Navy Destroyer captain caught shooting a rifle with the scope installed backwards has been fired “due to a loss of confidence in his ability to command”
Well, the hits for the U.S. Navy just keep coming.
We recently posted about the Navy’s apparent plan to remove 17 supply ships, critical assets that supply everything to deployed ships, from active service: Navy Likely to Remove 17 Support Ships, Called the “Logistics Backbone” of the Fleet, from Active Service. And in that post we cited a small sample of recent posts concerning other issues with the U.S. Navy ranging from recruiting challenges to shipbuilding delays.
Navy Captain Caught Firing Rifle Improperly
You may also recall that in April we posted a “humorous if it wasn’t so sad” blog post about an active Navy warship Captain who was caught in an official Navy X post firing a rifle with the optics installed backwards: Navy Deletes Photo of Ship Captain Shooting Rifle with Scope on Backwards:
[T]hrough…the other foibles of today’s DEI/CRT-centric military, we always sort of assumed a basic competence in, you know, the mission, i.e., shooting weapons.
Cmdr. Cameron Yaste, the Commanding Officer of the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS John S. McCain (DDG 56), was recently photographed shooting a 5.56×45mm M4 carbine with the optics installed backward.
The now-deleted image and press release on the Defense Visual Information Distribution Service website featured Yaste shooting the M4 with the Trijicon VCOG scope installed backward while pointed at a giant target balloon.
Here’s what the press release said before it was deleted:
Cmdr. Cameron Yaste, the Commanding Officer of the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS John S. McCain (DDG 56), fires at the “killer tomato” [i.e. a sea-deployed practice target] during a gun shoot. The ship is in US 7th Fleet conducting routine operations. 7th Fleet is the US Navy’s largest forward-deployed numbered fleet, and routinely interacts and operates with Allies and partners in preserving a free and open Indo-Pacific Region.
Netizens mocked the Navy commander, and that’s probably why the service deleted the image and text.
We then went on to document some of the fairly hilarious X posts about the incident, including one in which, of all things, the Space Force mocked the U.S. Navy (talk about embarrassing).
Navy Captain Fired, but Not Because of the Rifle Firing
Anyway, now we find out that the Navy has fired that Captain.
The U.S. Navy has relieved the commander of the destroyer USS John S. McCain of duty after an image showing him firing a rifle with a scope mounted backward was widely shared on social media.
Users quickly noticed Commander Cameron Yaste’s error in a picture posted to the Navy’s Instagram four months ago.
The photo led to widespread ridicule and criticism, prompting the Navy to remove the image.
The Navy confirmed Tennesse-native Yaste was relieved of duty “due to a loss of confidence in his ability to command the guided-missile destroyer” that’s currently deployed in the Gulf of Oman.
He was in charge of the destroyer providing protection for the San Diego-based aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt in the Middle East….
The photo, taken in April, showed Yaste in a firing stance, holding a rifle with a backward scope—meaning the magnification of the weapon would be inverted, rather than enhanced, and making it impossible to aim.
“From engaging in practice gun shoots, conducting maintenance, testing fuel purity and participating in sea and anchor details, the #USNavy is always ready to serve and protect,” read the original post’s caption.
Social media users pointed out the mistake, leading to a wave of negative comments.
After deleting the post, the Navy acknowledged Yaste’s error in a follow-up statement that read: “Thank you for pointing out our rifle scope error in the previous post. Picture has been removed until EMI (extra military instruction) is completed.”
Yaste’s faux pas also drew attention from other branches of the military.
The Marine Corps took the opportunity to poke fun at the Navy by posting a photo on its Instagram account of a Marine correctly firing a weapon aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Boxer.
Its caption read: “Clear Sight Picture” in an apparent jab at the Navy’s mistake.
Yaste’s temporary replacement, Captain Allison Christy, deputy commodore of Destroyer Squadron 21, has taken over the command of the USS John S. McCain.
This squadron is part of the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group, also operating in the Gulf of Oman.
