Japanese Frigate struck fishing boat


Status
Not open for further replies.
Feb 11, 2008
1,384
0
0
#1
Still there is no expanation how a modern warship-frigate can hit a harmless fishing boat ? Anyone care to explain ?
 

paradigm

Senior Member
Aug 12, 2004
3,672
0
0
#3
The Japanese might have mistaken the fishing boat as a minky whale. :)
according to the newspapers, they noticed the fishing boat 1/2 hour b4 the accident happened but took preventive measure only the last minute (literally) ...


AFP - Saturday, February 23TOKYO (AFP)
- - Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda promised Friday to shake up the defence ministry after the country's newest and largest destroyer rammed a fishing boat, leaving a father and son missing at sea.

The Kyodo news agency separately reported that Japan's navy chief would be sacked over the embarrassing collision, which is threatening to become another headache for a premier whose approval ratings have dropped sharply.

The Atago naval vessel, which is equipped with the state-of-the-art Aegis radar weapons system and is seen as a frontline defence against North Korea, crashed Tuesday into a small tuna fishing boat off the Pacific coast.

A 58-year-old fisherman and his son, 23, remain unaccounted for.

"I think the organisational structure (of the ministry) is problematic," Fukuda told a cabinet meeting. "We need to review the organisation from its root."

He urged all ministers "to make double sure about crisis management. The competence of a given government and cabinet will be questioned over how we manage crises."

Nevertheless, he rejected calls by the opposition -- which is pushing for snap elections -- for Defence Minister Shigeru Ishiba to resign.

"I hope Minister Ishiba uses all his strength to continue reforming" the ministry, Fukuda said.

Ishiba, however, later told a legislative committee that he would step down if the navy had mislead the public about the collision.

"If manipulation of information had occurred, I would take responsibility as a cabinet member," he told the committee on security affairs.

Ishiba on Thursday travelled to the fishermen's home village and bowed in apology to the head of the local fishermen's union, which accuses the Atago's crew of negligence for the accident.

Ishiba said after Fukuda's remarks that he was setting up an in-house team of experts to reform the ministry.

"Unless we dissect this problem, it will happen again," he told reporters. "I would like to launch a system that will allow this organisation to promptly and effectively handle crises."

Ishiba is expected to dismiss naval chief Admiral Eiji Yoshikawa due to his failure to immediately notify him and Fukuda of the accident, Kyodo reported, quoting unnamed defence ministry sources.

A naval spokeswoman declined comment.

Officials say the navy took 90 minutes to inform Ishiba about the accident and two hours to tell Fukuda.

The defence minister also acknowledged that the ship, which was returning to the Tokyo area from a trip to Hawaii, was running on autopilot when it rammed the fishing boat.

"Generally speaking, I cannot say that that was appropriate," Ishiba added.

Japan's military has not fired a shot in combat since World War II, when the nation became constitutionally pacifist and formed a security alliance with the United States.

The US-developed Aegis system on the ship can track incoming missiles by radar, a concern since communist rival North Korea fired a missile over Japan's main island in 1998.

The navy said the Atago had spotted the fishing boat 12 minutes before the accident, not giving it enough time to stop.

But fishermen cruising ahead of the ill-fated ship said they noticed the destroyer 37 minutes before the crash despite presumably having lower technical capabilities.

Representatives from a federation of fisheries cooperatives in the missing fishermen's local area visited Ishiba to express their anger and to ask for a thorough search for the two men.

"This serious accident shakes confidence" in the safety of fishing, federation vice chairman Kishoshi Odaki told Ishiba, television pictures showed.

Source:
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20080222/tap-japan-fishing-military-accident-d1078a1.html
 

waileong

Deregistered
Feb 5, 2003
2,519
0
0
Visit site
#4
1. Anyone who has been out at sea would know that autopilot or not, there is always a standing watch fore, aft, port and starboard, all of them with high-powered binoculars, and that the bridge is manned at all times. So if they really spotted the boat 12 mins before the crash, it means officer of the watch didn't do his job properly in taking evasive action and in sounding warning to the boat.

2. Please, the underlined portion of the text is not fair to the destroyer. A small boat can see a big ship much earlier than a big ship can see a small boat. And in fact, if it's very small (Zeus size, etc) it can hide in the radar clutter and may totally evade visual detection esp in the dark, which is why captains are always afraid of terrorists packing explosives in such boats.
 

ricohflex

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2005
3,353
8
38
sing
#5
Why comment on the Japanese.
Singapore had a worse incident not long ago.

In that case, it was not a small and hard to see boat.
It was a giant tanker.

My friend who was an officer in the Navy during NS days long ago, told me there was no BASIC seamanship displayed by the lady put in charge of the navy boat.

When two vessels realise that they directly approach each other in open sea, they both turn to their respective right hand side to avoid collision.
 

schon

Senior Member
Sep 10, 2005
2,046
0
0
the other side
#6
Why comment on the Japanese.
Singapore had a worse incident not long ago.

In that case, it was not a small and hard to see boat.
It was a giant tanker.

