Interesting confrontation!

Oct 26, 2008
6,041
Catalina 320 Barnegat, NJ
Watching CNN this morning & saw this image involving a Russian Naval ship & American Naval ship narrowly missing a collision in Pacific Ocean.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/20...dent-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/top-news-videos/

Of course the CNN talking heads don't have the foggiest idea about what they are talking about.

Reportedly, Americans were advancing on a steady course on maneuvers with helicopter landings. The image shows the Russian ship aimed at the starboard side of the American ship and turning to avoid collision.

So it looks to me that the Russian ship deliberately chose a course where it is difficult to determine if the ship is overtaking from astern or actually in the stand-on zone on starboard. It seems like it could be intentional to choose a course where stand-on vs give-way could be questionable.

What do you think?
 
Jun 11, 2011
1,243
Hunter 41 Lewes
I think that if you are engaged in an operation that limits your ability to maneuver, it's already covered in the COLREGS. I'm pretty sure helicopter landings although not explicitly mentioned would fall under this rule.
 
  • Like
Likes: ggrizzard
Oct 26, 2008
6,041
Catalina 320 Barnegat, NJ
I think that if you are engaged in an operation that limits your ability to maneuver, it's already covered in the COLREGS. I'm pretty sure helicopter landings although not explicitly mentioned would fall under this rule.
Possibly. I thought of that. I suppose the Russians will argue that it was not clear that the American ship was in maneuvers that limited a course change.

The Russians were obviously at higher speed. I'm very suspicious that they deliberately chose a course that was right on the line between being in the starboard zone for stand-on or being astern and over-taking, meaning they would have to give-way.

By pursuing that course, they deliberately caused a confrontation where they could claim the American ship was at fault.

The CNN comments (not covered in this video) were laughable. They clearly were not prepared to talk about navigation rules.
 
  • Like
Likes: Dave Groshong
Oct 26, 2008
6,041
Catalina 320 Barnegat, NJ
I think it looks like a couple of boys measuring the size of their private parts.
Except that I don't think the American ship necessarily was complicit. Couple this with an aircraft incident over the Mediterranean recently … Russians are getting dangerously aggressive.
 

capta

.
Jun 4, 2009
4,766
Pearson 530 Admiralty Bay, Bequia SVG
Except that I don't think the American ship necessarily was complicit. Couple this with an aircraft incident over the Mediterranean recently … Russians are getting dangerously aggressive.
One has to be pretty darn complicit to let an enemy warship get that close to your vessel. Nope, this was all about who's got the biggest....They could easily have shut down flight operations and turned away to avoid any possibility of an encounter such as this. That's what every one of US would do in a similar situation.
Rule 8 – Action to avoid collision. (a) Any action to avoid collision shall be taken in accordance with the Rules of this Part and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be positive, made in ample time and with due regard to the observance of good seamanship.
Sure the Russians are a tad aggressive, but it's certainly nothing new; it's been going on for around 50 years. They count on us to create these incidents. They wouldn't happen if we just turned away and thumbed our noses at them. It wouldn't be showing weakness, just adulthood.
 
  • Like
Likes: jon hansen
Oct 26, 2008
6,041
Catalina 320 Barnegat, NJ
Well, you know how Reagan & Teddy Roosevelt felt about weakness! It had been going on until the Soviets collapsed. It looks like they are back … I was more interested in about the thoughts about the apparent course at about 45 degrees off the stern. Who was in violation?

Obviously, there was no collision, so they both obviously complied with rules regarding avoidance.
 
Oct 26, 2008
6,041
Catalina 320 Barnegat, NJ
It wouldn't be showing weakness, just adulthood.
It's a cop-out to not choose a side. I can understand this attitude about a normal pissing match.

This is a clear example of international aggression of a much more serious nature. The question is: who was the aggressor? The Navigation Rules should help to answer that question. It's a cop-out to suggest both sides are aggressors. Either one side or the other was in this case, as far as I'm concerned. I'll listen to opinions.
 
Feb 26, 2004
22,759
Catalina 34 224 Maple Bay, BC, Canada
I think with an area of 60 million square miles, two ships almost colliding is not very coincidental.
I used to go sail on SF Bay on Tuesdays (!) to avoid weekend crowds. One other boat on The Bay besides me, and guess what? Not 60 million sq m, but at least 10. And wouldn't ya know the other guy was always on starboard tack! :)
 
Jan 11, 2014
11,321
Sabre 362 113 Fair Haven, NY
This has nothing to do with COLREGS, there are 2 warships from different countries with a long adversarial history. It is about showing dominance and capacity to maneuver, sort of like playing chicken.

