Loose Discipline a Major Factor of US Military’s Failures


Damaged USS USS Fitzgerald. Mil.huanqiu.com photo.

USS Fitzgerald’s recent accident US military’s serious discipline problems so that such accident may have occurred for a warship with the most advanced equipment to avoid such accident. The crew simply were not on duty or were sleeping on duty so that they were not alert enough to avoid such an accident.

Moreover, any navy that has imposed some discipline shall immediately arrest the captain and the officer in charge of navigating the warship. Some countries’ military may have them court marshaled and put to death as their negligence has caused the death of US sailors in peace time.

Their negligence in causing death of their crew members have to be punished severely but US Navy does not seem willing to do so. US Navy is conducting an investigation. For what? Even if the accident was caused by malfunction of equipment, the officers had still to be held responsible. They had their duty to find the malfunction and take remedy measures immediately. The investigation is carried out to find some excuse to protect the negligent officers! Usually officers want to protect their peers. The highest command shall have taken immediate measures to impose discipline and arrest the guilty officers. The lack of discipline is a serious problem in US troops, which proves the poorest training in a military with the best equipment. No wonder, US troops have suffered one failure after another.

Article by Chan Kai Yee

Advertisements

43 Comments on “Loose Discipline a Major Factor of US Military’s Failures”

  1. Assassin says:

    Now when they want to attack the North Koreans, they say it is the North Koreans. Typical Washington modus operandi. Shall we say now the collision was an American false flag? That Washington and its covet dark operations agencies cooked up this incident, no matter if 7 Americans lives were lost? And that the ship named “Fitzgerald” was no accident? It might as well had been named USS “Trump”?

    Like

  2. alking1957 says:

    It is even funnier today – i read a news from Reuters on this collision where they quote someone who said it could be due to hacking! Lol, right now hacking = Putin. When all else failed, blamed Putin!

    Like

    • chankaiyee2 says:

      Cargo ship’s light signal cannot be seen due to hacking?

      Wonderful excuse!

      Like

    • johnleecan says:

      What I’ve read is that some American sources are saying that the collision was due to Chinese hacking. Later, it said Russian intelligence has information that the Americans will blame the North Koreans hacking the autopilot of the Filipino cargo ship. This is because of the supposedly North Korean Unit 180 cyber attack using the Wannacry ransomware, the cyber heist of Bangladesh Central Bank, and the cyber attack on Sony Hollywood studio.

      Like

  3. Steve says:

    Latest report by the Filipino captain was the USS Fitzgerald veered into the waterway channel of his cargo ship. He sounded the alarm but to no avail, instead the US warship continued into the waterway of the cargo ship. This is credible. If the US captain is negligent he will be retired with retirement benefits and if the cargo ship captain is guilty he will face life imprisonment.

    Possibily there was no one on the bridge or rather a close physical encounter of the sensual kind at 1.30am under the moonlight stars and stripes. Wonder if there was an Indian on board giving damn sailors a blow job. Maybe red flag knows?

    Like

  4. Steve says:

    It will go down in US naval history how a cargo ship took out an American most advanced Aegis destroyer without firing a shot. Just like the F35, the radar and sensors on board the destroyer was overrated lacking technical efficiency. The US aircraft carrier fleet is now One ‘state of art’ destroyer destroyed.

    Like

  5. Joseph says:

    Isn’t it like karma for the Americans? The way that American likes to casually rape girls in Japan and Phillipines and left them bleeding, the USS Fitzgerald was practically ‘raped’ by the bulbous bow of a Filipino ship and left behind bleeding.

    Like

    • Steve says:

      Yes, there was no reply from the warship that veeed into the cargo ship waterway, when the Filipino captain sounded the alarm. There could have been a sensual encounter of the Bum kind on board the bridge. Wonder if red flag relatives was on board.

      Like

      • Assassin says:

        If so, why did it take the container ship 20 minutes to turn back to check the damage to the US destroyer and to save any lives if required? What is the emergency procedures in such an accident?

        Like

  6. Reply says:

    Red Flag,

    Where are you? Please give us your professional opinion on this matter. Why did the invincible American navy slaughter seven US sailors?

    Like

    • alking1957 says:

      May be he change his name to Red Card and ejected himself !

      Like

    • Simon says:

      It could an advance Chinese radar jamming device that cause the ship to fail to detect what is comming or ultrasound wave transimitter that sends it crew to sleep. What do you think?

