Slashdot Mirror
Fourth US Navy Collision This Year Raises Suspicion of Cyber-Attacks (thenextweb.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Next Web: Early Monday morning a U.S. Navy Destroyer collided with a merchant vessel off the coast of Singapore. The U.S. Navy initially reported that 10 sailors were missing, and today found "some of the remains" in flooded compartments. While Americans mourn the loss of our brave warriors, top brass is looking for answers. Monday's crash involving the USS John McCain is the fourth in the area, and possibly the most difficult to understand. So far this year 17 U.S. sailors have died in the Pacific southeast due to seemingly accidental collisions with civilian vessels.
Should four collisions in the same geographical area be chalked up to coincidence? Could a military vessel be hacked? In essence, what if GPS spoofing or administrative lockout caused personnel to be unaware of any imminent danger or unable to respond? The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) says there's no reason to think it was a cyber-attack, but they're looking into it: "2 clarify Re: possibility of cyber intrusion or sabotage, no indications right now...but review will consider all possibilities," tweeted Adm. John Richardson. The obvious suspects -- if a sovereign nation is behind any alleged attacks -- would be Russia, China, and North Korea, all of whom have reasonable access to the location of all four incidents. It may be chilling to imagine such a bold risk, but it's not outlandish to think a government might be testing cyber-attack capabilities in the field.
Should four collisions in the same geographical area be chalked up to coincidence? Could a military vessel be hacked? In essence, what if GPS spoofing or administrative lockout caused personnel to be unaware of any imminent danger or unable to respond? The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) says there's no reason to think it was a cyber-attack, but they're looking into it: "2 clarify Re: possibility of cyber intrusion or sabotage, no indications right now...but review will consider all possibilities," tweeted Adm. John Richardson. The obvious suspects -- if a sovereign nation is behind any alleged attacks -- would be Russia, China, and North Korea, all of whom have reasonable access to the location of all four incidents. It may be chilling to imagine such a bold risk, but it's not outlandish to think a government might be testing cyber-attack capabilities in the field.
Conspiracy theories activate!
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Isn't there someone on the deck looking for other ships in the vicinity?
Just saying??
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Have the considered it's not a state actor but a rich media mogul who's causing the accidents to extend his media empire? If only there were dashing British secret agent to stop this dastardly villain's evil plans.
Any military power using anything from Microsoft.
#DeleteFacebook
Except (at least for the last 2 boats I saw) they were hit midship. If they had been hacked I'd have expected the GPS hacking to steer the ships INTO other ships - not vice versa - which would require a higher level of control.
Seriously! Moar military spending is the solution to, well... pretty much everything, or so I've been told.
Windows for Warships, baby.
How much training is required TO MISS A FUCKING TANKER
Somehow commercially operated craft do it, they must be up to something
Speculation, yes, but I guess it is still worth checking out. But they probably ought not have said anything about it unless they came up with some evidence.
On a big ship no one is relying on GPS alone.
Every ship has a magnetic compass.
A helmsman should realize if the compass heading ans speed versus the GPS position makes any sense.
Then again: during daytime a big civilian (freight!) vessel is like a mountain. It is extremely hard to overlook it.
During night time, the whole deck of big ocean going vessles is illuminated by flood lights.
Unless in fog, IT IS COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE TO OVERSEE IT
And then we have radar .... so if the ship got "hacked" the only option are hacked bandanas on the eyes of the watch and a hacked radar system.
The latter would be a story, though.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Any nation-state with the ability to hack software that would influence the most powerful warships in the world would not be doing so for farts and giggles over the course of months to cause a few (in the scheme of things) relatively minor collisions during peace time. They would reserve this cyber weapon for use when it really counted. If this was the result of a lone wolf hacker they would have sold this weapon for a huge amount of money to any of the countries that would want them to use against the US when needed, not risking its discovery messing around with it just for fun.
Better known as 318230.
Cyber attacks are suspected
Requiem for the American Dream
Seriously! Moar military spending is the solution to, well... pretty much everything, or so I've been told.
To be fair it's about as credible as:
Seriously! Moar (sic) social spending is the solution to, well... pretty much everything, or so I've been told.
does anyone else remember the "flagship US airforce carrier" that, back in the mid 1990s, had to be TOWED into harbour... because it was running Window NT 4.0 systems... which had just crashed across the *entire* ship? and does anyone else remember soldiers running Sony BMG Root-kitted CDs which then illegally sent out a listing of CLASSIFIED FILENAMES OFF TO SONY'S SERVERS?? do we not remember these things??
there is a *really good reason* why the NSA refuses to permit windows systems on its premises. why cannot the U.S. Military get it through its thick fucking head that running an OS that's been cost-shaved by a company that REFUSES TO LET ITS SECURITY TEAM MAKE CRITICAL CHANGES because the Security Director is told, every single fucking time "your proposed security improvement will cost us money. get lost and come back when you have a quotes security quotes fix that actually makes us some money".
we KNOW it's insecure. we KNOW it can be root-kitted (thank you NSA). we KNOW that there is ransomware and christ knows what else. so i don't understand why people do not understand that to run the Windows Operating System is tantamount to self-harm, and any Military that runs the Windows OS is basically, sad to say it, ASKING - no is DESPERATE - to be screwed over by anyone and everyone.
This is like the opening act that sets the scene in a disaster movie.
Also, NEVER let a Senator drive the submarine!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
This sounds like the basic plot from a half-dozen or so of the James Bond movies.
#DeleteChrome
The tanker ran into the warship. Coming into port the water can get crowded, with two-way, large-ship traffic. The warship was hit on the port side, which is a strong indication it had the right of way.
If any vehicle was hacked here, it was the tanker. While GPS jamming/spoofing is possible, getting it to reroute into a specific other ship is not an easy hack.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It's pretty tough to "hack" the sonar shack and operator. I suppose you might foul up communication between sonar and the bridge, but the Navy has a backup for that, too, including runners if necessary. And BTW, do they still have voice-powered phones on board?
Early Monday, Indeed.
The fishing vessel with no working GPS or radio, hit the navy ship mid port side. Oo
The spending cuts didn't help, but the odds of a mid sea T-bone collision are extremely low to start with. There is clearly guidance (probably spoofed GPS) to line up these big tankers on a collision course and some form of electronic warfare to blind the naval ships radar to the approaching cargo ships.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Everybody seems to assume that it's the Navy vessels that were the subject of the attacks, when it's far more likely that it's the merchant vessels to have been attacked (with the object of the attacks being to disable the Navy ships).
It's hard to do anything to a Navy ship -- their GPS uses encrypted signals, they have radars out the wazoo, and their control systems are protected against attack.
A regular merchant vessel, however, is probably quite ripe for attack from a state-sponsored actor. Some maintenance guy at a shipyard can easily be bribed to put a USB stick into a control system to plant some malware.
dom
There's absolutely no evidence there was a cyber-attack.
All we've had is a bunch of people speculating "cyber-attack" because it's a popular topic right now.
The Navy isn't denying because they haven't finished investigating the accident and don't want to start publicly ruling things out. Maybe it will turn out to be a cyber-attack, but the currently available information is completely consistent with a dozen other scenarios that have nothing to do with a cyber attack.
I stole this Sig
Except that the merchant ships were in a TSS, and the destroyer apparently tried to cross behind one cargo ship, ahead of another, and got hit by the third, that had been obstructed by the first cargo ship.
The Fitzgerald also ran across a TSS
A foreign state actor hacked into a US Naval Destroyer and with precision knocked out the steering to the ship at a critical moment where by it couldn't maneuver and was rammed by merchant vessel. And then moments later restored the steering to a working condition. Is that it? Do I have it right?
As opposed to some mechanical/electrical malfunction happening at a critical moment causing said accident and the systems being manually reset after the fact.
Yeah, right. Anyone who has ever worked with complex mechanical/electrical equipment knows that shit happens and that you don't need external actors to screw things up for you. And that goes without saying that the tropics are not an area that is conducive to nice, neat operations of equipment (consider the British destroyers that can't operate in the warm waters of the Middle East)
So may I present exhibit "A". It's this sharp piece of metal in the form of a razor. Once owned by a chap named Occam.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
If you believed that, you'd believe 39 of the 50 US states elections in specific counties were hacked ...
Oh.
Wait.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
A tanker couldn't out maneuver a navy destroyer if they wanted to. Even if they tanker was trying to ram the destroyer it would take massive incompetence by the navy crew to let it happen. The fucking destroyer can turn on a dime compared to a tanker and easily out run it.
So THATS what it looks like when Windows crashes on a warship..... it actually crashes the warship.
.... "Titanic" , it turns warships into icebergs for civilian ships to crash into.
I take naming rights for the malware
Should four collisions in the same geographical area be chalked up to coincidence? Could a military vessel be hacked?
Coincidence? No.
Could the boats have been hacked? yes - but it's incredibly unlikely.
What other possibilities are there? The 99% reason is stupidity. Either some idiot doesn't know how to drive a boat ( x4) or the standard naval tactics to "dominate" any given situation have been taken to extremes - beyond the capabilities of the people and equipment in use.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
You've been told that by the pigs getting their througs filled with all that juicy military spending on, oh, dowsing rods, fighter planes that barely fly, nevermind fight, and so on.
The US spends more on its military and -related things than the next ten countries combined, or something to that tune. But it spends maybe ten dollars to achieve what other countries do with a dollar. That's the military industrial complex for you.
Meanwhile, it's racking up debts like there's no tomorrow, and as soon as the chickens come home to roost, well... the higher you rise, the deeper you fall. In the case of the US, it'll take a lot of the rest of the world with it, especially its friends, better termed vassal states.
Contrary to war ships on patrol, tankers are rarely hiding in camouflage or lights out. Even ignoring that, any naval vessel should have the equipment and crew to either shoot an obstacle or potential attacker out of the water or give up their own right of way to avoid the collision.
Here's a reference video of the AIS tracks for the cargo vessels, collision handles shortly after the 50s mark.
.
https://youtu.be/vlrA36GzHNs
Alnic MC is in a cluster of ships together with Team Oslo, Guang Zhou, Hyundai Global and a bit behind them was the Long Hu San
Observe the evasive maneuver that first the Guang Zhou undertakes, and then the sharp turn to port the Alnic MC tries to perform, to avoid the collision.
Once is a tragedy.
Twice is a coincidence.
Thrice is an attack....
...It is clear that there is some form of electronic warfare
I don't think that anything is "clear" at this point, but in place of your (what I assume is a quote) I suggest Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". I can't imagine the level of sophistication it would take to get two vessels to run into each other. Negligence seems like a far more likely explanation. But as I said, nothing is clear at this point.
It's a shame that you only remember the rumors and myths instead of finding out the facts. The aircraft carrier you're referring to is the USS Yorktown, which did suffer computer-related problems around 1997. But if the problem was just that the OS crashed, they could have just rebooted the damn thing!
The actual problem was a crew member entered a 0 into a field in a network database, causing all of the software using the database to fail after attempting to divide by 0. The ship was dead in the water for under three hours and returned to port under its own power.
In other words, this was a problem with the software running the ship, not the OS! Considering that most bugs are in the software running on the OS and not the OS itself, this should not be a surprise.
dom
There is a culture of overwork that results in severe sleep deprivation in the US Navy, and many people standing watch are impaired at an equivalent level to beign legally drunk. It's been the confirmed cause of other incidents before, and it seems a far more likely explanation than cyber attacks. Unfortunately, the Navy does not appear to be doing much to solve the problem.
The first link in the Slashdot description is to a story about an incident from May (the wrong collision).
By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
How could any of us forget that article about the 'US Battleship' disabled by Windows NT? It was linked here on Slashdot an average of forty times per article.
All a hacker would have to do is hijack the ship's wifi, and provide unlimited bandwidth to unblocked porn sites.
It's the only explanation for nobody noticing those huge cargo ships...
The Air Force doesn't have carriers, dumbass.
A fairy tale starts with. "Once upon a time."
A sea story starts with, "Hey, this ain't no shit."
So hey ... this ain't no shit from a 9-year naval vet:
Naval ships have collision warning systems.
There's a "ding, ding, ding" to alert crew.
That's when eyeballs gather around radar, and secret guy stuff.
Also, the watch scans the horizon with binoculars.
If collision systems are "frozen" or spoofed, it could be a "drunk walk" algorithm that increases the probability of a collision.
My shipmates were never comfortable with the first report.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
No, they should be using GHS INTEGRITY or similar for every mission critical computer. But inevitably, someone with a lot of say wants the feature richness that comes with Windows, Linux, etc, and makes an exception somewhere, e.g. to allow the UI to run on a less stable OS than the back end / control systems.
The buck stops at one of the 16 White House staff members who have been fired. But it definitely doesn't stop at the top. Trump's Navy has the most spectacular crashes. Big, beautiful crashes that we can all be proud of.
If you can't stand the heat, stay off the golf course.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Lack of sleep. Sailors are allowed inadequate time to rest.
Sort of.
Navy funds have generally been more available for new ship construction with training and operations spending coming under financial stress in recent years. This makes administrations look good, and politicians of all stripes love the shipbuilding financial spending that flows into a great many districts. Yet it can leave operational readiness stretched.
Add the gender integration of the service. For whatever reason (likely a high operational tempo and longer deployments by the USN compared to some navies) a significant number of deployed female naval personnel are becoming pregnant; in 2016, 16/100 female sailors deployed had to be transferred back to shore. No one wants to talk about this, understandably so, as there are no easy answers.
There is no additional funding for this; it cost the Navy $110m last year, and places huge stresses on those remaining -- both male and female -- who often have to step in without adequate backup and training. Even simply providing additional funding won't magically solve the problem, as a loss rate of 16/100 is quite high, and it can occur somewhat unpredictably, hitting certain commands harder.
It's speculation but I'd guess that many collisions are down to watchkeeping errors and/or one or more people falling asleep on watch. Terrible, but possibly comprehensible given the stresses many crews are under.
This is the fourth time - what's that, divine intervention?
You said: Seriously! Moar (sic) social spending is the solution to, well... pretty much everything, or so I've been told. THANK YOU! "Moar" is cretinous. Thanks for adding 'sic'
Having work military "certification" testing, the test are usually the most ideal conditions such that systems always passes. My bet is on the navigation system/ radar system has a bug in which big ship just disappears.
Having work military "certification" testing, the test are usually the most ideal conditions such that systems always passes. The test are usually set up just so it sorta works, the contractor gets paid and the military can say look at my new toy.
My bet is on the navigation system/ radar system has a bug in which big ship under the right conditions just disappears from radar or the navigation system incorrectly plots the other ships vector.
That's a really sharp left turn at 0:55. ;-)
Can a tanker do that, or is this a clue the AIS might have been on something smaller?
( Which would indicate a deliberate attack. )
Or more likely, the navy 'helped' the ship with the turn
The navy really should publish a video with their track along with these.
For unfortunately, all these collisions.
It's hard to understand how the navy's lookouts for visual, ais, and radar could have not seen this.
This should not be a human fatigue issue.
If they were crossing the shipping lane, then they should have been especially alert.
The plan of not publishing naval ship location data with ais to make the fleet safer doesn't seem to be working.
(It may be costing more ships than it is saving.)
It wouldn't cost much opsec if the navy were to start turning on their ais when they are this close to the shipping lane.
All these accidents are not happening to the far more numerous: mine ships, cutters, amphibious assault ships, carriers, support ships, patrols ships, LCS etc they have all happened to our high end air defense ships and only those with ballistic missile defense capability and even then only ships in sailing in Asia around the South China Sea and Korean peninsula! The Mathematical possibility of this being a random series of events is way to low to brush it off. Also when the MacCain tragedy was first reported CNN stated "The destroyer had lost ability to steer the ship just prior to the accident." Now that statement looks to have been removed and has not been repeated this (And many other factors.) makes me suspicious
We saw how well that technique worked in Titanic.
Table-ized A.I.
There is no "right-of-way" on the water. Either you are the give-way vessel, or the stand on. It is entirely possible for both vessels to be give-way. If the tanker was confined to its lane due to the local traffic scheme, then by definition it is the stand-on vessel, as its maneuvering is constrained. If you are the stand on vessel, you are actually not supposed to change course or speed so as to be predictable to the other vessel. Of course if there is a chance of imminent collision, you do what you can.
Anyhow, if the warship in question was crossing a charted traffic scheme, it is by definition at fault.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
I suggest Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". I can't imagine the level of sophistication it would take to get two vessels to run into each other.
OK, you can't imagine what the technical details would be, that means you're not going to be able to measure the adequacy required for it have likely been stupidity.
Applying Hanlon's Razor to your comment, it is more likely that you just didn't understand Hanlon's Razor than that you intentionally impersonated an idiot.
Any military power using anything from Microsoft.
You laugh, but this has already happened with catastrophic results as expected: https://gcn.com/Articles/1998/...
Remember the US carrier fleet commander who got into an argument about who should change course with a lighthouse?
I figure it's much more likely that the captain demanded the traffic (driven by or for nignogs, clearly, it's the middle east) change course and played chicken with a tanker that has no chance of complying due to their massive size.
Modern cargo ships can do fairly sharp emergency turns, but it was also helped by the destroyer. Fortunately for the McCain, the cargo ship was ballasted, so not running full cargo, and it was going fairly slowly(around 9-10kts only, IIRC).
can we strike North Korea back or will be seen as an 1st strike and chain be forced to help nk?
Employ an inertial navigation system on board that backs up the GPS. Alarm when difference is great enough. Then fly an aircraft at high altitude and see if it's GPS agrees with the surface ships. Spoofing an aircraft at altitude where its GPS antennas are directional to the 180 degree horizontal plane and upwards is tough. Laser gyro inertial nav is also resilient so ... easy to detect.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
... running an OS that's been cost-shaved by a company that REFUSES TO LET ITS SECURITY TEAM MAKE CRITICAL CHANGES because the Security Director is told, every single fucking time "your proposed security improvement will cost us money. get lost and come back when you have a quotes security quotes fix that actually makes us some money".
...
Not off-topic here...
That is what I think of every time I boot into Windows 8.1, which insists on telling me that I am exposing myself to danger (my fault) if I turn off the Microsoft-written and integrated "Windows Virus Defender" (or whatever it's called) from scanning and updating whenever it feels like doing so.
I mean, really... Come on... The "antivirus protection" comes WITH the OS that I installed, and was written by the same company! It's basically a tacit admission that "we write bug-riddled code, which must be monitored, so included in the OS itself is a 'threat-monitor'."
Who the fuck made the decision to make that argument to the purchaser, and who the fuck wrote that system dialog? It defies all logic.
You're thinking of a different incident.
It was a battleship, not a carrier.
And yes, it did indeed require towage back to port.
My guess is that while the combat systems on these ships are awesome and they're probably also capable of awesome electronic navigation, but some kind of "not the Navy Way" mindset causes them to do things the old fashioned way and not rely on modern navigation systems when they're not feeling vulnerable.
The combat radars are turned off and the information sections are probably lightly staffed at 3 AM in friendly waters. The rest of the crew is doing business as usual and navigating the old fashioned way *and* being really lazy about it, assuming that everyone else is doing their job so they can slack off. It's 3 AM, and we're just cruising.
You could literally spend $5000 on recreational marine displays, radar and AIS and totally avoid this accident. AIS in particular -- ships *broadcast* their position, heading and speed and it shows up on screen, allowing even recreational boaters to set collision prediction alarms. Even recreational radar can track targets and show predicted paths against the vessel's own path. Why isn't this being done on the bridge of Navy ships?
But it's been explained to me that the Navy doesn't like to do this way, they have the staff and bridge space to do manual plotting and there's some kind of belief that it's superior.
The warship was hit on the port side, which is a strong indication it had the right of way.
Actually it is a strong indicator that the warship had no right of way.
The trade vessels are in a "sea water street". That is either an imaginary "road" in the water or a "road" that is marked with buoys.
The traffic in the sea water street has priority and right of way. As the war ship was hit in the side, it obviously crossed said street. And hence had the duty to give way to any other vessel in the street.
But that is not the issue. Everyone involved in "traffic" might it be on real streets in a car or at sea in a ship has to take care that accidents are avoided. How both ships managed to not be able to avoid each other is indeed a good question.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"
These are warships, supposedly capable of detecting supersonic enemy planes on attack vectors as well as missiles, hundred of miles away and they are unable to detect a fucking container-ship as big as a skyscraper 50 yards away?
There is no "right-of-way" on the water.
Are we nitpicking again?
What is the difference between "right of way" and "stand-on vessel"?
For a layman there is none ... and actually as I have a diploma in nautics, I really wonder at what you are aiming, because for me there is none, too.
Anyhow, if the warship in question was crossing a charted traffic scheme, it is by definition at fault. .... it is an american war ship ... cough, cough.
Correct. But on the other hand
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Military ships work off of separate encrypted GPS signals. So yes, one could spoof just the commercial signals, just the military signals, or both to create the collision conditions.