This incident stands in stark contrast to the 2 past incidents in which US warships had collisions with freighters. Those were about watch keeping and COLREGS.

The US and Russian submarine fleets play this game as do the air force. Both countries asserting their rights to sail in international waters.
 
Feb 17, 2006
5,274
Lancer 27PS MCB Camp Pendleton KF6BL
I used to go sail on SF Bay on Tuesdays (!) to avoid weekend crowds. One other boat on The Bay besides me, and guess what? Not 60 million sq m, but at least 10. And wouldn't ya know the other guy was always on starboard tack! :)
I think the natural tendency of sailors is.... if you see another boat on the water - RACE! LOL
 
  • Like
Likes: jssailem
May 17, 2004
5,026
Beneteau Oceanis 37 Havre de Grace
I was more interested in about the thoughts about the apparent course at about 45 degrees off the stern. Who was in violation?
The COLREGS define overtaking as approaching from more than 22.5 degrees abaft the beam. I agree that the wake seems to be coming in closer 45 degrees, so unless the angles are distorted by the viewpoint they were overtaking. Also, the COLREGS say that if there's any doubt then the overtaking vessel should avoid the other. Based on that, I'd say the Russian ship had an obligation to keep clear. Having said that, the US ship still also had an obligation to avoid the collision, preferably before they were so close.

I'd be curious if there was any VHF traffic in advance of the event. If the US ship was operating under limited maneuverability they certainly could have broadcast that. In more populated areas it's quite common for ships to broadcast securite calls advising others of their status. The US ship certainly should have made an effort to do that if they perceived a danger. Failure to do so, and failure to alter their course sooner, strike me as a dangerous game of chicken, even if the Russian ship was the primary aggressor.
 
  • Like
Likes: Parsons

capta

.
Jun 4, 2009
4,766
Pearson 530 Admiralty Bay, Bequia SVG
It's a cop-out to not choose a side. I can understand this attitude about a normal pissing match.

This is a clear example of international aggression of a much more serious nature. The question is: who was the aggressor? The Navigation Rules should help to answer that question. It's a cop-out to suggest both sides are aggressors. Either one side or the other was in this case, as far as I'm concerned. I'll listen to opinions.
Do you actually think if the American captain turned away and refused to play it would show weakness? Would it be enough for Putin to push the big red button?
It's time for one country or the other to grown the frack up. Between both countries, there are enough weapons on both sides to blow this planet to smithereens, and both sides know it! This sort of childish pissing match has never done anything to improve relationships between countries nor has it ever prevented any wars I can think of.
It can only be described as childish behavior by a couple of poorly led superpowers.
Screw the ColRegs; nothing makes a bully more impotent than to refuse to play his game.
 
  • Like
Likes: jwing
Jan 11, 2014
11,321
Sabre 362 113 Fair Haven, NY
Screw the ColRegs; nothing makes a bully more impotent than to refuse to play his game.
Which is what the US warship did. He held his ground until the last minute to avoid a collision.

And yes, we need more adults running the world.
 
Oct 26, 2008
6,041
Catalina 320 Barnegat, NJ
This has nothing to do with COLREGS, there are 2 warships from different countries with a long adversarial history. It is about showing dominance and capacity to maneuver, sort of like playing chicken.

This incident stands in stark contrast to the 2 past incidents in which US warships had collisions with freighters. Those were about watch keeping and COLREGS.

The US and Russian submarine fleets play this game as do the air force. Both countries asserting their rights to sail in international waters.
Good point. Russians were blaming American ship. On what basis?
 
Jan 11, 2014
11,321
Sabre 362 113 Fair Haven, NY
Good point. Russians were blaming American ship. On what basis?
Because in international politics and gamesmanship between 2 poorly led countries you always blame the other guy.

Same thing happens in every middle school in the country, the other kid started it!
 
  • Like
Likes: All U Get
Oct 26, 2008
6,041
Catalina 320 Barnegat, NJ
Do you actually think if the American captain turned away and refused to play it would show weakness? Would it be enough for Putin to push the big red button?

Screw the ColRegs; nothing makes a bully more impotent than to refuse to play his game.
Nothing attracts aggression more than weakness. The big red button becomes more dangerous. I agree, battling at sea using ColRegs is pointless. Crushing Putin economically is more powerful.
 
Oct 26, 2008
6,041
Catalina 320 Barnegat, NJ
Because in international politics and gamesmanship between 2 poorly led countries you always blame the other guy.

Same thing happens in every middle school in the country, the other kid started it!
Again, a cop-out. One side is right, one side is wrong. Weakness is not an option. How do you decide? Colregs any help or not?
 
Last edited: