| Submit your comments on this article | |||
| Arabia | |||
| USS John F. Kennedy - 1, Dhow - 0 | |||
| 2004-07-23 | |||
The USS John F. Kennedy aircraft carrier collided with a dhow in the Arabian Gulf while running night flights in support of U.S. operations in Iraq, the Navy said Friday. The crew of the small boat was missing.
| |||
| Posted by:Steve |
| #30 Very, very few people understand, either, the power of a major warship at speed. A fully-armed carrier weighs in at 55,000 tons, and travels at 35-40 knots (38-44 miles an hour). Do the math - Ke=Mv (kinetic energy equals mass times velocity). We're not talking a 70-car loaded coal train hitting a schoolbus, but more something like such a train hitting a bicycle! That's a lot of steel moving at a respectable clip through the water. When I was stationed in Panama in the 1960's there was an accident with a 600-foot dry-cargo vessel hitting another, 400-foot general-purpose cargo vessel at five knots, in a fog. The second ship had a gouge in the hull 40 feet long and 17 feet deep. Luckily both ships were virtually in port when it happened, an no one was killed. Any wooden vessel shorter than about 35 feet wouldn't have even scratched the paint on the JFK, and it would have taken something on the lines of a large Coast Guard cutter to make a dent. As far as "dry run" is concerned, there are other factors that would practically mitigate against any serious damage with anything a small vessel could carry, and hopefully a larger vessel would have been stopped. Besides, I doubt there are any survivors of THIS collision to pass on any lessons learned, other than "don't try this at home...". |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2004-07-23 11:28:09 PM |
| #29 Here is an excellent link to those who are unfamiliar with a Dhow from Archeology Magazine. I took a fishing trip on a dhow during one of my stops in Bahrain. It was like be on a mini-version of RA II that might have been constructed from the leavings of a residential construction site in NC (no Portolet but bad industrial carpet installed on the deck and awning.) The JFK has a history of running into other ships - the Belknap and another frigate a year later. The Belknap collision was particularly messy as the smaller cruiser (which is really big) ruptured piping in a fueling station above the point of impact on the carrier. The result was that JP-5 or JP-4 gushed like a monsoon from the carrier down the cruiser's stacks, a cause which did not lead to a happy effect - the Belknap's superstructure melted down the to the maindeck like the wicked witch in Wizard of Oz. Pappy would be the best reference on Dhows, but here are some thoughts within my experience why it is surprising that this type of accident doesn't happen more often: 1. A fishing area that is worthwhile to a commercial fisherman will generally be exploited by a gaggle of them simultaneously. 2. The worse case for all involved is when somewhere within a heavily trafficked navigational channel there exists a really prime fishing spot. 3. While a carrier doesn't maneuver well, neither does a fisherman with his nets extended. 4. Screening ships are looking capable of protecting against some types of threats they are no more useful chase away a fleet of dhows than a shot gun or baseball bat is useful in attacking a bee hive. You could probably task a destroyer with running over every dhow in the carriers way or zapping them with a 50 cal from the bridge-wing but screening vessels are too big for the job of chasing away fishing scows. 5. Commercial captains throughout the world monitor the same bridge-to-bridge radio frequencies and are ready to deconflict actions in English. Figure the odds of all the the dhow captains in the Persian being well out-fitted and fluent in English - although their English would be much better than my Arabic. This same problem for large vessels exists off the West coast of South America as well. I have played chicken with a several fishermen in zodiac style boats who were trying to keep me away from where they had laced their lobster traps. Although the Law of Gross Tonnage was in my favor, I yielded, having no interest in fouling my screw. 6. On a carrier (I am really weak as this is from a six-week Midshipman cruise in 87 on the Saratoga) the height of eye allows you to see farther but you are blinded in close to the vessel by the edge of the flight deck - reminiscent of trying to parallel park a Yukon. The eyes of the ship, up close are probably a kid with binoculars at the forward lookout station. 7. On many surface ships the officer in charge of the Combat Information Center (CIC - or where the radars be) can walk out to the bridge-wing for consultation in less then 30 strides. That is not possible on a carrier. Final Note - the JFK was designed as a nuke, but converted to conventional steam power so as not to offend the Kennedy family. This means that it probably swills gas faster than Ted can go through a shaker of martinis. It probably will be kept in service longer than it really should be for political considerations. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-07-23 11:24:03 PM |
| #28 Hey Dar, sorry it took so long to get back to you ('ya mean I gotta work?) A lot of people who haven't actually been in that kind of work don't understand the difference between being prepared and being invincible. No one or thing is invincible. Any single person, vehicle, aircraft, or ship may one day have a dissterous meeting with a "golden bullet." If you are well trained, motivated and sufficiently paranoid, your chance of buying the farm are greatly lessened, but it can still happen to anyone. To a certain extent, the oceans are a bit like the freeways. Collisions do happen. Even if you are a wary driver, you can still be hit by some bozo who is not paying attention. The main thing is to keep alert and play the odds. The ocean is a |