My friend who was an officer in the Navy during NS days long ago, told me there was no BASIC seamanship displayed by the lady put in charge of the navy boat.

When two vessels realise that they directly approach each other in open sea, they both turn to their respective right hand side to avoid collision.
i'd have to agree with ricohflex.
 

waileong

Deregistered
Feb 5, 2003
2,519
0
0
Visit site
#7
Why is it worse? There was no collision right, since both turned to starboard.
 

hongsien

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2002
3,688
0
36
105
Hong Kong
Visit site
#8
Why is it worse? There was no collision right, since both turned to starboard.
no collision????? There were I think 7 people dead in that collision with a hard to miss tanker, a big tanker can't just move aside like a small ship can (like the fregat).......

Just don't understand why one would put a fregat in the middle of a shipping highway????

HS
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#9
Think he is referring to tragedy of the RSS Courageous with the ANL container ship
 

May 5, 2007
151
0
0
32
Kembangan
#10
Why comment on the Japanese.
Singapore had a worse incident not long ago.

In that case, it was not a small and hard to see boat.
It was a giant tanker.

My friend who was an officer in the Navy during NS days long ago, told me there was no BASIC seamanship displayed by the lady put in charge of the navy boat.

When two vessels realise that they directly approach each other in open sea, they both turn to their respective right hand side to avoid collision.
why cannot comment on Jap?
 

paradigm

Senior Member
Aug 12, 2004
3,672
0
0
#11
2. Please, the underlined portion of the text is not fair to the destroyer. A small boat can see a big ship much earlier than a big ship can see a small boat. And in fact, if it's very small (Zeus size, etc) it can hide in the radar clutter and may totally evade visual detection esp in the dark, which is why captains are always afraid of terrorists packing explosives in such boats.
well, if you are refering to a normal destroyer, I guess that I could give some benefit of the doubt. but something so state of the art, I would hv expect better ...

like it or not, radar is used for keeping ALL sorts of vessels in the sea. Sing Coast Guard uses radar to detect sampans with low profiles so as to deter illegal immigrants. Something so state-of-the-art ought to do better than that.

If 12 mins were not enough time for a destroyer to stop, then the watch-keeping and detection ought to be better than tt, instead of leaving it to the autopilot.
 

waileong

Deregistered
Feb 5, 2003
2,519
0
0
Visit site
#13
1. The point is that your text makes it sound like the destroyer should have seen the boat earlier than the boat should have seen the destroyer. I don't think you know how it works. The bigger ship is always the one who is seen earlier, whether on radar or visually. Further, in non-combat mode, warships will have always running lights which make them even more visible at night, whereas small fishing boats don't always run with lights.

2. Actually I think they said it was a frigate (which is bigger than a destroyer). The frigate in question carried the Aegis surface-to-air missile system, I would expect the state of the art technology for its air radar, which the US proved just last week in shooting down a satellite. But who knows what size of targets the the bow radar or sonar it carries is optimised for?

3. You should know that different types of ships carry different equipment. A minesweeper would have much better surface and sub-surface detection capability than an aircraft carrier, for instance. A Coast Guard patrol boat again has different type of capability compared to a missile frigate.

4. 12 mins is enough time to do a lot of things. But I wonder whether the OOW was awaiting the captain's instructions before acting.


well, if you are refering to a normal destroyer, I guess that I could give some benefit of the doubt. but something so state of the art, I would hv expect better ...

like it or not, radar is used for keeping ALL sorts of vessels in the sea. Sing Coast Guard uses radar to detect sampans with low profiles so as to deter illegal immigrants. Something so state-of-the-art ought to do better than that.

If 12 mins were not enough time for a destroyer to stop, then the watch-keeping and detection ought to be better than tt, instead of leaving it to the autopilot.
 

ricohflex

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2005
3,353
8
38
sing
#16
4. 12 mins is enough time to do a lot of things. But I wonder whether the OOW was awaiting the captain's instructions before acting.
Huh?
A military man waiting for orders on what to do for 12 minutes when the ship is on collision course?
 

hongsien

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2002
3,688
0
36
105
Hong Kong
Visit site
#17
They are our biggest suppliers of cameras and lenses.

Skali offended they stop exporting them to Singapore. Si Liao! :)
They have already ordered Canon to stop sending Canon 1 DS mk 3 to Singapore, no where to be found in local shops.........

HS
 

waileong

Deregistered
Feb 5, 2003
2,519
0
0
Visit site
#18
Huh?
A military man waiting for orders on what to do for 12 minutes when the ship is on collision course?
You tell me. Sometimes the military can be the most inflexible, if you have served in our own Army, you'll understand.
 

Dec 28, 2006
27
0
0
#19
quite a number of accident are due to "over reliance" of auto pilot especially in commercial vessel.
 

waileong

Deregistered
Feb 5, 2003
2,519
0
0
Visit site
#20
By the way, at sea or in the air, usually the larger vessel has the right of way, and it is the smaller vessel which has to give way when warned. Reasoning is that the smaller vessel is usually more manoevurable, the larger vessel takes a longer time to change course.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom