US NAVY ship was collided with an oil tanker!

[OMEGA7]

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - A U.S. Navy destroyer collided with an oil tanker in the Persian Gulf off Iraq, slightly injuring four people, the Navy said Sunday.The USS McCampbell collided with the tanker late Saturday about 30 miles southeast of the Iraqi coastline. Two sailors and two crew members of the tanker were treated for minor injuries at the scene, Navy spokeswoman Lt. Leslie Hullryde said.

No oil was spilled in the collision. Both ships suffered minor damage but were deemed seaworthy.

The oil tanker was flying the flag of the Pacific island nation of Kiribati.

McCampbell, home-ported in San Diego, is one of several coalition forces vessels conducting maritime security operations for southern Iraqi ports. Oil passing through the terminals is the main source of revenue for Iraqi reconstruction.

Saturday's collision was at least the third for a Navy vessel in the Gulf since 2004.

In August 2004, a small traditional Arab sailboat crashed into the USS John F. Kennedy. None of the sailboat's passengers were found.

What would you feeling about this topic . when u've readed about that sad story . I think this possible is not most gravy problem but quite grave affairment because of the oil tanker was not spilled oil. I want to know what does they got in the tanker . i hope it won't be carry an enrichment of nuclear weapons . uran . i wanted to mention what were they got the oil is no related be from uranium relatively . that was so terrible problem which it will be indeed . but , sofar , the incident was no possible with Gulf of iraq districtions outskirts . but i can not still understood what the Navy crews had not watching around of a small boat in that sea where is so diamond clear sea , and when they gets to see around there where is quite easy to see around there , why doesn't they think about when the iraq boat and oil tanker whose has through area . any way , tell me about this topic
when you've got this topic then you can be say only of no good topic , つまんない, and ce male , etc , if you could get to see on this such as a time , you must take a reply and take about what would you feeling about when you've felt about this topic,

[Bullet Donor]

Will someone tell these guys that there is easier and better ways on getting oil

[toad]

Ok, heres how I see it.

Omega7 is still leading, as usual, in vague jibberish posts. With bullet donor running a close second.

Its still early though...its anyone thread.

[ReggayMC]

oh man. I'll definetly be seeing it when it arrives into SD

[saigonsmuggler]

The career of the captain of US ship is prolly over... :(

[AOCBravo2004]

The career of the captain of US ship is prolly over... :(

The Captain, the officer of the deck, many careers are going to end. I wonder which size the oil tanker was, if it was one of those behemoth super tankers.

[Bullet Donor]

:roll: Counting jibberish and vague posts on MP.net are we?


Ok, heres how I see it.

Omega7 is still leading, as usual, in vague jibberish posts. With bullet donor running a close second.

Its still early though...its anyone thread.
So.... where does that leave you? these quotes look familiar? they should... they're yours.

Were you an asshat the whole time or have you just taken it up recently?

Charlie sheen = moonbat

Yea....right up to the point you take a manpad up the tailpipe....

The Iranians are stuck on stupid...

mp.et has hit a new low...and apparently has started to dig.

The Iranians doing what Iranians do best... rabble rousing.

cockpunch for drmom

You don't need radar to put a manpad up your tailpipe at 600 mph
:edit
...but no one would doubt your bravery if you tried.

Not even half of it... there's more pages where that came from.:-D

[Mastermind]

Well, here's a tip of the "Asshat" to Omega7 for at least trying. I appreciated his post of the news about the collision. As for the text..well, it made about as much sense as a great many posts in here. Thanks Omega...I appreciate your contribution.

[toad]

:roll: Counting jibberish and vague posts on MP.net are we?


So.... where does that leave you? these quotes look familiar? they should... they're yours.

Were you an asshat the whole time or have you just taken it up recently?

Charlie sheen = moonbat

Yea....right up to the point you take a manpad up the tailpipe....

The Iranians are stuck on stupid...

mp.et has hit a new low...and apparently has started to dig.

The Iranians doing what Iranians do best... rabble rousing.

cockpunch for drmom

You don't need radar to put a manpad up your tailpipe at 600 mph
:edit
...but no one would doubt your bravery if you tried.

Not even half of it... there's more pages where that came from.:-D


yea, I am pretty good at pointing out the more insipid posts made here.
Yours was one of the more vapid.

But I'll make you a deal. I'll be less sarcastic, if you'll be less stupid.

[SubZero]

Will someone tell these guys that there is easier and better ways on getting oil

roflroflroflrofl

[TR1]

what the **** is happening?
why is everybody so angry?
relax and eat some pie.

[Bullet Donor]

yea, I am pretty good at pointing out the more insipid posts made here.
Yours was one of the more vapid.

But I'll make you a deal. I'll be less sarcastic, if you'll be less stupid.


I might not be able to jump to your intellectual capacity... ROFL

:hug: luv ya!

[usm2b]

I saw that ship get its commisioning....

[OMEGA7]

Well, here's a tip of the "Asshat" to Omega7 for at least trying. I appreciated his post of the news about the collision. As for the text..well, it made about as much sense as a great many posts in here. Thanks Omega...I appreciate your contribution.

Could you understood for what i was telling you at least ? i hope you've got a some pleasure when you were saw on this like topic.but, I have an interrogation about a tip of the Asshat . what does it meaning about asshat? i think it seems to like a bad meaning , and something means of ass and holl alike , such as both meanings has combined after , this was made . wasn't right? i guess that was nice ideal ,but why did you felt like that ? i did not doing for you . why don't you feeling how to take a pleasure against me ? can not be understand yet? anyway , we hope we will able to take a rest in this non real world, then we have to sharing with us , I have an asked that was only of this meaning in the average atitude . sorry anyway.

[ed316]

Omega 7, I got you man. Don't let these asses discourage you from posting. Keep posting and I'll try to comprehend.

[Geezah]

and something means of ass and holl alike ,

I'm sorry but this part has got me crying..........

Omega7, you rock, keep on posting and when the time comes, you've got my vote to become a mod!

[OMEGA7]

Omega 7, I got you man. Don't let these asses discourage you from posting. Keep posting and I'll try to comprehend.

I am so sorry to gave me what your posted content was very glad because of I was not believe what they got to thinking about , but When i was heard of like this assesed that was very glad in simple , not average pleasure but I am very glad to became a good listener , thank you very much .

[EsoognomEhT]

omega7 for president!

[Leftcoaster]

The Captain, the officer of the deck, many careers are going to end. I wonder which size the oil tanker was, if it was one of those behemoth super tankers.

I wish there had been more information to the story. I have difficulty comprehending how a vessel like a destroyer ends up hitting another ship. I'd be more inclined believing it was the fault of the other ship except I'm assuming a destroyer is both swifter and more manuverable than the image that comes to mind when I think 'oil tanker'.

In collisions like this, do the ones likely to suffer the blame stay on the job until they get back to their home port generally?

[Dalamara]

OMG stop using those internet translators.

And how exactly does one huge ship hit another huge ship?

[Hollis]

OMG stop using those internet translators.

And how exactly does one huge ship hit another huge ship?

LOL it happens.. How in the world does a car, manage to hit the only tree on 10 acres. Human + Machinery = it will happen

[Dalamara]

Hmmm well I have one theory. The Destroyer is probably used to getting the right of way, having all other ships move out of it's path... and so is the oil tanker. It's logical that the biggest ship has the right of way, so these two were probably thinking "oh he'll get out of my way" all the way till they crashed.

[Pille1234]

Hmmm well I have one theory.
:roll: As you say, it's a theory.

[Leftcoaster]

OMG stop using those internet translators.

And how exactly does one huge ship hit another huge ship?

Is it "hit" versus 'collide' with that you take exception to?

[XShipRider]

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - A U.S. Navy destroyer collided with an oil tanker in the Persian Gulf off Iraq, slightly injuring four people, the Navy said Sunday.The USS McCampbell collided with the tanker late Saturday about 30 miles southeast of the Iraqi coastline. Two sailors and two crew members of the tanker were treated for minor injuries at the scene, Navy spokeswoman Lt. Leslie Hullryde said.

No oil was spilled in the collision. Both ships suffered minor damage but were deemed seaworthy.

The oil tanker was flying the flag of the Pacific island nation of Kiribati.

McCampbell, home-ported in San Diego, is one of several coalition forces vessels conducting maritime security operations for southern Iraqi ports. Oil passing through the terminals is the main source of revenue for Iraqi reconstruction.

Saturday's collision was at least the third for a Navy vessel in the Gulf since 2004.

In August 2004, a small traditional Arab sailboat crashed into the USS John F. Kennedy. None of the sailboat's passengers were found.


Collisions at sea are not that uncommon, most especially in restricted
waters. The naval services of the world have to work in very close
proximity to cargo vessels from time to time so inevitably there will be
collisions.

As for the sailboat... not sure. Google doesn't give any more of the
account than your cut/paste. I'm wondering how, unless it was a
nighttime or limited visibility collision, anyone could NOT see an
aircraft carrier. Sailboats under sail may have the right of way but
there is also the limited maneuverability and draft restrictions of
large ships to take into account. The story is too vague to make
any determination.

[evanfitz]

Omega, your english is really improving. Just need to work on word order and past tence. But its all good, keep up the good work.

