@Deborah Behan: That hasn’t been concluded yet and the requirement is that both vessels take action to avoid collision. Blame is normally apportioned 60/40 in a collision at sea.

@Deborah Behan: eh, what makes you say it was the cargo ships fault in the first collision? Im hoping you have some logical explanation for your thoughts now instead of just the usual ive heard of such as ‘it t-boned the destroyer’

@Deborah Behan: No it wasn’t. They captain of the last ship was removed from command due to competency issues and the watch keepers have been charged with negligence. 7nder ships rules if the road the warship was at fault

@Paul Murphy: i was seeing if she could do some research herself!! Ruining my fun!!

@Deborah Behan: That must be why the commander of the destroyer and several other officers were relieved of their duties……

@Raymond Dennehy: probably all of the above , one crash like this could be just unfortunate but two in such a short space would indicate thay are muppets operating these ships

@Dave Hammond: just cause the collision point was on the port side doesn’t mean they were in the right!! The likelyhood is the naval vessel was overtaking the tanker which puts the responsibility to take action to avoid collision on the naval ship.

@Dave Murray: I guess you’ve never been down the Malacca Straits, it’s pretty congested.

@al, I wouldn’t read too much into the damage in the port side. There are other factors in the colregs. The tanker may well have been constrained by her draft…..or it could be the “I’m in a TSS I don’t have to move for anyone syndrome”

What I don’t understand is that there would be 4 or 5 officers + sailors on the bridge of the Naval ship the tanker would have had two at the most and one lookout. How did neither take action? It’s sounds like stubbornness to me.

At the end of the day it’s the responsibility of both vessels to take action to avoid collision.

@Robert Conneely: and it’s probably worse on the eastern approaches to singapore

@Robert Conneely: the track of the tanker looks like a series of small alterations to Port. Have a look on marinetraffic. I havn’t looked for the amercians, i assume no AIS trace for military ships.

@Piarais Mac Maoláin: No it’s not and I’m a master mariner (Captain). Just because someone posts on here, doesn’t mean than they aren’t qualified to comment.

@jon-boy55:

You are some tool, hope you get banned from the journal for an ignorant comment like that. Just in case the journal hasn’t spotted you comment I took the liberty to report you.

@Nick Allen: Me too.

@Robert Conneely: Tell you what pal, you can go argue with the Veteran US navy commander that said it then, how does that float your boat?
and the comment wasn`t directly aimed at you, ya big snowflake

@jon-boy55: WHAT?.

@jon-boy55:

At least your childish, ignorent and stupid comment was deleted, well done journal.

@Robert Conneely:
Agreed there are other factors in the colregs, and everyone has a responsibility to avoid a collision, but all other things being equal the vessel to port is the give-way vessel and the vessel to starboard is the stand-on vessel.

@Piarais Mac Maoláin: No ones being a snowflake sweetheart. But a lot of the lads commenting are seafarers, in fact some are “experienced commanders”

I know we are a nation of farmers but there are a few of us out there.
As for the Navy Veteran, there are a lot of jobs on a ship, it doesn’t mean he was a navigator.

@jon-boy55:

I feel sorry for you. I can imagine you share your views with your friends and family, no doubt you would be too embarrassed and keep your vile comments for social media. It’s a great feeling knowing I am not like you.

@jon-boy55:
Your mum must be proud of you….

@Piarais Mac Maoláin: I have to ask, at night when all you can see is a masthead or two and a sidelight 2 miles away how to know if your ship is smaller and more manoeuvrable?
It’s like saying a Ferrari is obliged to avoid trucks in all circumstances.
Between ships of this size the Collision regulations make no distinction, except for indicating draft constraints where justified.

@Piarais Mac Maoláin: Fortunatly I spent 10 years piloting ships as a Chief Officer. Your talking out of your hat and for the commander you reference either you misunderstood him or he was trained by the same idiots that crashed the 2 US navy ships.
Radar blips have no relarionship to size. Size does not indicate agility. Identifers can be wrong or turned off. Reliance on radio communication has caused more accidents than icebergs.
Stop guessing, stop digging.

@Seth Cheffetz: American arrogance? American ignorance? Whatever it is it seems to be uniquely American.

@Squiddley Diddley: they really think they own the sea…. This is hilarious thou https://youtu.be/6filPCtrt0c

@Seth Cheffetz: It happens when a highly manouverable warship gets in the way of a less manouverable large tanker. The skipper of the US ship will probably get his P45.

@Cian O Donoghue: Latest addition to the Annapolis Academy library “Basic Marine Navigation for
Mariners”

@Piarais Mac Maoláin: Russia has not been caught by the liberal freaks ! And im telling you if they actually tried to rip a Russian statute down, putin would kill them their families their dogs their friends !

@Piarais Mac Maoláin: You think the loss of ten sailors caused the US Navy to actually shutdown because they were militarily exposed?

Are you aware of how many sailors and vessels are in the US Navy?

@Alt Left: You should get better role models than that Putin fella. You know his regime has imprisoned Russian bloggers for years simply for speaking out against Russian foreign policy?

I don’t care how good your military is, if you run a Gestapo state then you’re a disgrace.

As a side note, the US spends nearly ten times what Russia does on their military and have almost twice as many in active military service. You might be overstating Russia’s ability a bit.