| Posted by: Bill 2004-07-23 7:40:01 PM |
| #27 Go Steve! Build 'em mean! |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-07-23 6:13:50 PM |
| #26 Nowadays the term dhow can mean any small cargo vessel, whether lanteen sail powered or motorized. Remember that the USS Decatur intercepted a 40-foot motorized dhow last December that was smuggling hashish - and thought possibly to be linked to Al-Qaida. Usually the fleet steams too fast for even the motorized versions to intercept, but the bad boyz do know how to operate faster boats. After the USS Cole attack (and continuing up until a few months ago) I was heavily involved in rebuilding fast attack craft for the Navy for fleet protection. I designed and retrofit the Electric/Electronic systems. We were so short of mission capable boats that we were "borrowing" them from the SWCC school and pulling boats off of the junk pile just to get rebuildable hulls. I'm proud to say that a fleet hasn't sailed since that didn't have a part of me going with it (usually the skin from my knuckles). (I even saw one of boats in the water when the USS Reagan came into San Diego this morning.) Long story short, if the fleet is in port or going slow, we have counter measures. But If we are at operational speed, I dunno - Does anyone else? |
| Posted by: Tobacconist (another Steve) 2004-07-23 6:02:20 PM |
| #25 "Helmsmen,what the hell was that" "Flounder,sir" |
| Posted by: raptor 2004-07-23 5:52:52 PM |
| #24 The Cole was stationary? Docked? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-07-23 4:55:26 PM |
| #23 LL--Thanks for your comments! I guess I'm just concerned that Al Qaeda and Co. are looking for every opportunity to give us a black eye and exploit vulnerabilities, and in our high tech world we tend to overlook the low tech aspects and threats. I know it would take something HUGE to damage a carrier, but it's not the carrier I'm concerned about. It's the smaller ships in our navy that make better targets, and to see a carrier, which I always understood was the most protected ship in the fleet, can end up running over a dhow makes me wonder how well protected the minor ships are. |
| Posted by: Dar 2004-07-23 3:15:37 PM |
| #22 Ima dig. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-07-23 3:00:36 PM |
| #21 DOH! I understand, not "I'm understand." |
| Posted by: longtime lurker 2004-07-23 1:57:06 PM |
| #20 #18 Dar, I'm understand your concern, and I can assure you that 5th Fleet isn't being so nonchalant, only because now they have a lot of paperwork to fill out. If you aren't familiar with carrier ops, it may be hard to understand why a carrier underway with room to maneuver is incredibly difficult to find, much less hit, much less inflict serious damage on. A bomb the size of the one that nearly split USS Cole would be lucky to damage a CV enough to require a patch, and it wouldn't stop it from hauling ass, either. A small boat trying to run alongside in a carrier's wake would be pushed away, trying to water ski in the wake would make a great focsle follies film, and you've seen what happens when one tries to park in front of one--seriously, it's possible to run over a dhow and never know it. The time to worry for a carrier's safety is when it's parked pierside somewhere. Mt Mckinley jogging has nothing fear from muggers. |
| Posted by: longtime lurker 2004-07-23 1:56:14 PM |
| #19 There's no such thing as a free lunch -- or risk-free military operations, Dar. In this as in all matters, there is a cost-benefit tradeoff to be made. As Bill notes, radar doesn't do much for something not much bigger than a rowboat with a canvas sail on it. At some point, trying to defend against all attacks all the time is not only too costly, it badly degrades operational capability. I'm very confident our naval commanders have a clear risk profile they operate to and that that profile is well thought-out. Which does not mean an attack couldn't happen, just that the only effective way to prevent any attacks would be to cease operating there. Which, of course, would mean the country runs other risks here at home. |
| Posted by: rkb 2004-07-23 1:43:19 PM |
| #18 Bill and LL - I appreciate reading your responses, but I'm still incredulous that something like this can be dismissed so nonchalantly--especially in the wake of the USS Cole attack. We aren't fighting an enemy with the technology to launch a nuclear-tipped missile or torpedo into the middle of a battle group, and they don't have any Kilos or Tangos. The low tech approach is precisely what they use and, it appears, precisely what we're not prepared to counter. It's vulnerabilities like this they seek to exploit. |
| Posted by: Dar 2004-07-23 1:28:25 PM |
| #17 Thanks Bill and LL. into a slow moving nothing slow about a carrier, it just looks slow. Sort of like Mt. McKinley jogging. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-07-23 1:20:19 PM |
| #16 Sanity, sanity, please. But I see that #15 has beaten me to the punch. Law of gross tonnage applies, the CVN isn't going to dodge the dhows, which are literally everywhere at all times in the PG. They aren't even going to try during recovery cycles (when the aircraft land). But if Bill remembers, wasn't there a Soviet sub in the Sea of Japan in the 1980s that was literallly rolled under one of the older decks, Indie perhaps? Bounced a few times off the keel as the boat ran over it, eventually resurfacing in the wake, and in true Soviet fashion, refusing all offers of assistance. I'd hate to have been rolling around inside that tin can. |
