"TAG", you're it!

Actually, it will likely be a fairly senior officer on the Essex who takes the hit for this, most likely either the engineering officer or the Officer of the Deck (OOD). When ships are operating in close quarters like this they usually have a person manning hat is referred to as after steering. Unless there was a complete failure of all the steering gear, someone in after steering should have been able to handle it. Ships have redundant steering gear units to try and prevent things like this from happening and they can be switched over fairly quickly. This must have been a major failure for them not to be able to handle it unless after steering was not manned. If after steering was not manned at the time, then the OOD is going to take the fall for what happened. If it was a major failure, it is likely that the engineering officer or the division officer responsible for maintaining the steering gear will take the hit. Although in most cases if two ships collide the captain takes the fall, that probably will not happen in this case. However, when two Navy ships collide like this, it is pretty much a given that someone is going to take the fall and it is usually a fairly senior officer and possibly a number of people below that officer depending on the circumstances. It is highly unlikely that they will escape this unscathed with no one taking a hit for what happened.

I doubt anyone on the Yukon will take a hit for this for two main reasons. First, there was little they could have done and it was not a failure on the Yukon that caused the collision. And second, the Yukon has a civilian crew and they are not as likely to look for someone to blame in a case like this. The civilian side (Military Sealift Command) does not have the same unbending need to assign blame as the uniformed Navy.

This kind of thing happens from time to time and is not that unusual.. The only reason it was brought to light could be someone was skypeing home at the time of the bump.. My guess would be a strong gust of wind/rouge wave hit the bow of the Essex with the autopilot engaged or the proximity radar/laser range finder failed.. Helmsman and CON officer seem to have not been very diligent in monitoring the spacing.. Hope they have Allstate and not some cheep 5 minute insurance as this could cost taxpayers millions..

@Roadrunner0 - Did you even bother to read past the headline. The article clearly states that there was a steering gear failure on the Essex that caused the collision. Please learn to at least read the article before posting inane comments. Also, there is no way that any ship is on autopilot during underway replenishment. In fact, the helmsman on duty must be specially qualified as an unrep helmsman to be at the helm during these operations.

Blame it on the rutter, yeah...yeah... Blame it on the stars that shine at night...

RUDDER.

JS is correct. I was on the USS Cleveland (LPD 7) in the mid-80s when we collided with a supply ship, the Mount Shasta, during an underway replentishment. The person at fault was the Officer of the Deck, although the captain was also dinged.

I believe it was the Shasta's anchor that ripped away the catwalk on our port side and pealed open a gapping hole in the hull of the Cleveland. It was a very strange sensation feeling the nearly 570-foot-long Cleveland being pushed sideways through the water during the time of impact. Something I'll never forget.

It is the Commanding Officer (Captain) who is ultimately responsible for his ship from the point of the bow to paint on the the stern and from the lowest point on the keel to the light bulb atop of the mast as well as it's crew. He will be the one who answers for all the ship does or does not do.

Whether it's was indeed a malfunction or human error the CO is responsible for all the maintenance, training and qualifications onbard and he will utimately pay the price as well as those directly related to the malfunction or error.

However all aboard will suffer the stigma of poor seamanship and endure the rigorous and endless training that will be no doubt be ordered by the next CO.

BMCM9,

Thanks Master Chief!!!

Set 'em straight on their lubber misspelling. My grandpa was a BM1 WWII Did 4 years and my dad was was ABH6 '55 to '76 woulda made chief but got busted down a couple times real early before he finally shaped up. After he was in about 7 or 8 years he finally started to quit doing his shady cawm shawing(SP?) and wild ways. I was in from '79 to '83 SK3. Third generation. I'm trying to get my son to go. He has expressed an intress in Anapolis. He has the grades, straight A Honnor roll every single year. Fourth gen. sailor how often is that? So we know he will do the Navy family proud. I don't know how it is these days but when I was growing up the Navy was more like a massively huge family than a military org although it was also that and the best on the planet. EVERYBODY looked out for each other.

oops Typo "interest"

They should use the self service refueling at sea. Full service something goes wrong a lot of times.

@Roadrunner: You're right. These things do happen from time to time. I was aboard the USS Ranger (CV61) when we collided with our resupply ship USS Wichita (AOR1) right off the coast of California in 1983. The Wichita got pretty banged up and had to return to port while the Ranger lost the use of its aft main elevator behind the island. We continued on with our mission and underwent some emergency repairs when we finally pulled into Subic Bay.

