Navy: U.S. destroyer collides with oil tanker in Strait of Hormuz
Source: CNN
Navy: U.S. destroyer collides with oil tanker in Strait of Hormuz
From Barbara Starr, CNN Pentagon Correspondent
August 12, 2012 -- Updated 0725 GMT (1525 HKT
(CNN) -- The U.S. Navy said its guided missile destroyer collided with a Japanese-owned oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz early Sunday morning.
No one was injured in the collision that occurred about 1 a.m. local time when the USS Porter collided with the Panamanian-flagged bulk oil tanker M/V Otowasan, the Navy said in a statement.
The Navy did not provide details about the collision, saying only the accident was not related to combat. It said the incident is under investigation.
Damage to the USS Porter was being evaluated, "but the ship is able to operate under its own power," the statement said.
Read more: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/12/world/meast/bahrain-navy-collision/index.html
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)How do you not see a tanker?
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)Ships moving through the Strait follow a Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS), which separates inbound from outbound traffic to reduce the risk of collision. The traffic lane is six miles wide, including two two mile wide traffic lanes, one inbound and one outbound, separated by a two mile wide separation median.
To traverse the Strait, ships pass through the territorial waters of Iran and Oman under the transit passage provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.[4] Although not all countries have ratified the convention,[5] most countries, including the U.S.,[6] accept these customary navigation rules as codified in the Convention.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, on an average day in 2011, about 14 tankers carrying 17 million barrels (2,700,000 m3) of crude oil passed out of the Persian Gulf through the Strait. This was said to represent 35% of the world's seaborne oil shipments and 20% of oil traded worldwide.
Suich
(10,642 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)WTF!
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)seems like it would take an awful lot of oops to make this possible, or am I thinking too much
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)...get a close view and then the unthinkable happened? It's insane. I look forward to the real story on this because this should simply not happen in open waters like that. What the fuck indeed.
xchrom
(108,903 posts)Berlum
(7,044 posts)We report, you decide...
?w=584&h=373
DRoseDARs
(6,810 posts)In the first turn, the Japanese player's shot landed right between our carrier and sub. Really should have spaced those two pieces out more before the game started...
rad51
(89 posts)Whale Wars is going to be exciting this year!
randome
(34,845 posts)Maybe it was but so far there is nothing to say that.
A good rule of thumb is to always search for things to disprove a story or a point of view. If you can't find any, then the story seems solid. This story is not yet solid.
End of rant.
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)In maritime law the more maneuverable craft is to give way and a destroyer that is not nimble is by definition not a "destroyer".
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Simple math error.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)A more manuverable or shoal draft vessel should give way in a narrow channel, but in open water a vessel keeps clear of one to it's starboard side or being overtaken. Without more information, blame should not be placed.
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)Maritime traffic is governed by the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (COLREGS). According to the COLREGS, all power vessels under command are identical, except in a narrow channel (which the Strait of Hormuz is not). "Right of way" (not technically accurate, since either vessel may be forced to act if the other 'breaks the rules') depends exclusively on their headings and position. This could be either vessel's fault -- merchant ships often maneuver too fast and without warning, and military ships often demand right-of-way they simply don't enjoy. There's a lot to be determined.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)The CO of the Porter won't derive much help from compliance with the COLREGS. His ship got hit.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)And those waters don't lend themselves to maneuvering. It's one of the most crowded shipping lanes on the planet.
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)It's not like they have super-sophisticated radar, sonar, and maneuverability. Oh wait, they do...nevermind.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)30+ knot, 100,000 horse power destroyer "got hit by" the lumbering oil
tanker is like the Cheetah saying the Elephant ran into him...Not much
room for excuses here.
"Martin" refers to the CO of the US Navy vessel.
barbtries
(28,811 posts)it clears it up somewhat, for me anyway.
cloudbase
(5,525 posts)the destroyer got tagged in the starboard side, so it's not looking too good for the USN. It will be interesting to see what the VDRs show.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Add to that a nation so energy desperate that they're thinking of restarting their 2nd generation nukes after biggest nuclear power catastrophe ever struck their other 2nd generation nukes.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Japanese company owns the ship, ship flies under a Panama flag.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/u-s-warship-japanese-owned-tanker-collide-near-strait-of-hormuz-1.457594
Proletariatprincess
(718 posts)US destroyer shouldn't be in that region anyway. It is a provactive action and now it can't even steer the ship without hitting something. Maybe it was intentional, but I doubt it. One thing is sure: we will never know what this story is really all about. National Security, ya know. We taxpayers just pay for the foreign policy...we don't ever get a say in it or any real reason why.
CanonRay
(14,113 posts)Have a nice retirement, Captain...glad nobody got hurt.
lastlib
(23,286 posts)Missycim
(950 posts)unhappycamper
(60,364 posts)Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)I guess his career is nipped in the bud...
primavera
(5,191 posts)Am I the only one who would want to know whether a collision with an oil tanker resulted in any spilled oil?
Bette Noir
(3,581 posts)primavera
(5,191 posts)Surely if there had been any oil spilled, we could trust CNN to report it, right?
on edit:
Phew!
"The cause of the incident is under investigation, the Navy said, adding that there were no reports of spills or leakages from either the USS Porter or the Otowasan."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gEaVMmMCN4IOUjcBqTA69oY0__IQ?docId=93d90c9e017948d6905b11d3a1cf0466
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)All oil tankers are supposed to be double hulled, a rule that went into affect after the Exxon Valdez.
So I am curious as to how hard of an impact the collision was, and if any oil was spilled.
Also curious as to where the destroyer was coming from and going to.
unhappycamper
(60,364 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)I smell blockade.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Negligent operation.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)if I am seeing this correctly.
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)like we do with cars?
Jus wondering....
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)our military vessels anymore?
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)The Cole had a large puncture that extended to below the waterline. This is closer to a dented fender. The ship is fully operational. The Cole had to be lifted out of the water for transport.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)That hole is pretty close to the same size, though it is well away from the water line, which is helpful.
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)Not as bad as that, but you could see in from outside. Holing collisions/allisions are rare, but they happen. I get the feeling this one looks a lot worse than it is.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)The framework is much more important, especially for a hit above the water line like that, and the damage is absolutely not comparable to the Cole.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)you don't have any spalling or blast overpressure to deal with. The Cole's Ageis radar panel above the blast was blown out, just from the overpressure.
But the size of the hole is significant. Having seen it from multiple angles, it's pretty bad. Mostly just a fortuitous location to be hit.
The costs to repair will be an interesting indicator. Obviously, they will be less for the Porter, but the cost should be considerable.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)It's bad (and will probably get worse when the repair bills show up), but not catastrophic in the sense that the ship's in danger or losing bits all over the place.
Brother Buzz
(36,463 posts)Tanker will need some paint, the destroyer will head for the yards, and the commander of the destroyer will never command a ship again. Bank on it
Judi Lynn
(160,621 posts)BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)The destroyer wasn't hit in the 'right' place for that, and the tanker's share of the damage probably boils down to "hey, guys, you hear something?"
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Feel for the Skipper. 1 in the morning. Somebody somewhere lost track of something. Even if mechanical, the Boss gets the blame.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The navy has no sense of humor for this kind of shit. It cannot possibly be 'accidental' enough for him to keep his job.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)How much did all the RADAR and SONAR and GPS equipment cost the TAXPAYER?!
YOU IDIOTS!
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)I'm looking forward to finding out the story behind that.
PB