| Posted by: longtime lurker 2004-07-23 12:57:20 PM |
| #15 A couple of observations from a guy that used to drive those things and escorts as well. The escorts are widely dispersed for several reasons. Bunched together, 1 nuke can take them all out at once. It's for the escorts protection - the carrier is moving very rapidly and at night, with all the flight deck illumination, it is very difficult to gauge the course she is on. More than one escort has collided with carriers at night in the past. During the '60s one American destroyer was cut in half and sunk by the HMAS Melbourne. Dhows are all wood and canvas which is pretty much invisible on radar. They also tend not to have any running lights that a lookout could spot. Also the illumination on the flight deck tends to blind the lookouts and make night vision equipment ineffective. As dhows are sail powered, they are slow and have limited maneuverability - not the kind of vessel you would attempt to use for a terrorist attack. Small boats like that frequently don't have anyone actually "on watch." Once off the California coast I almost collided with a large pleasure craft because no one was at the wheel. Finally at the last minute a guy comes running topside bare naked to change course (we know what he was doing!) The flight deck is so long, that from the pilot house, you cannot see anything ahead of you, or on your port bow for at least a mile. Bottom line - the only safe place near a carrier operating at night is in a submarine :-) |
| Posted by: Bill 2004-07-23 12:44:20 PM |
| #14 Good catch LH. Irony is so, well, er, ironic. . . |
| Posted by: Doc8404 2004-07-23 12:18:58 PM |
| #13 am i like the only one who finds it IRONIC that some bloody idiot managed to get his small BOAT sunk by the JOHN F KENNEDY??????? Perhaps the missing dhow crew are washed up on an island right now, heroically attempting to get rescued? |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-07-23 11:34:02 AM |
| #12 I have no idea how a big a 'dhow' is, but how in the world could you POSSIBLY not see a freakin' carrier?! This was definitely a test. And the carrier group failed. And I would say the person in command of the picket screen will be scrubbing barnacles off the side of the carrier for a long time. |
| Posted by: AllahHateMe 2004-07-23 11:33:15 AM |
| #11 My guess is that they were smugglers and running quiet, dark, and ?fast?. I suspect this happened at night because I can't imagine one getting by the screen during the day. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-07-23 11:32:18 AM |
| #10 Someone will be in trouble for letting the Dhow through the screen. Dhows are relatively small ships and might be too low for rader, if it happened at night while the fleet was conducting flight operations and was probably scattered I can see how this could happen. The folks in the Dhow are either bad guys, or completely deaf dumb and blind to have actually smacked into a slow moving and rather large and loud ship such as a carrier. My guess is they had bad intentions but the explosives didn't go off. Either that or they are smugglers who dodged one of the screening ships and accidently went the wrong way and found themselves surrounded, and defeaned, and didn't see the black mass in front of them. |
| Posted by: Yank 2004-07-23 11:23:33 AM |
| #9 From what I have been told by people who have served on carriers is that most of the time you can't even see the escort vessels. Plus the amount of traffic in the Gulf is guite large and I would assume that there is no traffic control at all. Plus at the speed the JFK was travelling the dhow might not of had any idea just how much trouble it was in |
| Posted by: cheaderhead 2004-07-23 11:21:54 AM |
| #8 Somerset There's always been an Essex in the US Navy, is it the same deal with Somerset and the RN? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-07-23 11:16:15 AM |
| #7 How come large carriers such as this do not have patrol boats at the lead and rear? They do, in a way. A CBG also includes cruisers, destroyers, frigates and a submarine or two. That this dhow would manage to elude ALL of them is troubling, to say the least. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-07-23 10:50:10 AM |
| #6 Pardon my ignorance--as some of you know I am a learning curve. How come large carriers such as this do not have patrol boats at the lead and rear? |
| Posted by: Dragon Fly 2004-07-23 10:14:45 AM |
| #5 This is a serious breach of security--how did this boat get anywhere NEAR the JFK? Isn't the CVN supposed to be surrounded by several dozen ships on picket duty? This strikes me as the near-equivalent of Matthias Rust landing his Cessna in Red Square. |
| Posted by: Dar 2004-07-23 10:12:22 AM |
| #4 What if the dhow was loaded to the gunwales with high explosive? U.S. carriers aren't nearly well-protected as it's assumed they are. |
| Posted by: gromky 2004-07-23 9:58:55 AM |
| #3 USS Ronald Reagan pulls into NAS North Island - San Diego at 10AM, the new home berth |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-07-23 9:52:37 AM |
| #2 Spike in births expected in May 2005. |
| Posted by: Steve 2004-07-23 9:50:56 AM |
| #1 Anyone down in the Norfolk area this weekend, go down to the port to watch 3 carrier groups returning to port...over 13,500 sailors. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2004-07-23 9:31:43 AM |