When there's an accidental nuclear strike from a warship, it'll be omg the haXorz did it.
Requiem for the American Dream
does anyone else remember the "flagship US airforce carrier"
Wow, the Air Force has carriers now? I'll bet the Navy is really pissed about that.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Here is a related article from one of the other collisions: http://www.reuters.com/article...
q[... the ship's commanding officer, executive officer and master chief, would be removed from the vessel because "we've lost trust and confidence in their ability to lead."]
This is Singapore and there's a lot of "activities" that sailors can partake in. They totally want some of those famous chili crabs and barley drinks. Maybe a walk along Orchard Road before taking in the bountiful and beautiful views from Orchard Tower.
WannaCry now?
-Unresolved symbol? Byte me!
There is no single hack that should work to cause an accident like this. It doesn't matter if GPS is hacked or even off. It doesn't matter if your navigation system is faulty or given the wrong information. It doesn't matter if your radars are down. The fact of the matter is, ships have been navigating in congested waters at night for hundreds of years and there is no hack that should serve to cause a collision.
Bridge watchkeepers are supposed to be trained in heads up visual navigation. GPS, ECPINS, AIS, navigation radars - they are all useful tools, but a watchkeeper is supposed to be trained to know when those tools are lying to to them. Because it really isn't a matter of if, but when something will happen to cause one or more of those tools to lie to you. This is especially true of warship watchkeepers who are supposed to be trained to operate in places where there may be denial of service for GPS or where AIS is being spoofed.
I wrote about something like this before - almost two years ago. American warships have a reputation in NATO as being driven by amateurs. During fleet manoeuvers, the rest of us actively plot wider safety bubbles around American ships because they are erratic and have a tendency to simply go the wrong direction and just not care.
This isn't a cyber attack. There is no attack on anything on the American ship that should have defeated the watchkeeper's mark 1 eyeball, and hacking a container ship to hit a warship with is like hacking a semi truck and thinking you are going to use it to ram a dirt bike on an open field. It's simply not possible to hit a warship with a container vessel if the warship has a watchkeeper that is awake.
Once is happenstance.
Twice is coincidence.
The third time itâ(TM)s enemy action.
- Goldfinger
A stand-on vessel that treats it as being right-of-way can still be given the lion's share of blame in the case of a collision, for failing to undertake evasive maneuvers, or for violating other parts of Colreg. In this case, the McCain was nominally the stand-on, but they were crossing a TSS in an unsafe manner, while the cargo ship was in the TSS lane, the JSM will most likely be given the majority of the blame. Despite nominally being the stand-on. If stand-on equalled right of way, the JSM wouldn't even be in doubt.
So no, it's not nitpicking. It's being factually correct AND accurate.
Not just the captain. I bet the OOD's next posting (and it won't be long!) is as a supply officer somewhere really unpleasant until his/her commitment runs out. FWIW, what are considered the really awful places to get posted in the Navy?
Wouldn't be funny if everyone is looking at the hypersonic anti-ship missiles as the next big threat, while somebody has clearly figured out you can take out major USN ships with nothing more than cheap commercial vessel? You don't even need a warhead. In both of these recent collisions, ONE HIT from non-explosive attack wiped out comms, killed crew, almost killed the captain, and did a LOT of critical damage to what was supposed to be an armored military ship.
This should not be happening in the first place. But it ALSO should not be so spectacularly successful. Are we making ships out of tin cans? How is being hit causing this much damage, and what does it say about what a real anti-ship missile would do?
Nothing good is what it says.
Sig for hire.
I'll bet the Navy is really pissed about that.
We'll show them! We'll get some airplanes!
Have gnu, will travel.
a crew member entered a 0 into a field in a network database
The first time the Navy has had a ship disabled by a zero since WWII.
Have gnu, will travel.
Can it be that Russia "could be" a threat? /LOL, gotta love the alt-right wingers saying that Russia is better than Democrats.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
I should have been more direct because TFA says all you need to read.
Should four collisions in the same geographical area be chalked up to coincidence? Could a military vessel be hacked? In essence, what if GPS spoofing or administrative lockout caused personnel to be unaware of any imminent danger or unable to respond? The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) says there's no reason to think it was a cyber-attack, but they're looking into it: "2 clarify Re: possibility of cyber intrusion or sabotage, no indications right now...but review will consider all possibilities," tweeted Adm. John Richardson.
I happen to love good Conspiracy theory. Like the Magic Bullet for JFK, lots of good questions about 9/11. The difference between the good theories and this is that the good ones have facts you need to really think about and chase down.
I find it much more likely that the ship lost power and made a classified distress call, but backup could not get there in time and they didn't want to notify the cargo ship to change course (or made that call way too late).
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I think y'all are talking about the cruiser Yorktown hat was disabled by a software problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It could not have been the aircraft carrier Yorktown because the first Yorktown carrier was sunk at Midway in 1942, and the next WWII Yorktown carrier has been a museum ship in Charleston SC since the 1970's.
And it was not any of the battleships due to their being decommissioned and mothballed around 1991, and after that any travel was pretty much by tugboat.
If anyone has a link to an article saying otherwise, I'd like to see it.
I'm really wondering how retarded the /. crowd or americans in general are.
GPS works like navigation by the stars. Instead of aiming with optical instruments at real stars, you 'aim' an artificial receiver towards satellites (artificial stars).
So, if you spoof the GPS location by 'overwriting' the signals(light) from the 'artificial' star, all ships in that region have the same 'spoofing error'. It is close to impossible to spoof one ship to change course to the left, and another one to change course to the right, so that they collide, because they both have the same spoofed misplacement.
I'd think that if someone wanted to spoof GPS to make a single ship alter course, they'd plant their spoofer near the GPS antenna(s) on the ship and jam it from there. It may be difficult to do so on a naval vessel, but less difficult on a merchant vessel who relies on local vendors for maintenance while in port.
There is no magical 'GPS' that tells you where you are (or that can be 'hacked' and you can figure where someone else is), the little GPS receiver is calculating itself where it is!
Isn't that little GPS receiver the magical 'GPS' that you'd jam?
You want to travel to the mountain in front of you. Now someone spoofes the positions of those mountains, and you change course. So that you believe that you are still heading to the mountain in front if you.
Every ship around you, regardless what course, would make exactly the same course correction!! If you shift 5 degrees to the right, every other ship would do the exact same thing! (Regardless to where they are heading)
That can not lead to collisions!
but now imagine that you want to jam just the one GPS receiver -- so instead of moving the mountains (which is hard), you paint a picture of the mountains on a sheet, and fly it in just in front of the guy you're trying to spoof. Only he sees the spoofed mountains and no one else does.
And bottom line: navigation does not work that way anyway. You use the magnet compass for hours until you change course.
So you start with a tiny course deviation, just a few degrees, but you keep it up for hours. The navigator dismisses it as a compass error (after all, GPS isn't wrong), but over 20 or 40 miles, it can end up miles off course and may think he's far from traffic on the AIS plotter even as he's on a collision course.
Of course a ship won't rely on GPS or AIS, and will use Radar and vision (both with the naked eye and night vision) to watch for traffic. And that's why GPS spoofing should not result in a collision. not because it's impossible to spoof GPS for a single vessel.
Or they were actually stoned and / or drunk.
The problem with INTEGRITY is that there's almost no one left who still knows how to work with it. It's only used in the military anyway, and even there it's been dying out. You can't use people skilled in Linux to work with it, because companies only want to hire people who already are experts at something, so the talent pool is now nearly elderly and retiring. All the young engineers are familiar with Linux so that's what ends up getting used even if it isn't the greatest choice.
Here's a movie of what happened. One of the ships is unfortunately not shown, but the tanker made a very sharp turn into the warship. It's hard to think of a scenario where that was a good idea. Maybe there was more than one warship, and the tanker was trying to avoid the other warship.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Put the smartphone away and pay attention to what you are doing.
Well if that's true the Navy must think they were attacked by one of their own because they just fired a vice admiral for it. I wonder how bad it has to get before they fire the commander in chief of the navy, whoever that is...
Nullius in verba
Four times is some form of attack combined with incompetent response.
By that logic, the 30,000 or so deadly car accidents we have each year is rock solid evidence that someone is out to get us.
Also, I made 3 typo's while typing this. Someone is hacking my keyboard!
Fourth time is 4chan.
Haha, perhaps the 'tanker' is a warship, too?
I watch later, thanx for the link.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I don't think the morons are paying attention to scientific facts. You bring to mind the stupidest line of dialog i ever heard from a WW II movie: "Johnson, take a reading with the compass so we can tell graves registration later where to find those bodies we buried." The half-wit writer actually thought a compass magically tells you exactly where you are, latitude and longitude!
"The accuracy of the GPS signal is identical for both the civilian GPS service (SPS) and the military GPS service (PPS). Civilian SPS broadcasts on only one frequency 1575.42 MHz, while military PPS uses two 1575.42 MHz and 1227.60 MHz."
"Once upon a time, the unencrypted signal included a random error factor that would make the civilian GPS randomly wrong in a different direction each day. I believe it started with errors up to 400 meters, which was still plenty accurate for general ocean navigation. The policy / feature was called “Selective Availability” and was killed in 2000."
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-difference-between-military-GPS-data-and-civilians-in-terms-of-accuracy
Well, yes, and no.. The higher chipping frequency of the P(Y) code (the military signal) makes it more resistant to jamming. Also, being able to decode both signals allows the receiver to calculate the density of the ionosphere, and thus be far more accurate. The biggest source of error is signal delay induced by the (variable) ionosphere. This delay is partially dependent on frequency, so by measuring the delta between the civilian and military signals, you can thus factor the ionosphere out. It's a really cute trick.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
The "Law of Carnage" and/or "Right of Weight" isn't actually part of the colregs directly. The collision regulations generally adhere to the concept that the more maneuverable vessel gives way to the less maneuverable. However, none of the determining factors are based on the size of either vessel directly. Rather, determining factors are things like vessels that are constrained by draught or by channel are the stand-on vessel. So if you're bayliner running around at the mouth of a river, and a freighter comes ot, you had better believe that the Freighter is the stand-on vessel. However, that's not because it's a big ship, but rather it's confined to channel and/or constrained due to draught.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
but now imagine that you want to jam just the one GPS receiver -- so instead of moving the mountains (which is hard), you paint a picture of the mountains on a sheet, and fly it in just in front of the guy you're trying to spoof. Only he sees the spoofed mountains and no one else does.
And how exactly would you do that with radio waves when every ship in range would recieve the same fake picture?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
It is nitpicking, and wrong. ... while you basically explain everything correctly, a nitpicking examiner would let fail you for that question :)
As the war ship was crossing a shipping lane it has no stand-on rights.
So
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
That sharp turn to port is a last-minute evasive maneuver. You can see how the Guang Zhou made an evasive maneuver to starboard also.
Basically, the destroyer tried, in full darkness, to cross a busy TSS, through a cluster of cargo ships. It managed to cross behind one of them, in front of another, but the third was not detected, and that's what hit them. Presumably, it was obscured by the other cargo ships until too late.
No, the examiner would give me a full pass, because I show that I understand that the ColRegs are not rigid rules, that it always depends on the situation.
Look, I don't know anything... no claim to expertise... I'm just genuinely baffled as to how you collide with a ship at sea in these circumstances.
Is the visibility poor? If you couldn't see the other ship that is an issue... though, I would think a naval craft would have optics that could see at night and through fog.
As to notions of "well maybe they were hacked"... if that matters at all, then the system is badly designed because a ship like that should be manned at all times when underway. You don't just put it on automatic and then space out.
I can see a ship being taken off course by a hack... maybe being run into a reef or something that wasn't seen below the water line. But a collusion between surface ships at sea? It just seems like incompetence is the only answer. I say this acknowledging that I really don't know what is going on here... just some guy :)
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I think the problem is the children's programming these people have been exposed to. Have you seen how long they take to make a decision on Dora or Little Einsteins? Real life doesn't wait for, leave the slow kids behind and get stuff done.
Caveat, I probably watch to many cartoons, and I'm impatient.
Cheap storage VM.
Let America launch the "War on Incompetency"...
Based on passed wars such as the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, we can expect an increase in incompetency, if that is possible to imagine.
That sharp turn to port is a last-minute evasive maneuver
I don't think that's right.......what was it evading? It didn't collide until after it turned.
Basically, the destroyer tried, in full darkness, to cross a busy TSS, through a cluster of cargo ships
How do you know that? The destroyer isn't displayed in the movie.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
No, they have the correct incident but are just referring to it as the wrong type of ship. There have been multiple ships named USS Yorktown but the one that was in service in the 1990s was a cruiser. There have been 2 carriers named USS Yorktown, one was sunk in 1942 and the other decommissioned in 1970.
It was originally reported that the ship had to be towed back to port but there is some disagreement as to whether or not that actually happened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
He suggested physical infiltration of the ship and attaching a GPS spoofer right near the receiver, such that the square of a few meters away is a much-stronger-signal than the square of a few hundred meters away.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Have gnu, will travel.
You're thinking of a different incident.
It was a battleship, not a carrier.
No, the USS Yorktown, CG-48, is a Ticonderoga-class cruiser. The US doesn't have any battleships in service, and didn't in 1997 when the incident occurred. The previous USS Yorktown, CV-10, was an Essex-class carrier, which is probably the source of the confusion about CV-48's ship type.
And yes, it did indeed require towage back to port.
So claims Government Computer News. According to Atlantic Fleet, the captain and the contractor who was the source of the GCN story, it did not. The contractor said the reporter altered his statements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Yorktown_(CG-48)#Smart_ship_testbed
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
"I don't think that's right.......what was it evading? It didn't collide until after it turned."
It was trying to evade the destroyer trying to cross the TSS, right across their bow. The collision happened mid-turn, then the momentum of the turn, assisted by the momentum imparted from the destroyer, the turn continued, until the ship came to a complete stop, before finally reversing.
"How do you know that? The destroyer isn't displayed in the movie."
Basically, watching the AIS, reading statements from other sailors in the area, analyzing where the damage is on the JSM, factoring in other US Navy incidents etc(The Fitzgerald collision was while crossing a TSS, in full dark, and the USS Porter was hit while performing a maneuver like the one I mentioned, crossing in front of one cargo ship, just to be hit by the second cargo ship that was behind the other one, in the Straits of Hormuz, which is a TSS zone too, also in full dark), as well as paying attention to the scuttlebut among mariners in general.
So you have a behavioural pattern among destroyer captains of making dashes across TSS zones, along with comparatively little bridge experience compared to merchant mariners with similar length of service in terms of years. IIRC, on the JSM, the CO did most of his ship duty in engineering, prior to becoming XO and then CO.
Or he was let go due to incompetence in blaming personnel instead of figuring out what is going on, which I cited in my original post. After the second collision, the navy should have pulled out all the stops to figure out what is being done to affect our ships (hacking, electronic warfare, whatever it is) but they did not. Given that all of these collisions have happened within proximity to North Korea and I doubt China would be stupid enough to attack the US, it is very likely that North Korea is attacking the US navy using either hacks or some other method to blind our radar systems and then GPS spoofing to steer other ships into our naval ships. If/when we figure out the method and tie it to North Korea, they are going to get the military annihilation they have been begging for recently. I hope China doesn't mind the nuclear fallout from their proxy drifting over their border (tough shit if they don't like it).
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
TSS crossing COLREG reference.
Looks like the destroyer had the right of way, but expected the merchant vessel to modify speed or course. The merchant seems to have failed to do so, and hit the destroyer. Still, the Naval captain will lose his job, as he is expected to deal with situations like this and perform all possible actions to prevent damage, injury or loss of life.
That fleet's commanding Admiral was relieved of duty yesterday. Typically, this indicates human error, but it does not totally rule out other issues on top of the human error.
Surely theres also the culture of 'Murcanism ie "We're 'Murcans, everone haz 2 get the fuck outta our way cos we're 'MURCANS!"
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Sigh. There is nearly 0% chance this had anything to do with a "cyber attack" and nearly 100% chance that someone wasn't looking out the fucking window for potential conflicting traffic.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Facepalms self. FFS don't assume that you are smarter than everyone else on the internet, especially when you haven't actually studied GPS or how large ships navigate.
GPS works by locating the signal from 4 or more GPS satellites and then comparing the signals to determine a location. GPS signals are very weak and both the Russians and Chinese have specific GPS jamming weapon systems (and in turn the US has guided missiles that home in on GPS jamming signals). Furthermore, what I suggest here is the spoofing of the GPS signals to the commercial vessel only. This can be easily accomplished using a device near the GPS antenna or a drone landed near the antenna or a plane at relatively low altitude with a directional antenna that within a small radius spoofs the GPS constellation overhead. That GPS spoofing vehicle or device can "steer" the commercial vessel remotely, whose auto navigation GPS based system updates it's course every few minutes, (since drifting even a little off course can cost thousands of dollars of extra fuel). Once the ships are within 2000 meters or so, the collision is inevitable and the GPS spoofing vehicle can bug out, leaving no trace.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
The scenario you linked is inappropriate here.
The JSM incident was a multi-ship scenario, with poor visibility(dark, multiple ships cluttering the view, shore lights etc)
But, the JSM was the give-way vessel, since it was outside the TSS, and shall thus take any practical actions to keep well clear of any risk of collision. And, as I noted in another post, this fits well into a behavioural pattern with US destroyers: Crossing TSS zones, in the dark, ahead of other ships. USS Porter, USS Fitzgerald and USS John S. McCain all collided in TSS zones, in the dark, while trying to cross.
This exactly, the only problem is that US naval ships have not been on high alert for commercial vessels being steered directly on them, thus it may be something as simple as the radar officer sees the commercial vessel, sees it is on a collision course, so the naval vessel plots a new course and then they go back to playing solitaire not realizing that the commercial vessel is course correcting to collide with the naval vessels new course. 30 minutes later that collision is unavoidable since these ships literally cannot get out of each others way once they are within a certain distance and course.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
GPS radio waves are a very weak signal at sea level, and if you plant a GPS spoofer directly adjacent to the commercial ship's GPS antenna, that signal can be 10x more powerful to the commercial ship than the real GPS signal and not even be detectable 100 yards away let alone to other ships miles away. You might want to educate yourself on how radiant intensity works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
I agree with your assessment of the situation with regards to traffic volume, time of day and location.
However, the JSM was not required to be the give-way vessel, as per rule 10(a). Rule 10(c) states 'A vessel shall, so far as practicable, avoid crossing traffic lanes' but does not change the status of give-way or stand-on with a crossing vessel ahead and to starboard.
Unfortunately, I believe that this was another case of a merchant vessel not maintaining proper watch and failing to maneuver correctly, and a naval vessel failing to properly monitor to actions of surrounding vessels.
But you have 10(d)(I) and 10(h) that are also in effect
There are many on slashdot who think themselves experts because they once read something about X. It is a common affliction in our modern world with the advent of the internet and Wikipedia, you actually can educate yourself on a wide variety of topics, but proper application of that knowledge requires intelligence and sadly many are still lacking in that regard. The icing on the cake is that most of them are also clueless about their own limitations and instead are confident of their intellectual and moral superiority to everyone else they come across, and are only too eager to demonstrate the fact.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Not saying that isn't possible, but if that were the case then why have we only had 4 surface ship collisions in the prior 26 years and then 3 in the last two months? Open ocean collisions not involving resupply or refueling ships is vanishingly rare, and now we suddenly have 3 in two months, all in the same global region, all T-bone collisions (which on the open ocean are like finding a mermaid riding a unicorn, a.k.a. they don't happen to large modern vessels).
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
I call BS on this, GPS spoofing doesn't prevent the radar from working or from someone looking out the window.
Funny. Dockerhub was down during each of these collisions. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.
Then your examiners give you more leniency than mine gave me :)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Your complicated plan could work, but not if the crew pays attention.
You would need expensive specialized equipment to 'remote control' a ship and not affect the nearby ones.
And, I would not wonder if a high quality ship GPS is watching far more than 4 satellites, and probably even shows an error if some of them seem unusually strong.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Erm, why do you shit no brainers? I had physics in school, you know ....
I guess the destroyer and the cargo ship must have a strong force field that they collided with each other while hundreds of meters apart ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
There was no GPS spoofing involved at all, why don't you read the news instead of spreading your conspiracy theory?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Regardless of whether these were cyber-attacks (and yes, of course by Putin himself), one thing stands out: the navy is INCAPABLE TO OPERATE WITHOUT THE ELECTRONICS, and the CREWS ARE NOT WATCHING OUT FOR HAZARD. This makes the hugely expensive ships hugely vulnerable to magnetic pulse attacks. This is what happens when you do not use your MIND when designing things
Erm, why do you shit no brainers? I had physics in school, you know ....
I guess the destroyer and the cargo ship must have a strong force field that they collided with each other while hundreds of meters apart ...
By the time two large ships are on a collision course 100 yards apart, it's too late to stop a collision.
But you don't seem to understand how weak GPS signals are -- they are literally below the noise floor, and a GPS receiver can only find the signal because it knows where to look ahead of time. The signal from GPS jammer located near a GPS receiver would be completely undetectable 10 meters away.
The signal from GPS jammer located near a GPS receiver would be completely undetectable 10 meters away.
Of course it would be completely undetecable, it is a no brainer.
So why are you riding this dead horse?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The signal from GPS jammer located near a GPS receiver would be completely undetectable 10 meters away.
Of course it would be completely undetecable, it is a no brainer.
So why are you riding this dead horse?
Because you made the claim that it's impossible to jam GPS (or give an erroneous GPS reading) to one ship without also affecting all of the surrounding ships, and nothing you've replied since then shows that you understand that it's possible.
This is what happens when you start networking computers on a Battlestar. Damn Cylons will get you every time.
If you put a device like you proclaim, on a ship, then it is not jamming, but tampering.
Jamming is done from a distance, and I pointed out that this would affect not a single ship but all in its vicinity.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
A few years back I used to be (despite an Army paratrooper) in charge of a platoon to serve as boarding parties on pirate patrol in the Indian Ocean (Operation Atalanta) on board of one of our frigates. We moved in and out of the harbor of Djibouti, passing through the Gulf of Aden, a very busy shipping lane comparable to the situation down in Malaysia/Singapore. The ship did not rely just on radar/GPS to navigate those waters, but there were at all times at least 4 lookouts, in all directions, not only the one it was moving in, at night with NVG, that were scanning the surroundings at all time. While it was easy on patrol to miss those smaller dhows and particular the skiffs, specially in choppy sea way out on the ocean, there was no way that anyone would miss to spot a huge oil tanker or container ship on a collision course. There has to be a notorious lack of responsibility and oversight, among sailors and officers, both on board and in higher command, for this to happen repeatedly. Ignorance and arrogance kills...
A. I don't allow some random news outlet (or a well known one) to tell me how to think.
B. Until they have a definitive, well explained reason for these crashes, my theory (a GPS spoofer attached to a negatively buoyant drone that crashes itself in the ocean a few moments before impact) just as accurately explains the evidence as any other theory.
C. FROM THE LINKED ARTICLE "Could a ... vessel be hacked? In essence, what if GPS spoofing ... caused personnel to be unaware of any imminent danger or unable to respond?" https://thenextweb.com/insider...
Maybe you should read first and criticize once you have a clue?
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
You may have had high school physics but I would have failed you if you had been in any of the courses I taught in college (and I have some criticism for the HS physics teacher who passed you without the ability to properly define the problem at hand).
There are a number of holes in your statement. Several other members have pointed out the flaws in your critique, but lets review:
Point 1: Lets assume that the drone's field of GPS spoofing extends 100M, If a drone spoofer were parked on top of the GPS antenna (0.2M away) this is generous, since the spoofing signal can be extremely weak at that distance and still overpower the GPS satellite signals by 10x. The vessel type in question has the bridge and comms array near the stern and the vessel that collided with the John S. McCain IS 183m LONG! https://www.vesseltracker.com/... So the 100m spoofing range would have been meaningless in averting the collision, not even extending out to the bow of the ship.
Point 2: Assuming the GPS spoofing device had an effective range of 1000m (unlikely but not impossible) the vessels involved both take multiple kilometers to stop or turn. Once their course and speed are set, detecting a spoofed GPS signal at 1000m (actually about 800m subtracting the commercial vessels length) is not enough time for either crew to react and avert the collision. The vessel that collided with the John S McCain unladen weighs roughly 30,000 tons (60,000,000 pounds) and is 183m (600 feet) long and I believe it was carrying 12,000 tons of fuel oil at the time. The John S McCain is 505 feet long... These vessels cannot stop or turn rapidly.
Point 3: I am asserting spoofing not jamming, but either effect would need the same signal strength in the GPS signals frequency (something like 10x the actual satellite signal strength). Placing the spoofing/jamming device adjacent to the GPS antenna (less than 0.2m) defines how strong the spoofing device signal needs to be at the source, and at that range, either spoofing or jamming would be invisible at 100m (or less) if done properly which as we just reviewed above would not affect any other ship in the vicinity.
Just admit that your criticism was incorrect and you have gaps in your knowledge of how GPS actually works and didn't know what these ships look like or their size or their turning radius and stopping distance when under way. It is already clear to everyone reading this thread. Continuing to argue only proves that you are also unable to learn from your mistakes which only perpetuates your own ignorance.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Exactly right on both counts Hawguy.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Your complicated plan could work, but not if the crew pays attention.
You would need expensive specialized equipment to 'remote control' a ship and not affect the nearby ones.
And, I would not wonder if a high quality ship GPS is watching far more than 4 satellites, and probably even shows an error if some of them seem unusually strong.
Which is why these attacks have been carried out in low visibility or early morning hours when everyone is more reliant on GPS and is less alert.
Also, you have got to educate yourself on how GPS signals work and the scales of magnitude involved here. GPS signals are extremely weak signals to begin with. THERE IS NO CHANCE OF AFFECTING NEARBY SHIPS IF YOU ARE SPOOFING A COMMERCIAL VESSEL 0.2m FROM IT'S GPS ANTENNA. Those spoofing GPS signals will be undetectable at 100m and these ships are 180m long and they usually stay multiple kilometers apart, even when they are "close" in shipping lanes. The spoofing device could be commanded remotely via satellite internet connection or shorter range radio data connection (microwave or some such) which is on a unique and completely different band than GPS and thus would have no effect on other ships in the vicinity (i.e. 10km).
Commercial ships all use commercial GPS hardware that looks at the strongest 4 satellites in the constellation. There are not, as far as I am aware, any commercial GPS receivers that look at more than 4, largely due to no added value and the algorithm that calculates position uses exactly 4, if you added more you would have to rewrite the algorithm to use the additional satellites for additional positional validation calculations which would add unnecessary overhead to the processor. There is also nothing preventing the GPS spoofing device from spoofing more than 4 satellites if for example 6 satellites were used to try to combat 4 satellite spoofing.
The spoofing equipment development cost might be expensive for you, but for a rogue nation like North Korea or Iran, that is pennies on the dollar to disable an otherwise untouchable ship that could single handedly sink their entire surface navies. Watch for them to try to cause collisions with an aircraft carrier next.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
I can see you are really in love with your theory, but:
(1) this incident did not happen in the "open ocean"; it happened in one of the busiest shipping lanes of the world.
(2) I haven't read any reports of the tanker doing something odd until right before the collision, and that was probably an evasive manoeuvre. And even if that last dash was caused by GPS spoofing, what was the destroyer doing so near the tanker in the first place?
(3) The tanker also had other sensors available next to GPS, including the good old Mk 1 eyeball, making GPS spoofing implausible.
(4) No matter what, a destroyer from any decent naval power should not be vulnerable to a deliberate attack by a tanker, even if it was hijacked by twenty madmen on a suicide mission. The destroyer can outmanoeuvre and outrun the tanker by a vast margin. Being surprised is not an excuse because (a) the crew should have been alert in this busy shipping lane anyways, and (b) safety margins.
Since a lot is still unknown I will label your theory 'implausible' rather than 'tinfoil', but either an unfortunately timed technical failure or plain old incompetence seem far more plausible.
I give you one thing, your theory is more plausible than the 'cyber attack' theory that was the excuse for this /. post.
Of you still have mot realized till now that the destroyer crossed a shipping lane and that the cargo ship was traveling in a straight line in that lane, then you are beyond help.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Actually I doubt you ever taught Physics. Anyway, you can leave those ad hominems out.
And you can leave out your layman examples of drones spoofing GPS. There was no drone spoofing GPS, so: why do you try to educate the world?
All your points are complete bollocks.
The collision was in a shipping lane. Hundrets of ships probably where around collision. No pilot is looking on a GPS screen and driving in circles when dozens of ships in front of him follow a straight line, and dozens behind him do the same and hi has dozens of ships incomming on the counter lane in front of him.
Btw: I never said your drone example is impossible, so why are you riding this dead horse?
If you still have mot realized till now that the destroyer crossed a shipping lane and that the cargo ship was traveling in a straight line in that lane, then you are beyond help.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I don't have to educate me about anything regarding this theead: because I know everythi relevant already.
If you still have mot realized till now that the destroyer crossed a shipping lane and that the cargo ship was traveling in a straight line in that lane, then you are beyond help.
Your idea how many sattelites a GPS receiver uses is completely bollocks. Basically all GPS receivers use as many sattelites as they can see. And that is usually about 6 - 8.
So to spoof a ships position you need to spoof all signals from them, know which satellites are visible (e.g. having your own GPS) and a super accurate clock. If your clock is not accurate enough the ships spoofed GPS will have the 'impression' that the ship is jumpint around.
Anyway, you are such a moron it is unbeliefeable. Sea faring vessels don't use GPS on autopilote. Human pilots don't use GPS to navigate in shipping lanes.
The ships in such traffic areas are traveling with a few miles distance to each other, probbably down to a hundret yards. How stupid do you think commercial pilots are?
Look 1 minute not out of the window and you probbaly have collided with half a dozen ships already.
Loook on a damn map and check where that accident happend. And reread the /. article. Dozens of people already have explained what happend and you moron ride on the dead horse of a GPS spoofing attack.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Never Google 'Shrimp Boat Captain Urban Dictionary'.
Just don't.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Seems plausible that the McCain was crossing the TSS perpendicularly (as permitted by Rule 10), from NW to SE, and during the transit, didn't see the Hyundai Global racing up from behind on the inside, and so had to cut power to avoid a collision with her, and instead got smacked by Alnic MC. If that is the case, Hyundai Global bears some blame for racing way too fast in the shipping lane, and entering the separation zone where they shouldn't be.
Where do you get from that that the tanker made a turn into the warship? The warship was crossing NW to SE perpendicular to the separation zone as required, and the tanker hit the warship in the port quarter. The sharp change in course is during and after the collision when the tanker was dragged sideways by the warship's momentum.
Not even going to respond to this garbled mess.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Done with you.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
"Shipping lanes" can be hundreds of miles wide. Just crossing one should be trivial for a naval vessel, and course correcting the commercial vessel into the naval vessel would not necessarily take the commercial vessel out of the shipping lane... No relevance to our discussion.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
That sounds a bit more far fetched. More probable, in my analysis, is that JSM saw Team Oslo and Guang Zhou, darted in between the former and ahead of the latter. However, the Alnic MC was obscured from the JSM both visually and on RADAR by Team Oslo, until it was too late. At that point, they may also temporarily have lost steering due to the hydrodynamic effects of the wake and possibly bow waves of the ships around the point.
It is just a theory obviously, and way back on my first post I posit that there was either negligence on the part of the naval crew, or some type of E-warfare to interfere with the naval vessel's radar, which should have seen and aided in the naval vessel avoiding the collision either by changing course or speed. These collisions were happening in low visibility and just pre dawn when most humans are at their least alert.
1. Shipping lanes are open ocean (differentiating from harbors and inlets, etc). The busiest shipping lanes it the world are still not that crowded, with literal miles between ships. If you are thinking LA traffic you are sadly mistaken.
2. Changing the commercial vessel's course a few degrees would not be noticeable, even by the crew, especially because the changes happened in the dark of night (the collision happened right around sunrise).
3. By other sensors, you are assuming they had an accurate compass? It is a well known fact that compass readings can drift a few degrees from the generators in a large ship, which is why they are rarely consulted anymore. As far as obsevational navigation, that doesn't typically happen at night on cargo vessels unless there is a known hazard in the area. You give the crew far too much credit. These days everyone trusts GPS blindly (ever heard of death by GPS)?
After the first collision, I was right there with you regarding the cause being likely a technical failure or incompetence. But this is the third T bone collision in under 3 months, whereas in the 26 YEARS prior there were a total of 4 surface ship collisions in the US navy, with the US navy doing everything the same (including crossing shipping lanes). Of those historical collisions, 3 were sideswipes with refuel/restock vessels that were close on purpose, and the 4th was a small fishing vessel trying to "beat the train" in front of an aircraft carrier and it got squished.
The statistics of these type of collision make this far less likely to be some kind of system failure after the second incident. And we have already had a third collision already.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Forest, meet trees. That is all very interesting, but really not very relevant. The simple truth is that "civilian" GPS USED TO HAVE only 1/10 to 1/100 the accuracy of "military" GPS, but that hasn't been the case for quite a while now. Anyone who has used a cheap consumer GPS knows it will reliably pinpoint you within a few meters.
If the warship was traveling NW to SE, wouldn't the ship (traveling west) have hit the starboard side?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
No, if the warship was traveling heading 135 as required by Rule 10, and the tanker is east of the warship, traveling heading roughly 225, then it would be approaching from the port side of the warship.
I think the tanker was heading roughly 135, not 225.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Read up on compass directions, then we can discuss...
rule 18: "Look to the right, give way to the right, turn to the right and stay to the right." At least one of those ships failed.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Of course it is relevant, as you obviously are to lazy to check the news.
Shipping lanes are not hundrets of miles wide, that would be completely pointless.
Obviously it was not trivial for the destroyer, otherwise he had noticed that the ship it collided with was behind the ship he avoided to collide with ... but as you don't read news you don't know that the destroyer tried to fiddle itself between three ships. Two it avoided and the third they oversaw.
The correct way, braindead easy, would have been to adjust course in paralell to the commercial traffic, that usually means a turn to 'the right'. Ride with the flow till there is a sufficient gap between the incomming traffic, and then cross to the other side.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Holmwood -- this is very interesting. Can you provide citations or a data source that provides this info as well as comparison data for males? Best would be if we could look at some historical data too. I'm willing to dig myself as I have a vested interest in such data. Obtaining a startpoint from you, if I can, will provide additional efficiency. Thank you.
Whoah -- Google "Naval Pregnancy Rates" turns up a wealth of info. Am interested in any articles you'd recommend. (apologies for dupe post. time matters.)