      Like

    • Joseph says:

      The American navy did not slaughter seven US sailors. The automated machine did. It’s a revenge of the Terminator Ship. Perhaps now the American would blame Skynet.

      Like

    • Red Flag says:

      Thank you for calling me out. In the recent at sea events where US Navy ships have suffered serious damage, the crews have rallied to quickly save their ships from being lost. This includes the USS Stark which took two Exocet hits while operating in the Persian Gulf, the USS Cole which was nearly blown in half by a terrorist IED off of Yemen, and of course this recent incident where the USS Fitzgerald was rammed by a much larger vessel and the sleeping crew quickly responded to general quarters to save the lives of their shipmates and their ship.
      Contrast this with what happened to HMS Sheffield during the Falklands war when despite operating under wartime conditions took just one Exocet hit and sank with the loss of twenty of her crew.

      The fact is that the US Navy trains its sailors to save their ship despite what damage it has suffered.

      This can also be seen in how US Navy crews have saved their ships during serious flight deck accidents like what happened on the aircraft carriers, USS Forrestal and USS Enterprise where despite multiple 500 and 1000 pound bombs detonating on the deck during flight operations both carriers remained able to perform their mission.

      It will be interesting to see how other navies respond when their ships are damaged due to accidents or hits during wartime. I wonder how a PLAN type 055 Destroyer and its crew would have handled the type of damage suffered by the USS Fitzgerald? Any ideas?

      Like

      • Reply says:

        >I wonder how a PLAN type 055 Destroyer and its crew would have handled the type of damage suffered by the USS Fitzgerald? Any ideas?

        The PLAN would have averted the disaster by staying awake and steering their ship.

        Like

        • Joseph says:

          True. Unlike American warships, Chinese warships have no problem displaying their AIS. Autopilot must be deliberate to ram ship with AIS.

          Like

      • Tyler Reber says:

        Eight people had died, and unfortunate tragedy.

        But all that extra blood just further proves and strengthens US ownership of the pacific ocean, which is good, Right?

        Like

        • Red Flag says:

          Sadly the PLAN does not seem to take damage control procedures seriously.

          When have you ever seen the PLAN practice damage control procedures on their ships? And as the PLAN decides to venture further from shore trying to run with the big dogs in an effort to become a blue water force, more opportunities will present themselves for breakdowns and unforeseen events and the PLAN will be unable to keep them concealed.

          It is only a matter of time before a J-15 crashes on the deck of a PLAN carrier during flight operations or is unable to land due to a malfunction with its landing gear or hook and the deck crew has to rig a barrier to recover the aircraft. Will the PLAN be able to handle that type of emergency at sea? You can be assured that the USN can.

          The Thai navy reports that the ships they have obtained from China have: “…very limited battle damage control systems, with poor fire-suppression systems and water-tight locks. It’s said that if the Chinese built ships hull are breached, rapid flooding would lead to loss of ship.”

          So to criticize the USN on they how handled shipboard casualties like the recent collision shows a complete lack of understanding of the demands of blue water operations and the training involved.

          The USN has a long history of handling shipboard accidents and damage with the lessons paid for in blood. China is an infant in modern warship operations.

          Like

          • Joseph says:

            Sadly you don’t know what you are talking about. With all those preparation, the USN still has a long history of handling shipboard accidents and damage with the lessons paid for in blood. So what’s the preparation for? It sound like USN actually trains to be Star Trek Klingon, obsessed to pay everything in blood. China may will have the accidents you mention in the future, but not today. So keep wishing.

            Like

          • Simon says:

            And how many Yankee fighter pilot crashes and died on their carriers?
            China handled extremely well with any accidental death in naval training. Your problem is?

            Like

            • Red Flag says:

              “And how many Yankee fighter pilot crashes and died on their carriers?”

              Many. And that’s the point. Even the Russians sailed the sister of the Liaoing, the Kuznetsov, off the coast of Syria where during flight operations two Su-33’s crashed. The PLAN is afraid to come out of their hidden sanctuaries and let the world observe their growing pains.

              Like

              • Assassin says:

                I think we can rest our case. Red Flag’s admission is there for all to see. Case over. The USN is a poorly managed reckless enity. Talking about the Russian Navy is a red herring; a distraction.

