I am in touch with a dozen or so ex-Commanding Officers, some from same class DDG, and most with several underway command tours. Several Surface Warfare Admirals. All long retired. This new article has re-generated interest in the collision. These guys, all of whom have “been there, done that” had almost the exact same response, 100% consistent. 1) The article was, overall, very well done 2) The CO was 100% responsible/accountable 3) The article laid bare major problems in navy/DoD, and the budget. 4) But no one, above the Commanding Officer is responsible for the conduct and operation of his/her ship, or therefore the collision. These guys felt the article spread the blame throughout the chain of command rather than place it squarely on the shoulders of the CO. I was not a surface warfare CO. I was the Officer of the Deck for almost three years in those waters. This was the most intense environment, anywhere. I am dumbfound that when stuff was not working, or people weren’t communicating, there was not immediate corrective action, arising from “the culture” set by the CO.
So the CO is to be held 100% accountable for the inept leadership above him who failed to provide him with the necessary resources to properly conduct his mission. In essence he is being told to make chicken salad out of chicken shit Sorry. I don't agree. ETA: After reading my post again, I realized that my remarks about the CO were meant to be directed towards the 3 star admiral in Japan, not the ships CO.
While there should be culpability for incompetence at the higher levels of command the CO is directly responsible for seeing that the ship is steered correctly. With radar, GPS and whatever other navigation tools yhat are available there is no excuse for running into another ship. If the radar and the GPS are broken the CO could assign people to a visual watch to give feedback to the person steering the ship.