In my first draft post on Commander Yaste’s firing, I wrote (or rather, drafted) the following three short paragraphs:
In fairness to Commander Yaste, being fired “due to a loss of confidence in his ability to command the guided-missile destroyer” is a BS reason that the Navy always gives when it fires a Naval Officer in command, and reveals nothing about why Yaste was fired.
My educated guess, based on 31 years in the Navy including submarine command, is that there were other things going on besides Yaste merely being caught without a clue about how to fire a rifle. Frequent real reasons for command firings include such things as gross misconduct or gross warfighting incompetence, but we have no idea what the real reason was.
On the other hand, things in the Navy tend to come in bunches, so the rifle debacle may have been only a symptom of something worse, which would be my informed speculation.
Well, it turns out my speculation was right on the money:
The US Navy sacked the captain of a deployed warship after an unresolved steering problem resulted in a near-miss incident in the Middle East, according to a command investigation reviewed by Business Insider.
The commander of the Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group relieved Cmdr. Cameron Yaste, the commanding officer of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS John S. McCain, last week over what the Navy called “a loss of confidence” in his ability to lead.
Earlier reports of Yaste’s removal referenced a viral photo showing the captain holding a rifle with the scope mounted backward. But the command investigation said Yaste was relieved after the McCain lost steering during a July fuel replenishment that damaged a Navy oiler.
The August investigation into the steering loss said Yaste and his crew made mistakes that may have contributed to the incident, such as poor maintenance and failure to follow established procedures….
This steering issue glitched at a dangerous moment — while the McCain was hooked up to a replenishment ship to refuel.
[emphasis added here, and later in this post]
Navy Shares a Big Part of the Blame for What Happened
So Yaste is a dirtbag, right? Well, not so fast – turns out that BIG NAVY had a hand in the disaster as well:
The investigation also showed, however, that the Navy failed to fix an ongoing steering problem that had stymied its own technical experts a month before the incident. The steering problems happened so regularly that the ship’s crew seemed to eventually overlook the potential severity, the investigation indicated.
A Navy spokesperson declined to comment on the investigation, saying that it’s still ongoing….
According to the investigation BI obtained, the McCain experienced steering loss multiple times. These losses were caused by the uncontrolled shifting of the hydraulic power units that direct one of its two rudders.
After the destroyer lost steering in April, the McCain sent out a casualty report, or CASREP, requesting technical experts to visit the ship.
By the way, sending a CASEREP for a system unfixable by the ship’s crew is EXACTLY the right move, and can be embarrassing for the ship’s captain. So good for Yaste for doing the right thing. Big Navy? Not so much:
[Navy] experts tried to troubleshoot the warship while it was pier-side in Bahrain in June.
The McCain’s leadership requested to go to sea to address these issues properly, but the technical personnel were not funded or authorized to set sail with the destroyer. The warship left Bahrain in early July and immediately experienced the same problems.
The McCain released another CASREP over the recurring problems. Steering problems can become particularly serious if they involve the stuck or unresponsive rudder near another ship or in shallow water. The ship received remote support over the following days, but the results of those efforts were ultimately inconclusive, the investigation said….
The investigation said the McCain experienced a total of 18 problematic incidents with the steering system between May 17 and July 20, when the destroyer refueled at sea.
So the Navy failed to give Yaste the support he needed to fix his own ship, and then ordered him to sea with a dangerously broken critical ship system. And then when Yaste followed orders and went to sea and suffered a completely predictable steering problem, the Navy FIRED HIM.
The crew brought attention to the steering issue through the multiple CASREPs it released, indicating that the matter was beyond the capabilities of the crew.
It’s not clear whether the crew ever received a response from the Navy that would effectively fix the ship’s problems.
I think it’s clear – the answer is NO. And, I wonder if anyone in the Navy section of the Pentagon got fired. My guess is the answer is NO.
Miraculously, No Personnel were Injured during the Terrifying Incident that Led to Yaste’s Firing
I wasn’t a surface ship sailor, but wow are the details of the actual incident scary:
On July 20, the McCain pulled up alongside the replenishment oiler USNS Big Horn in the northern Arabian Sea and connected for a replenishment-at-sea, where the ship received fuel over a tensioned wire between two ships that are typically less than 200 feet apart.