                Like

          • tito says:

            “The Thai navy reports that the ships they have obtained from China have: “…”

            Naresuan class and Jianghu-class FFGs?? Both ships were delievered almost 3 decades ago!

            Poor indian just getting desperate….

            Like

          • chankaiyee2 says:

            “It is only a matter of time before a J-15 crashes on the deck of a PLAN carrier during flight operations or is unable to land due to a malfunction with its landing gear or hook and the deck crew has to rig a barrier to recover the aircraft. Will the PLAN be able to handle that type of emergency at sea? You can be assured that the USN can.”

            The above passage need to be proved instead of being supported by your hostility to China as the Liaoning has been in operation for years without accident. Please give your poofs

            Like

            • Red Flag says:

              Every navy that operates aircraft at sea from carriers has accidents. The Russians recently lost two Su-33s during operations off of Syria and America has last many crews and aircraft during flight operations from their decks. For you to believe that China will not suffer the same fate means that you either do not understand carrier operations or that the PLAN plays things so safe that they operate only in calm seas and sunny weather to minimize risk.

              When the PLAN comes out of hiding from their little enclave in Bohai Bay and conducts REAL carrier operations, meaning at night, and in all types of weather you will see crashes just like every other navy does. It happens to everybody. China is not special in that regard.

              My answer to your claim that the Liaoning has been in operation for over four years without an accident only proves that the PLAN is timid and does not train very hard. When you train to the edge you are bound to lose aircraft and pilots.

              Like

              • Steve says:

                The Liaoning just completed 2 weeks all weather training and will be resting for 4 days in Hongkong before returning for more training. Sailing across seas on an aircraft carrier 24/7 is itself all weather training. How do u know the PLAN does not train very hard.
                What has losing Russian/US aircrafts and pilots to do with hard training. Neither the Russians nor Americans will train their pilots over the edge. Lost of aircrafts and pilots are due to discrepancies nothing to do with hard training. Each plane cost tens of millions and fighter pilots are worth more.

                U are suffering from your own insecurity jealousy and inferiority complex. Its better to lose U.

                Like

              • Assassin says:

                You make a lot of wild exaggerated unsubstantiated claims. The real possibility is that the Chinese Liaoning is not managed recklessly like the USN. “Taking to the edge” is just foolhardy reckless bravado without much gain or justification. Any sensible commander would had come down hard on any such “cowboy” pilots. You do indeed live up to your namesake “Red Bull”.

                Like

          • chankaiyee2 says:

            In spite of lack of experience and poor warships, China defeated Vietnam in sea battles.

            An retired officer, a war hero in one of the battles, was for one year my close colleague. I would not give details of the battle of an inexperienced and poorly equiped navy’s victory. It will make you sad, but it is indeed common for Chinese military. In Korean War, China’s new pilots with two dozen hours of training shot down advanced US fighter jets with well-experienced pilots.

            Do not be sad to hear that. True US navy is well trained to deal with the damage of their warships whether caused by its enemy or by negligence and China’s training is unknown to you, but not to me. I do not think it is worth arguing.

            I stress the fighting capabilities, will and courage of a navy and believe there is nothing to boast for a navy that has incurred casualty and damage requires millions of fund to fix in peacetime due to unbelievable negligence.

            May be I am ignorant, but I do not know any other navy in the world has such absurd accident.

            Do you wish US navy to have more such accidents to prove their good training in damage control?

            Your comment is really amusing. Thanks.

            Like

            • Red Flag says:

              “…Do you wish US navy to have more such accidents to prove their good training in damage control?”

              Answer: The fact that this US Navy destroyer is still afloat and was able to get underway under her own power speaks to the toughness of American ships and the fighting spirit of her crew. And it does prove that realistic training works.

              Remember the old saying: “That which does not kill me only makes me stronger” USS Fitzgerald is a warship and is expected to fight hurt. When the time came to perform, she performed.

              Like

              • chankaiyee2 says:

                Oh, you want US Navy to have more such absurd accidents to make it stronger!

                Really funny,

                Thanks.

                Like

              • chankaiyee2 says:

                Oh, perhaps you mean US captain managed to have the accident wilfully as a part of damage control training to make US Navy stronger? He would be awarded for that?

                The lives of crew members and the millions of US dollars to fix the warship were necessary costs for such peaceful accident drill?

                You are really funny!

                I like your stupidity.

                It’s really amusing! Thanks.