OK Chad, what does that have to do with two ships touching? Nothing as far as I can see.

Well said Chad.

I'm a veteran of the US Navy submarine force and agree with you 100%. Our nation long ago made the mistake of becoming an empire instead of a people devoted to liberty. We listened to Hamilton and ignored Jefferson.

@R

Did you read the section (pulled FROM the article) that I referenced?

Yes, I'm broadening the discussion a little ... or should we all just discuss two ships rubbing together?

Hey, did you see in the article where it said this one ship accidentally bumped into the other!

IMO: there will be an inquiry to find out what the steering failure was and what caused it. Sometimes electrical/mechanical systems fail at critical times and no amount of maintenance will prevent it from happening. Senior officers only get reprimanded if there is some type of failure of command.

As to the story, whenever there is damage to a multi-million (billion ?) vehicle owned by the US government which will require months to repair and cost hundreds of thousands ($millions) it is big news. The report of steering failure is probably just the initial finding. Kind of like "the brakes didn't work" when an auto crash happens. We may later find that there is human error involved or that a system failed. If a system failure is the cause, then the Navy will need to determine if other ships are vulnerable to the same failure.

Finally, the story does bring to mind the saying about what happens when two ships passing go bump in the night. :)

I remember when the Roosevelt had a fender bender with a cruiser. That was a fairly fun ride. I think we forgot to signal or something...

What has me baffled is that the Yukon is a Navy ship and only has 4 Military personnel? It has a crew of 78 civilian contractors!!! 1 contractor probably cost the Navy the same as 3-4 enlisted personnel. That my friends is a huge waste of our tax dollars.

chad-1841583 - just throwing this out there. The reason we have stations in Japan/Okinawa/S. Korea is to firstly provide a deterrant force maintaining the DMZ (De-Militarized Zone) and have a faster reactive force policing the DMZ (rather than sending a force out from say HI or CA). We aren't policing Japan.

We also have a MEU (Marine Expeditionary Force) that holds exercises throughout the Pacific at different Asian ports (in conjunction with our Asian Allies) to include Australia. Some units have permanent elements stationed in Japan to support the MEU while other elements joint he MEU for the 6 month rotation at sea. Perhaps the Essex was a "permanent" element in Japan and is coming home for "good", or upgrades, etc....

Rutter - Rudder

Rudder is a tool used to guide the ship.

Rutter is a tool used to guide a male in rut because of females in season.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the second world war end a few years back?

And we wonder why our country is bankrupt?

It always amuses me the amount of whiners that come on here for military a story and soil themselves over how much we spend on said military. If these mindless, clueless military haters had any CLUE how much money our government wastes, absolutely WASTES on domestic issues and over-bloated government bureaucratic CRAP, it would make our military spending look like gumball machine change.

And another thing Chad: we have a presence in the Pacific Rim (including Japan) for several reasons (same with our presence in Europe). If you do not understand those reasons, then that's why you are sitting behind your computer screen whining about things you do not understand instead of being in a position of power somewhere.

@Just li'l Ole Me

I understand/agree with everything you said. That's why I reinforced the message of my point being "extrapolated" from this example. I'm not saying we don't need / shouldn't have base-presence in foreign lands. My point is, we can do that much more effectively and efficiently without creating the proverbial "empire" that we have. We still have troops stationed in Germany.

Germany.

Do we really need a ground-force (military) presence in the heart of Europe with one of our stronger allies?

@10tacle

You've completely missed the mark and superimposed a big ole' straw man argument over top my entire point.

If these mindless, clueless military haters had any CLUE how much money our government wastes, absolutely WASTES on domestic issues and over-bloated government bureaucratic CRAP, it would make our military spending look like gumball machine change.

Completely false ... and in a REALLY big way.

Look, I'm all for smaller, more competent government within domestic affairs, but your gross misunderstanding of what our budget spending is in comparison to domestic policy is staggering. You're probably one of those people who think NASA gets like 30% of our national budget as well.

And another thing Chad: we have a presence in the Pacific Rim (including Japan) for several reasons (same with our presence in Europe).

^^^^^^^ {reads with a grin}

Okay, you are exactly correct. My point was that we should withdrawal all military presence from foreign lands. That's exactly what I said. I'm so glad there is people out there to put me in my place.