[SHAM]

Hmmm well I have one theory. The Destroyer is probably used to getting the right of way, having all other ships move out of it's path... and so is the oil tanker. It's logical that the biggest ship has the right of way, so these two were probably thinking "oh he'll get out of my way" all the way till they crashed.

There was a similar incident off the coast of norfolk a few years back, they hit a cruise liner that time.
There is such a thing as "rules of the road" at sea which all naval navigators merchant and military are supposed to know, yet collisions are quite common.
The most common cause is assumption, to assume the other ship is going to turn or avoid and never communicate ones own intentions, and given the vast amount of languages out there, some times even if u try to communicate ure intentions its impossible. Which is why they are supposed to rely uppon the "rules of the road".
Out of curiosity, what is the normal watch keeping compliment on the bridge of an american naval vessel, officers and crew total?

p.s. biggest ship has no relevance on "rules of the road", although common sense could be used, but dont tell that to yachties.

[XShipRider]

Out of curiosity, what is the normal watch keeping compliment on the bridge of an american naval vessel, officers and crew total?
That depends on the size of the vessel. Carriers would have a far
larger watch section than say a frigate. Also, an at-sea watch would be
far fewer than restricted maneuverability (special sea detail or special
nav detail). I'll leave it to someone who has been on a carrier bridge
to answer more effectively. The ships I served on were tiny by
comparison (the "larger" ship in my avatar is one of them).

[TuNeRsHaRk]

omega7 strikes again!!

[Mirage]

That reminds Me of a Joke About the US Navy :)


This is the transcript of the ACTUAL radio conversation of a US naval ship with Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October 1995.

Radio conversation released by the Chief of Naval Operations 10-10-95.

Canadians: Please divert your course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision

Americans: Recommend you divert your course 15 degrees to the North to avoid a collison

Canadians: Negative. You will have to divert your course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collison

Americans: This is the Captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert YOUR course.

Canadians: No. I say again, you divert YOUR course.

Americans: THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS LINCOLN, THE SECOND LARGEST SHIP IN THE UNITED STATES' ATLANTIC FLEET.

WE ARE ACCOMPANIED By THREE DESTROYERS, THREE CRUISERS AND NUMEROUS SUPPORT VESSELS. I DEMAND THAT YOU CHANGE YOUR COURSE 15 DEGREES NORTH, I SAY AGAIN, THAT'S ONE FIVE

DEGREES NORTH, OR COUNTERMEASURES WILL BE UNDERTAKEN TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THIS SHIP.

Canadians: This is a lighthouse. Your call.

[SHAM]

That depends on the size of the vessel. Carriers would have a far
larger watch section than say a frigate. Also, an at-sea watch would be
far fewer than restricted maneuverability (special sea detail or special
nav detail). I'll leave it to someone who has been on a carrier bridge
to answer more effectively. The ships I served on were tiny by
comparison (the "larger" ship in my avatar is one of them).

ok cheers
anyone else have an idea how many on watch? officers and crew deep sea and coastal?

[szr]

That reminds Me of a Joke About the US Navy :)


This is the transcript of the ACTUAL radio conversation of a US naval ship with Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October 1995.

Radio conversation released by the Chief of Naval Operations 10-10-95.

Canadians: Please divert your course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision

Americans: Recommend you divert your course 15 degrees to the North to avoid a collison

Canadians: Negative. You will have to divert your course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collison

Americans: This is the Captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert YOUR course.

Canadians: No. I say again, you divert YOUR course.

Americans: THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS LINCOLN, THE SECOND LARGEST SHIP IN THE UNITED STATES' ATLANTIC FLEET.

WE ARE ACCOMPANIED By THREE DESTROYERS, THREE CRUISERS AND NUMEROUS SUPPORT VESSELS. I DEMAND THAT YOU CHANGE YOUR COURSE 15 DEGREES NORTH, I SAY AGAIN, THAT'S ONE FIVE

DEGREES NORTH, OR COUNTERMEASURES WILL BE UNDERTAKEN TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THIS SHIP.

Canadians: This is a lighthouse. Your call.Thanks to moghoun for alterting me to the existence of snopes.com ;)

Claim: In 1995 an embarrassing conversation between a lighthouse and an aircraft carrier was recorded by the Chief of Naval Operations, the transcript of which leaked out to the general public.
Status: False.
Further details: http://www.snopes.com/military/lighthse.htm

[SHAM]

Thanks to moghoun for alterting me to the existence of snopes.com ;)Further details: http://www.snopes.com/military/lighthse.htm

oh come on, next you will be saying the royal mud marines is false, what next?

[EsoognomEhT]

of course its false! no marines!