                Like

        • Joseph says:

          It may be seen as the prove of US ownership of Japan, but no way the Pacific Ocean. The fact that the skipper of the Fitzgerald was airlifted by Japanese coast guard would be the symbol of the waning of that ownership. Just like the Facebook bullying of Fitzgerald’s dead Filipino crew as the symbol of the end of the sense of US ownership of Phillipines.

          Like

      • Joseph says:

        Much larger vessel? Are you kidding? 505ft to 730ft? It is like a tough Humvee with a long commercial van. It is not like 1000ft USS John F. Kennedy vs 100ft Arab dhow. I wonder what’s your math level at school. Did you pass Year One? So it is cute n cuddly US destroyer vs big bad meany commercial vessel now? Isn’t more accurate for ‘Rambo vs Big Momma’? Way to go, Big Momma!!!

        Like

      • Simon says:

        More like American media spin than about crew rallied around savingthe ship. It neede the help of the Japs to save them. A great loss of face.

        Like

        • Joseph says:

          If the cargo ship didn’t turn back and called the Japanese coast guard, the Japanese coast guard wouldn’t have come and the Fitzgerald would mostly have sank in ‘mystery’. Without the cargo ship, the Japanese coast guard would not have found the Fitzgerald because it has no AIS. Even nearby US vessels would not come to the rescue without radio call. This is the danger of playing bats. Without a sonar, a blind bat wouldn’t find one another. But even bats are smart enough not to fly without sonar.

          Like

      • johnleecan says:

        During the Korean war, the most powerful and advanced army in the world, America, was pushed back by the Chinese to the 38th parallel just by demoralizing the Americans using loud speakers. Even MacArthur wanted to go home. The funniest thing is what these speakers were playing.

        Like

  7. Joseph says:

    In the USS Fitzgerald incident, there was a senior officer called Rehm who was not supposed to be there. American media credits him to save some twenty sailors before himself was killed. However unless he had some superspeed, it is impossible for him to do so. A senior officer in young junior officers’ sleeping quarter. What was he doing there? Sound like an old goat and fresh fish to me. After all orgy is common among Western navy. Americans in Japan are well-known for their appetite on young girls, and recently young boys. And they have their young radar officer to join them too. No wonder he was not on his post. Calm night, friendly water, what could possibly happened? They should have turned their AIS beacon on. They quickly credited the dead Rehm for saving lives, even before it was clear what happened. Sound like guilt to me. More likely the party-goers left in panic as if they were busted and forgot the old Rehm behind when they lock the room behind.

    Like

    • Reply says:

      >Ironic that everytime you mention American ‘greatness’, it would have stumbled on something to do with China and the Chinese. Few know the fact that SR-71 Blackbird was actually half Chinese. It was developed with the cooperation of Taiwan’s ex-Chinese Air Force aviators and engineers

      Can you provide a source/names for this? I’m interested in adding this to my collection. Thanks.

      Like

      • Joseph says:

        Many things positive about Chinese is hard to come by online anymore these days. Even Wikipedia has been heavily edited to eliminate Chinese positive elements. Try books. I have heaps of books from 1990s before the age of internet. Or try research U-2, SR-71’s predecessor. I once read those Taiwan aviators and engineers were naturalised/poached/abducted to the US to prevent them to defect to China Mainland. They were working on U-2 and continued working on SR program under secrecy and strict supervisions. They were not PLA Airforce, they were ROC Airforce under ROC Airforce General (Not US) Chenaults who fled to Taiwan in 1949.

        Like

        • Reply says:

          I tried. Closest thing I found were Taiwanese pilots. I couldn’t find anything about scientists though. Thanks anyways. The search continues!

          Like

          • Joseph says:

            Yeah, my sources were papers and not digitals. I did kept some internet addresses, but they are ‘404 – Not found’ now. I had some offline savings on my college laptop, but it has been sitting in my old book boxes for years and may need data recovery. Even if I can extract the data, I would have to set up CKY-style website to display it.

            Like

    • Assassin says:

      Yes, not much different from the fake news medias asserting Putin and the Russians are responsible for Hillary Rodham’s loss in the general elections. How dishonest are the Americans today under their neocon/oligarch-controlled fake news medias! They are not making America great again but smaller each day. Americans are never responsible for their own actions or negligence. Americans have no more credibility. Lying standard fare for them these days.

      Like