Chad - 20 of our bases in Germany will be closing between now and 2015. We do need a presence somewhere central in Europe because of the middle east; our wounded go to Germany (Landstuhl) and other existing sites are for joint training with allies, barracks, airfields and supplies.

@Floretta

Okay, but 20? Did we need 20? I'm glad to hear we are finally closing some, but I'm not quite sure what people are not understanding about my position?

We could do more with smaller, intelligence-based black ops forces than we could ever dream of with traditional support. The world has moved into the 21st century ... perhaps it's time our military should as well.

Chad- I was going to stay out of this, but you just insulted me.

Our military, of which I currently serve, is the most modern, well trained, and best equipped military in the entire world. The problem with using "black ops" is that SEALS, Rangers, Special Forces, Delta, Orange, CIA, etc don't hold terrain. They go in, conduct their mission, and quickly leave the area. While effective, it never clears the area of bad guys. They are a quick fix, not a long term solution.

As far as troops in Europe goes, we are downsizing and consolidating our forces there. The 173rd Airborne Brigade is stationed in Italy (most of it). They launched from Italy and Jumped into Northern Iraq at the start of OIF to force the Iraqi army to split its defensive forces and allow the main effort to move in so quickly. In order to rapidly respond to world threats, we have to have forward deployed troops and equipment.

The problem with using "black ops" is that SEALS, Rangers, Special Forces, Delta, Orange, CIA, etc don't hold terrain. They go in, conduct their mission, and quickly leave the area. While effective, it never clears the area of bad guys. They are a quick fix, not a long term solution.

{Faceplam}

Oh ... so we now need to "hold terrain" in Germany and Japan?

Which "bad guys" are we "trying to clear out" there again?

Wow.

Our military, of which I currently serve, is the most modern, well trained, and best equipped military in the entire world.

And?

Please reference where I said any different because as of right now I'm pretty at-a-loss. Just because I would like to see us update our military complex towards more of a post cold war strategy?

Chad- I was going to stay out of this, but you just insulted me.

I insulted you?

I did?

Just because I'd like to see our nation use its force and influence in a more productive and responsible manner, that insults you?

Get over yourself bud. You know absolutely nothing about me, or how I (or my loved ones) have been impacted by the military. Nowhere have I said one offensive thing about our men and women who serve this country.

Yet, I offend you.

That's pretty unbelievable if you ask me, Todd.

Look, I'm all for smaller, more competent government within domestic affairs, but your gross misunderstanding of what our budget spending is in comparison to domestic policy is staggering. You're probably one of those people who think NASA gets like 30% of our national budget as well.

Okay Chad: In FY2010 the entire military budget was $683 billion. That includes all domestic and overseas operations INCLUDING Iraq and Afghanistan. To put that into perspective, we blew $860 billion in 2009 in a "stimulus" bill that was supposed to kick start this economy again by creating "shovel ready jobs" and fund green energy companies like the now-defunct Solyndra (and keep unemployment from going above 8%). How'd that work out for us. Like I said...the amount of government WASTE out there makes our military spending (<5% of GDP) pale in comparison.

My point was that we should withdrawal all military presence from foreign lands. That's exactly what I said. I'm so glad there is people out there to put me in my place.

And again, that's why you are here posting your opinions, of which you are certainly entitled to. Thankfully, people like you are only able to post opinions on your beliefs instead of being in a position to do something about it. The rest of us live in the real world.

And your retort to Todd was typical of an arrogant passive-aggressive delusional isolationist such as yourself. Let me guess: you are a Ron Paul (RuPaul) supporter. Am I right?

Have a nice day!

Nice try

For the 2010 fiscal year, the president's base budget of the Department of spending on "overseas contingency operations" brings the sum to $663.84 billion.^[1]

When the budget was signed into law on October 28, 2009, the final size of the Department of Defense's budget was $680 billion, $16 billion more than President Obama had requested.

The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were largely funded through supplementary spending bills outside the Federal Budget, so they are not included in the military budget figures.^[2]

By the end of 2008, the U.S. had spent approximately $900 billion in direct costs on the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Indirect costs such as interest on the additional debt and incremental costs of caring for the more than 33,000 wounded borne by the Veterans Administration are additional. Experts estimate these indirect costs will eventually exceed the direct costs.^[3]

1. ^ Updated Summary Tables, Budget of the United States Government Fiscal Year 2010 (Table S.12)
2. ^ David Isenberg, Budgeting for Empire: The effect of Iraq and Afghanistan on Military Forces, Budgets and Plans
3. ^ Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments-Cost of the Iraq & Afghanistan Wars Through 2008

---------------------------------

Thankfully, people like you are only able to post opinions on your beliefs instead of being in a position to do something about it. The rest of us live in the real world.

And which world is that ... the one where facts and figures count for nothing?

You're nothing but a political ideologue (which your comments easily highlight)

In short, you're what's wrong with this country. Todd and I can have disagreements and arguments, but we can also respect one another. You on the other hand, are simply blind to political affiliations where ideas don't matter ... good ideas don't matter. The only thing that matters in your "world", is what party ticket you punch on election day.

Chad- Sorry it takes me so long to reply, but my aging government computer makes it take 10 minutes to load this page.

Simply by implying that our military isn't modern is insulting to me. I never claimed you one offensive thing about those who serve. But when you say "the military" needs to modernize, that implies that the folks in the military are not modern, and that's not nice.

We are holding ground in Afghanistan, we have bases in Europe that support that effort. We have hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure that we aren't going to just abandon all at once, and training with other NATO members is crucial to world security.

Our defence funding is less than 20% of the entire budget. That includes pay, equipment, planes, ships, etc. We spend far more on overly abused social programs. I heard yesterday that we have already spent 1.3 billion dollars on cell phones for the "under privileged" and they interviewed a young woman who had 5 of those cell phones in her purse and claimed to have 30 more at her public housing home.

War is expensive, but I look at it this way. A vast majority of the money spent on war comes right back here to the US. Look at how much we spend on a single PLS Truck which is manufactured by Osh Kosh in Wisconsin, or the ground penetrating radar that finds IED's made by NIITEK in Virginia, etc. All that money stays in the US in the form of paychecks and profit. War is good for the economy. Just watch new car sales around Fort Benning when the 3rd ID comes back again!

While I appreciate your interest in getting our military modernized, I can assure you that it is already there. If you aren't happy with the current base locations throughout the world, please organize a movement and put it to vote. Or, you could join as an officer if you have a college degree, and work your way up to be the big general at the Pentagon. Once there, feel free to close all our overseas bases! I can retire anytime I want to, so I don't care what you do in 30 years!!

Mr. Thinker -

Rutter is a nautical term.

Rutter: a descriptive atlas of the Middle Ages, giving sailing directions and providing charts showing rhumb lines and the location of ports and various coastal features.

Origin: 1490–1500; variant of ruttier < Middle French routier, equivalent to route route + -ier -ier

Alright Guys... It's on...

@10tacle: That $860Billion you touted was a one-time stimulus package in 2009. The $683Billion you're comparing it to is an annual expenditure. Let's compare this annual expenditure to other potential enemies we may have to fight out on the battlefield someday:

China spends about $114billion on their military (let's say they lie and spent 3 times as much = $342Billion). Quite a bit less than us.

Russia spends about $52billion. About a 13th as much as we do. France? Oh yeah... Those guys are needing a beatdown soon. They spend about $61billion a year on their military (It's not cheap keeping your own nuclear deterrent force and not joining the boys club of NATO).

So what exactly are we spending hundreds of billions of dollars more for every single year. To have the honor and privilege of killing people in the most high-tech ways imaginable?

I'm a veteran. I have a say 10tacle and Todd. I say we spend way too much. In reference to Chad's comment about NASA: Space exploration is something we do well. It's basically a peaceful hobby of this country and we do it better than any other country in the world. NASA's budget for 2011 is about $18Billion dollars. The defense departments R&D (research and development) budget for 2011 is about $75Billion dollars. Four times the amount spent on all of NASA. I guess learning new ways to kill people is four more time important than exploring space and learning how to live somewhere other than this planet.

Regarding isolationists comments: What's so wrong with that?

Leading up to World War Two, the United States spent about 1.25% of our GDP on our military budget. This was pretty low; however, when confronted with War, our industrial capabilities and American know-how were able to convert our economy to a war footing very rapidly. (Remember, we were attacked on 12/7/1941 and by August 1945 we were parked in Tokyo Bay accepting the surrender of the Japanese government).

That's right. In 4 years, 8 months we went from an isolationist country to the biggest boy on the block parked in Tokyo bay accepting the surrender of a Military Junta.

Today, we spend about 5% of our GDP on our military budget. Why? Who is the enemy we've locked horns with? What's the point of a country that claims to love peace and freedom while it arms itself to the teeth? Is there really a credible threat out there that can strip us of our freedom? Think about the size of our country. An invading army here would have the same problem the French and Germans had when they attempted to invade Russia... We're just too big with vast distances separating our east and west coast. Why do we need this much weaponry (other than the fact that this stuff is "cool as hell" to have)?

Another thing to consider:

Think about this... We spent Trillions upon Trillions of dollars building nuclear weapons over the past 70 years. There has been absolutely no return on these expenditures. Sure, you could say that the cost of detente and M.A.D. ensured we were never attacked; however, 100 well aimed nuclear weapons would achieved our policy. How many nuclear weapons did we posses at our peak of production? 32,193 warheads in 1966.

32,193? Who determined that number? What was the point of so many?

Roughly 100 1Megaton warheads would be enough to effectively destroy much of this planet. 1,000 of the same would ensure that very little of human civilization would remain. 10,000 would nearly guarantee the eradication of most life on this planet. I guess the Department of Defense wanted triple that JUST TO MAKE SURE NOTHING LIVED. Good for them. I appreciate thoroughness.

Dwight Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during World War II. He later became our highest ranked military commander to inhabit the office of President of the United States. After his term was up, and Kennedy was about to assume the office, President Eisenhower gave a farewell speech where he warned about the dangers of the Military-Industrial complex controlling Washington. In this speech he said:

"Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration."

I think 10tacle and Todd, should study up on the things they talk about in order to learn that words have meaning, and their sequence of words they've just strung together had meaning, but probably not the meaning they intended.

You boys are living in a fantasy world where we have to be the biggest boys on the block because threats are everywhere. What you fail to realize is that the biggest threat to people around the world, nowadays, is the red, white, and blue on the fuselage of the plane dropping bombs on you at any given time of the day or night.

Asking the question, "Why" is always a good place to start. "Why do we need bases in Asia?" "Why do we need bases in Europe?" If we have bases in Europe and Asia, then shouldn't we also be hosting European and Asian bases here in the States for our Allies? Isn't that fair? Why is it so important to have forward deployed equipment? Our we just itching for a war to throw this equipment at? If a country is always on a war footing, doesn't that make that country warlike? How does this jive with the concept of the USA being a peace-loving democracy that is run by the people and for the people?

Simply by implying that our military isn't modern is insulting to me.

And I never said (or implied) that.

Every comment I've made has been based on strategy and waste ... not competency.

Our defence funding is less than 20% of the entire budget.

Please source this?

We spend far more on overly abused social programs.

1.) Again, please source this

2.) This is a straw man. You haven't seen me once defend our current domestic spending budget or social programs. I've even said the opposite ... I'm all for a smaller, more competent approach.

But shrugging our shoulders and saying: "well hey, we spend a @!$%# load on entitlements so don't come harping to me about military spending" is not going to cut it.

How about we grow up and fix all these things on all different fronts?

See the new USS Independence (LCS-2). Impressive! Built to take on pirates and a dozen other missions.

I was going to join the fray but I can see that Chad has already made 10tacle look like a fool...........again

Damn horney sailors astride two horney ships! These here now unpracticed copulation attempts have got to stop! Embarrassing!

First off, I served in the Army for eight years. Deployed to Iraq the first time around, etc, etc, etc. In otherwords, no attacks need be thrown my way based on a mistaken belief that I don't know what I'm talking about.

With that said, Chad, I agree with you. The clche is that we always train for the last war we fought. We pre-positioned troops and materiel all over the world in the belief that we would fight a large land war against the Soviet Union. Guess what. We won that war. It's time to move on.

Our main opponents in the future will likely be loosely organized small-sized terrorist cells and, after Afghanistan, I would be surprised if any nation-state would be foolish enough to allow these terrorist organizations to operate training camps openly within their borders. Thus, the need for full fledged invasion sized forces will diminish. Note I said "diminish," not "go away."

To face this new type of enemy, we need to dramatically upgrade our intelligence gathering capabilities and, simultaneously, improve our long-range weapons delivery systems (to include both strike and transport capabilities). Missile strikes, possibly followed by small-unit rapid strike assaults (with a nod to Ranger Todd and his brothers) and a quick visit to the head of state by our local Ambassador will go a long way towards neutralizing the terrorist threat and achieving what Chad is promoting; a more efficient, effective military service.

Food for thought . . . any comments?

@Mario69. Though it may seem like I'm down on military expenditures, I'm only down on Excessive Military Expenditures. The USS Independence is the kind of ship we need, while juggernauts like the Ford Class of Aircraft Carrier (...and this come hard to me being a former airdale in the US Navy and having served aboard the USS Ranger and USS Kitty Hawk), really have no place in today's world.

Yeah, the Independence is a pretty awesome ship!

Gilligannnnnn! ...........

Adds a whole new meaning to, "Two ships that pass in the night."

Chad is eating y'alls lunch and dinner, do the dishes!!!! roflmmfao!!!!!!!

I think you meant "Worserer", or "Badderer".

I like liverwurst than tuna

Actually it would be worse. Worserer or badderer aren't even real words. Hell, worser isn't even a real word, it's non-standard.

I've seen lots of worse stuff, but this was more worse than all of it!

4.3, please tell me that you are not serious, seriouser, or even seriousest.

Technically, you are correct, but it was intended for automobiles only.

For this "New Obama" navy, a "Steering malfunction" is also defined by a few other less known incidents like....spilling your mocha frappe while reaching for your spice, or spilling your man-goo while fantasizing about the new possibilities of you and your life partner getting married.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Ooooh... A nautical themed article can also be used to bash Obama. How delightfully fun. Can EVERYTHING be used to blame Obama? A mother in Florida killed herself and her children several days ago? That's because she was despondent over Obama's endorsement of same-sex marriages! Wild fires are raging in Arizona? The people there are REALLY HOT over Obama's policies!

My... This is fun!

Please save us from BPT's (Bloody Political Trolls)!

Let's see some of those posting smart remarks do it. The fact that the crews are not that far out of high school, they do a pretty job during a tough maneuver. The fact it makes front page news is hilarious.

"That carrier just jumped right out in front of us!"

Apparently bettern now that you're not on it.

Most likely it will be postformed

William...as someone who has stood Officer of the Deck (OOD), Engineering Officer of the Watch (EOOW) MANY TIMES during these evolutions, I can tell you with the utmost certainty that this is not "BS."

Of all the "what can go wrong scenarios" during an underway replenishment, this is not only a probable scenario, but the worst of all. Shipboard steering systems are very complex electric and servo-hydraulic systems and any one of ten thousand things can go wrong with them. It's just unfortunate that it occured during this very critical manuever.

Additionally, the US Navy are EXPERTs at underway replenishment...there are dozes that go on EVERY SINGLE DAY without incident. It's no different situation than flying planes...you train every day and keep your equipment in the best possible shape, but you know there will always be a plane crash at some point and, if the crash occurs, you also train to do damage control and save lives. The fact that there was minimal damage and no casualties was no doubt due to the this training.

DSP - Captain - USNR

Thank you Captain for trying to educate the ignorant. BZ

Thank you Captain. I was involved in many unreps in my 6 years in, they are dangerous, and you have more eyes on the controls of the engineering sections of the ship to the point you begin to trip over people.

You must know little of the Navy. As they are traveling parallel to each other at a close distance, it happens from time to time. It's not sim[ple and takes a lot of talent. Ships these size don't move around the ocean like little 19 footers.

Some scaped paint and the military's falling apart??? Give me a break.

Wait, ginormous ships can't just stop on a dime? Clearly this whole "Physics" scam was invented by the Navy as a CYA. ;)

No, Obama will make it Bush's fault...like everything else he screws up...all on Bush

"Did I do that...?" - Steve Urkel

"Doh!" - Homer Simpson

O.K. all we need is Ginger and the professor.

I never drove a Tank into another Tank

Then you missed on all the fun.

Last time I checked tanks are stationary while refueling and also on solid ground. I may be wrong, I was Navy (I drove a ship into another ship by the way ;))

...and, unfortunately, this will be the one incident that will prevent the CO from obtaining flag rank. CO's of the Wasp Class are typically senior Captains who go on to be squadron Commodores. He may as well retire after this tour.

...and, unfortunately, this will be the one incident that will prevent the CO from obtaining flag rank. CO's of the Wasp Class are typically senior Captains who go on to be squadron Commodores. He may as well retire after this tour.

Yep. This, and running aground, are two of the biggest No-no's that'll de-rail a CO's career.

The way the Navy is canning CO's lately how many do we have left!

Costa Cruise Lines is probably looking for a new captain.

what a pubbie grenade troll........geez