During the refueling, the destroyer suffered a severe problem. One of the two hydraulic power units that controlled the starboard rudder began spewingoil, and engineers raced to fix it.
Minutes passed. The watch team decided to switch over to the alternate HPUs, but then the system glitched. Control was stuck with the unit “gushing” hydraulic oil, as a crewmember reported. Engineers tried refilling the HPU, but it ran out of oil and shut down. Still, the alternate HPU failed to take over.
By the way, a ship’s hydraulic power unit “gushing” or “spewing” hydraulic oil typically creates a fine oil mist in the affected space (been there, done that), which is an EXTREME fire hazard (one spark – see you later).
On the bridge, where watchstanders were steering to stay alongside the oiler, a crewmember noticed an alarming sign: the starboard rudder was stuck.
In response, the commanding officer ordered an emergency breakaway, which damaged some of the equipment on the Big Horn and temporarily rendered one of its refueling rigs inoperable. No personnel were injured [miraculously] on either vessel.
My Final Take on Yaste’s Firing
I’m not saying Yaste was perfect, far from it. When he was ordered to sea with the broken critical ship steering system, he should have put his foot down and demanded that the Navy fix his ship before he knowingly placed the ship and its people in harm’s way. He probably would have been fired on the spot, but such are the burdens of at-sea command.
Bu the real blame here is with the senior leadership of the U.S. Navy. There is no question, especially since Yaste’s ship was deployed to the Middle East, that senior Navy leaders in the Pentagon knew about the situation and ordered Yaste to sea anyway.
To me the real culprit here is the Navy and it’s grossly substandard current leadership.
Yaste’s Replacement
And, it appears that Yaste’s replacement, hand-picked by the Navy, might be just as bad, if not worse, than Yaste.
[Yaste] has been temporarily replaced by Capt. Allison Christy, the deputy commodore of Destroyer Squadron 21, which is currently operating as part of the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group in the Gulf of Oman.
The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy, repealed under the Obama administration in 2011, allowed LGBTQ+ service members to serve openly in the military without fear of losing their jobs.
It’s a sad state of affairs out there. I have no issues with female Navy commanders by the way, seeing as how my wife spent 29 years in the U.S. Navy, active and reserve, and has now retired as a Navy Captain as well. But I doubt you’d see her on panel discussing the Navy’s “LGBT Experiences,” except to excoriate the current administration’s policies regarding same.
The USS McCain steering left is a feature, not a bug.
Regarding the second photo. FWIW. I recall reading a WWII soldier’s combat memoir and he stated that neither he, nor his fellows, ever shot from the kneeling position.
I was in the Air Force. When we had to qualify with the M-16 before going to Thailand in 1973, that was one of the positions we fired from. BTW, that’s not kneeling.
.
I’m not going to beat that guy too much as what Capt or Commander of a Navy ship is supposed to know the right end of a weapon not normally issued to everyone on his boat. That he was cashiered and a woke chick took his place is far more troubling to me
And I do think the crew did yeoman’s work with the breakaway because there was NOT a collision. It’s actually tough to steer two ships that close in proximity (depending on their relative size).
I have to think there’s something else adding to this to make for a need to relieve him.
In fairness, I don’t think we’re there….yet. The military was in a critical disrepair when Reagan came into office. It’s hard to overstate how ‘bottom-of-the-barrel’ the Armed Forces were having to scrape to come anywhere close to meeting recruiting goals. Then there was the drug problem which was RAMPANT before Weinberger instituted mandatory random drug testing. If Harris is elected, we’re definitely going to get to 1979-levels and probably much, much worse.
Or maybe it was a photo shoot and he had an underling bring him the rifle? Maybe that person intentionally put the score backwards.
I have used electrohydraulic servos in many industrial systems. They do not like oil leaks, when they open the servo valve they expect to see feedback of movement, when something does not move they will keep further opening the servo valve until it is fully open. Once air was in the system, it would be erratic.
I was thinking the same thing. A backwards mounted scope does not make it impossible to hit the target, as many have claimed. It means you have to be a better shot.
I notice this story never has a picture of the target ballon or shows how far away it is. If it was too big or too close, I could see them mounting the scope backward to make people take practice more seriously.
