# USS Porter & M/V Otowasan collide in Strait of Hormuz



## doyll (Mar 9, 2007)

The U.S. Navy destroyer USS Porter suffered significant damage after colliding with an oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz on Sunday.

The USS Porter was passing through the Strait of Hormuz into the Persian Gulf.

The Japanese-owned, Panamanian flagged tanker M/V Otowasan was coming the other way, just entering the Strait of Hormuz, and the two crashed into one another.

The shipping lanes are very narrow, about two miles wide in each lane. The crash left a hole in the side of the destroyer but no injuries were reported.

The damage is all above the water-line, so there is no danger that the ship will sink, but likely sustained water damage because the fire control system would have activated.

The USS Porter is headed to a port a called Jebel Ali in the UAE.

http://news.yahoo.com/uss-porter-co...sian-gulf-154316865--abc-news-topstories.html


----------



## Union Jack (Jul 22, 2009)

Short video available here https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10101047738395685&set=vb.121672832840&type=2&theater

The good news is that no one on either vessel was injured or worse.

Jack


----------



## doyll (Mar 9, 2007)

Yes indeed Jack. 

Can understand how tanker might not see destroyer, but destroyer not seeing tanker??

Does seem strange that a modern destroyer ended up getting hit by a tanker. Destroyer control center has several surveillance systems any one of which should have given plenty of warning of approaching tanker.


----------



## Michael Taylor (Aug 31, 2008)

This one will be interesting to see who is at fault. Would look like the Porter was crossing ahead from port to starboard.


----------



## LEEJ (Mar 25, 2006)

doyll said:


> Yes indeed Jack.
> 
> Can understand how tanker might not see destroyer, but destroyer not seeing tanker??
> 
> Does seem strange that a modern destroyer ended up getting hit by a tanker. Destroyer control center has several surveillance systems any one of which should have given plenty of warning of approaching tanker.


A pair of binoculars is usually an efficient surveillance system I find. How many lookouts would the destroyer have on the bridge at night?


----------



## R736476 (Jul 2, 2005)

OTOWASAN is a ULCC of 302,000 dwt ! Somewhat constrained by its draught! The porters won't try to tango with a ULCC again.


----------



## LEEJ (Mar 25, 2006)

maybe the destroyer was using stealth technology and the tanker never seen her?


----------



## chadburn (Jun 2, 2008)

It may be the Destroyer was using the Tanker as target interception practice and instead of recording a near/vitual hit they had an actual hit.


----------



## R736476 (Jul 2, 2005)

Maybe thought Otowasan was an island and did not realise it was moving.


----------



## Derek Roger (Feb 19, 2005)

Would not like to be on USS porter right now . Whatever the cir***stances Porter had the power and ability to get out of the way ; the tanker did not . Bit like motor gives way to sail etc.
Another Bollicks . Hope there were no young chicks on the bridge at the time with the : Old Man ; trying to impress with some sort of salute . 

Derek


----------



## randcmackenzie (Aug 31, 2005)

Damage to the starboard bow after a collision can be hard to explain.


----------



## doyll (Mar 9, 2007)

Damage appears closer to midship then bow


----------



## kevhogg (Jul 20, 2005)

If the US warships are manned on the bridge with as many people as the UK ships then its not surprising they had a collision as I wonder if anyone among the crowd of bodies up there actually have a full appreciation of the whole picture.


----------



## ART6 (Sep 14, 2010)

No worries. It'll buff out! (I have wanted to say that for ages!)[=P]


----------



## Union Jack (Jul 22, 2009)

And here's the almost inevitable conclusion ....

http://www.military.com/daily-news/...s-command-after-collision.html?ESRC=navy-a.nl

Jack


----------



## doyll (Mar 9, 2007)

Union Jack said:


> And here's the almost inevitable conclusion ....


Almost???? (==D)
Any US Navy commander who's vessel hits or or is hit by another vessel looses his command and their career is dead in the water.. no chance of climbing on up the navy ladder. 

My son's father-in-law is a retired admiral and as a result know many ranking and retired officlers. One was a caption in middle east about 10 years ago who's ship was involved in a minor bump coming into port while port pilot was in command.. and other boat was cause of incident. He tried to change course and reverse engines but pilot argued him down and bump... end of command. Retired and went to work in private sector.


----------



## gdynia (Nov 3, 2005)

*Port Pilot*



doyll said:


> Almost???? (==D)
> Any US Navy commander who's vessel hits or or is hit by another vessel looses his command and their career is dead in the water.. no chance of climbing on up the navy ladder.
> 
> My son's father-in-law is a retired admiral and as a result know many ranking and retired officlers. One was a caption in middle east about 10 years ago who's ship was involved in a minor bump coming into port while port pilot was in command.. and other boat was cause of incident. He tried to change course and reverse engines but pilot argued him down and bump... end of command. Retired and went to work in private sector.


Unless its different in the Military the Captain as far as im aware on any vessel has sole responsibility


----------



## doyll (Mar 9, 2007)

gdynia said:


> Unless its different in the Military the Captain as far as im aware on any vessel has sole responsibility


Yes, captain is always in command. 
My bad. Pilot in command should have be pilot in control. 
My point was that it doesn't matter what happens the captain takes sole responsibility.. even if it wasn't his fault.


----------