Forget the scope, is it Navy protocol to have a guy’s hand on your shoulder as you’re firing? I don’t get the point of doing that … and it’s hysterical that the Navy would pick that for a promotional photo.
Between sea noise, ship noise, and everything else, it’s a standard way to signal you’re clear to shoot or to stop shooting. For when verbal commands are likely inadequate.
But, yeah, the Public Affairs guy who sent that up should be sent to live with the Marines for a year – somewhere awful and dirty. That’ll learn him.
Where he’s standing (likely by a rail on the gunwale) is probably not very safe. With his attention on his weapon and the target, it’s easy to experience disorientation sufficient to lose one’s balance on the rolling and pitching deck. The hand on the shoulder provides a point of reference by which the shooter can maintain his orientation and balance.
during a July fuel replenishment
Calling a steering casualty during this incident is a bit of a misnomer. Just doing an UNREP (underway replenishment) is already a “near miss” in any other situation. And a breakaway will very likely damage equipment. It’s why practice ones are done only after certain things are disconnected.
As to with whom they replaced him, that’s just standard policy. You’re not going to replace the captain with anyone from the ship where they identified problems, so the commander up the line becomes the de facto commander of the ship. And they’ll probably ship someone who is on their shore rotation out to take over. (And he probably won’t be happy about it.)
Look at the bright side: at least they won’t be able to fire the DEI hire when their own screwups cause the next mishap.
If big navy “loses confidence in the ability to lead” of a female lesbian, the Admirals will be hung from the yardarm in place of the pride flag.
BTW: Too bad she isn’t a “POC”. She’d be CNO by now, having won the Trifecta of the DEI Olympics.
[topic change]
“we always sort of assumed a basic competence in, you know, the mission, i.e., shooting weapons.”
In Cdr Yaste’s defense, small arms isn’t really a component of “basic competence” of your typical sailor. When I went to boot camp 40 years ago, the only shooting we did was with M1911 handguns cambered down to .22lr. We still learned close order drill carrying rifles, but they were Korean era M1 Garands with no firing pins and the barrels plugged with lead. I doubt they even do that much these days.
With that said, have you ever looked down a scope (or through a pair of binoculars) backward? It’s immediately obvious that something isn’t right, which calls into question the good Commander’s judgement. Even if he isn’t familiar enough with optics to recognize that the scope was backward from looking at it on the rifle, as soon as he shouldered the weapon and looked down the scope, it should have become obvious to him.
I have to wonder if the Gunner’s Mates did that intentionally as a joke and he just rolled with it, because I can’t imagine he was just oblivious to it after looking through that scope.
Which brings up the point of…who put the scope on the rifle backward in the first place? Granted, things have changed a lot since I retired 20 years ago, but I’ve never known a Gunner’s Mate in charge of the small arms locker so incompetent they’d have done that. Again, to me, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was intended as a joke, happened to be photographed, the photo shared, and the nimrods at DVIDS didn’t notice (or didn’t know enough to notice) before publishing the photo.
Concur on the scope probably being a prank. Then the PAO got hold of the pic and said “Wow, this makes our Captain look like a warrior!” And all stupidity broke loose.
“Which brings up the point of…who put the scope on the rifle backward in the first place? Granted, things have changed a lot since I retired 20 years ago, but I’ve never known a Gunner’s Mate in charge of the small arms locker so incompetent they’d have done that. Again, to me, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was intended as a joke, happened to be photographed, the photo shared, and the nimrods at DVIDS didn’t notice (or didn’t know enough to notice) before publishing the photo.”
I think you have the gist of it. A “joke” that horribly backfired, with everything going wrong that COULD go wrong.
This issue had nothing to do with him being relieved of command.
Before he was commander, he was a combat systems and weapons officer on a different ship. I mean, the lens cap appears to be on, also. I find it 100% impossible for him to have been that stupid to not say anything about it.
There probably was a joke component here, but why was it sent to DVIDS? Clearly there was someone stupid there, and also with the Navy’s Instagram account. Unless they were told – hey, we’re making this guy look like an idiot, pass it on….
If that were the case, good Lord.
This post doesn’t portray him as as incompetent as this photo makes him look, which I think is a fair assessment. Maybe his men knew something we don’t? I don’t know.
“By the way, a ship’s hydraulic power unit “gushing” or “spewing” hydraulic oil typically creates a fine oil mist in the affected space…”
The YouTuber who runs the Sub Brief channel served on a submarine in sonar, and has told a story of being in a submerged sub that had just this happen, cleaning up the oil with towels and mops and hoping the mist settled before anything sparked.
In my experience, and I have more then a little, hydraulic system problems are almost always caused by dirt in the hydraulic systems. Which almost always happens from improper maintenance. Including failure to change all the myriad filters on a regular basis as called for..
Wait- isn’t there a system for ensuring that filters are routinely changed? Why, yes, yes there is. PMS, Planned Maintenance System, And every ship in the Navy routinely passes it’s PMS inspections with scores of 99-100%. It works!
Yeah. It doesn’t, really. I have stories. But finding gundecked (falsified) PMs doesn’t make yo a problem solver, it makes you a troublemaker. Because you have to bring it to the attention of people who’s job it was in the first place to notice such things- and by bringing it to their attentions- you’re telling them they’re not doing their job… even if you never say it.
The “experts” looking at root causes are not going to look at such mundane tasks as being responsible for the failures- and they may- or may not be- responsible for them. Because they assume such routines are always carried out routinely as they should be. But that’s the first thing I would look at- pull every filter in the system and inspect it’s condition. Then I would look for something else.
IMO this an effort to scapegoat this guy. SR officers O-6 don’t want to hear an O-5 telling them they ain’t mission capable. That would mean they had to go their two star boss or his 1 star deputy and the explain why. That 2-star doesn’t want to tell his 3 star boss why. ‘Make it happen’ and/or ‘Figure it out’ are common responses from those SR officers to raising legitimately insurmountable problems that lead to being unable to accomplish a particular mission. Very few exceptions in my experience almost all from SR officers who already knew they were probably at their terminal rank/grade so future promotion wasn’t a consideration. These sorts and the few with a naturally occurring spine ..gasp..reward subordinate leaders who tell them the truth instead of what folks believe they want to hear ..All good Sir ready and able.
I also note that after relieving him there is no indication that they are going to put the ship in dry dock, it’s still on duty.
You can tell when a military hasn’t had a good war in a while, it becomes top heavy with politicians in uniform rather than good leaders and commanders.
The Navy is currently suffering from under investment from GWOT when funds were shifted to ground forces in the Army and USMC. Had to be done to an extent but that’s coming back on us. As is the overwork and deferred maintenance of GWOT and since then on the fleet.
The Navy has a bunch of older ships which were ‘rode hard and put away wet’ so to speak. They are much harder to maintain in their 3rd decade of service than their first. Then there’s the personal problem of retaining trained crews. The Navy has been working its ass off for a while now. Every time some dust up occurs ‘send a Carrier Group’ or a Surface squadron…oh it didn’t end on the expected timeline? Just extend their deployment on station. Which messes up the deployment timeline of the rest of the Navy down the line.
I’m an Army guy but the Squids been humping pretty damn hard being tasked repeatedly with very little break as our political masters react to events. Too many taskings impacts the ability to attend professional schools and achieve certifications …which means as folks retire or ETS from being overworked that no one is qualified to replace them or it they are then the qualification standards were reduced to get them qualified ‘on paper’.
I give a break for the captain not realizing the scope was placed backwards. I personally would recognize it but have used ar pattern rifles a lot over the past 25 years. If a Marine officer has done it with their motto of every marine a rifleman that would bother me. I want the destroyer captains to be well versed in the skills of their role.
I do have a problem with female commanders (even if they are not woke dykes), or indeed any female in harms way, unless we run out of able-bodied fellows.
Not sure about all this… ALL of my rifle scopes (well above a dozen, perhaps two dozen) have the larger diameter end as the objective one, that is, the one toward the “object” or target. This scope has the larger diameter end toward the target. It does appear the forward end as mounted has the round end formed so as to facilitate easy grasp for adjusting. I know there are a number of new “ideas” or “advancements” in rifle scopes these days. I teach rifle marksmanship and see a lot of different styles out there. I have not seen a scope yet with the objective end smaller than the eyepiece. Which is what we would see were this scope dismounted and remounted the opposite way round. So I question whether tis whole thing isn’t a sendup of the military? (not that such a thing would be undeserved at all….)
His ship evidently had had SERIOUS mechanical problems and he not only knew about them he had taken what steps were within his power to attemt to get then set aright. He sailed under protest, specifically detailing his ship’s control systems. Would the Air Force demand a captain of, say, a B 52, take flight with similar control surface problems? I rather think not. The captain ALWAYS has final say whether the piece of equipment is fit for service. But today’s politicised military may well old to a “new” and “better” standard. He was ordered to sea in spite of his vessel’s unfit condition.
I have examined the photograph of his replacement. The person goes by a traditionally femnine name. But the ore I look at the FACe in that image, the more I wonder.. does this individual have two XX chromosomes, or one X and one Y? Looks to me like this person has one X and one Y… in other words, transgender. This former captain may well have been railroaded out to make place for this DEI hire. I fits today’s military MO. Which spells TROUBLE going forward. Hopefully we will have a more mature and capable CinC sometime early next year. He will do his best to put an end to the current shenannigans in “leadership”.
What I find not so amusing is that I own a somewhat similar rifle, though not a military grade weapon, and I have a scope on mine with an adjustable magnification feature. The scope mounted on my rifle looks almost identical to the scope this officer has on his gun, and it’s mounted the same way. It’s also very accurate and shoots very well, while giving me the proper optics for shooting. So tell me, is this scope really on backwards, or are all the experts really idiots? If the scope was mounted backwards, the adjustments dials would be on the other side.
Announcement
ATTORNEY - EQUAL PROTECTION PROJECT - Legal Insurrection Foundation is seeking an Attorney for the Equal Protection Project (EqualProtect.org). For information on the job opening contact Talent Market.
DONATE
Comments
Certainly he should have noticed. And perhaps he did and this is misleading. But as retired sailor I can’t help but wonder if this was a setup.
With that chicken-wing stance, I’m 99.99% certain he did not notice the optic was on backwards.
The USS McCain steering left is a feature, not a bug.
Regarding the second photo. FWIW. I recall reading a WWII soldier’s combat memoir and he stated that neither he, nor his fellows, ever shot from the kneeling position.
I was in the Air Force. When we had to qualify with the M-16 before going to Thailand in 1973, that was one of the positions we fired from. BTW, that’s not kneeling.
.
“Mission accomplished”
Well, he is white, so they probably wanted to stick in a DEI appointee in his place.
I’m not going to beat that guy too much as what Capt or Commander of a Navy ship is supposed to know the right end of a weapon not normally issued to everyone on his boat. That he was cashiered and a woke chick took his place is far more troubling to me
I’m going out on a limb and saying something else was going on besides a well known steering problem on the ship.
What happens to someone relieved of command like this? Does he spend the rest of his time on shore?
Big Navy would have no tolerance for a steering issue on McCain after the deadly collision. But what else could he do but continue to fly CASREPs?
And I do think the crew did yeoman’s work with the breakaway because there was NOT a collision. It’s actually tough to steer two ships that close in proximity (depending on their relative size).
I have to think there’s something else adding to this to make for a need to relieve him.
I agree something else, as in a way to advance a queer woman.
Put it to rest. McCain was a rino sucking balls but he had nothing to do with the fire on that ship.
Given that he’s on the USS John McShame it’s a wonder that he isn’t shooting with the rifle backwards.
“To me the real culprit here is the Navy and it’s grossly substandard current leadership.”
But their pronouns are perfect.
Ex-TSgt [E-6] Rusty Bill, USAF/ANG
Who knows…!
Ex CTR3 T. G. Grizzly USN (fired)
For that we can be thankful. Ex TSGT Hornet, RegAF, AL ANG.
.
Biden’s Navy is even worse than Carter’s Navy.
Carter set a low bar, but Biden still went under it.
Biden Presidential Limbo King!
In fairness, I don’t think we’re there….yet. The military was in a critical disrepair when Reagan came into office. It’s hard to overstate how ‘bottom-of-the-barrel’ the Armed Forces were having to scrape to come anywhere close to meeting recruiting goals. Then there was the drug problem which was RAMPANT before Weinberger instituted mandatory random drug testing. If Harris is elected, we’re definitely going to get to 1979-levels and probably much, much worse.
Biden’s navy is worse than Carter’s navy
But put blame where blame belongs – Obama set the stage the serious downside.
Maybe he intentionally mounted the scope backwards to make target practice more challenging…
That’s a good one
Or maybe it was a photo shoot and he had an underling bring him the rifle? Maybe that person intentionally put the score backwards.
I have used electrohydraulic servos in many industrial systems. They do not like oil leaks, when they open the servo valve they expect to see feedback of movement, when something does not move they will keep further opening the servo valve until it is fully open. Once air was in the system, it would be erratic.
I was thinking the same thing. A backwards mounted scope does not make it impossible to hit the target, as many have claimed. It means you have to be a better shot.
I notice this story never has a picture of the target ballon or shows how far away it is. If it was too big or too close, I could see them mounting the scope backward to make people take practice more seriously.
Forget the scope, is it Navy protocol to have a guy’s hand on your shoulder as you’re firing? I don’t get the point of doing that … and it’s hysterical that the Navy would pick that for a promotional photo.
Between sea noise, ship noise, and everything else, it’s a standard way to signal you’re clear to shoot or to stop shooting. For when verbal commands are likely inadequate.
But, yeah, the Public Affairs guy who sent that up should be sent to live with the Marines for a year – somewhere awful and dirty. That’ll learn him.
Where he’s standing (likely by a rail on the gunwale) is probably not very safe. With his attention on his weapon and the target, it’s easy to experience disorientation sufficient to lose one’s balance on the rolling and pitching deck. The hand on the shoulder provides a point of reference by which the shooter can maintain his orientation and balance.
His XO was steadying him in case the ship veered suddenly.
My thoughts exactly. Everyone involved in selecting that pic for PR clearly didn’t notice either. So they’re all guilty of being equally as obtuse.
during a July fuel replenishment
Calling a steering casualty during this incident is a bit of a misnomer. Just doing an UNREP (underway replenishment) is already a “near miss” in any other situation. And a breakaway will very likely damage equipment. It’s why practice ones are done only after certain things are disconnected.
As to with whom they replaced him, that’s just standard policy. You’re not going to replace the captain with anyone from the ship where they identified problems, so the commander up the line becomes the de facto commander of the ship. And they’ll probably ship someone who is on their shore rotation out to take over. (And he probably won’t be happy about it.)
Calling a steering casualty a near miss during this incident is a bit of a misnomer.
Oh, for an edit button….
Look at the bright side: at least they won’t be able to fire the DEI hire when their own screwups cause the next mishap.
If big navy “loses confidence in the ability to lead” of a female lesbian, the Admirals will be hung from the yardarm in place of the pride flag.
BTW: Too bad she isn’t a “POC”. She’d be CNO by now, having won the Trifecta of the DEI Olympics.
[topic change]
“we always sort of assumed a basic competence in, you know, the mission, i.e., shooting weapons.”
In Cdr Yaste’s defense, small arms isn’t really a component of “basic competence” of your typical sailor. When I went to boot camp 40 years ago, the only shooting we did was with M1911 handguns cambered down to .22lr. We still learned close order drill carrying rifles, but they were Korean era M1 Garands with no firing pins and the barrels plugged with lead. I doubt they even do that much these days.
With that said, have you ever looked down a scope (or through a pair of binoculars) backward? It’s immediately obvious that something isn’t right, which calls into question the good Commander’s judgement. Even if he isn’t familiar enough with optics to recognize that the scope was backward from looking at it on the rifle, as soon as he shouldered the weapon and looked down the scope, it should have become obvious to him.
I have to wonder if the Gunner’s Mates did that intentionally as a joke and he just rolled with it, because I can’t imagine he was just oblivious to it after looking through that scope.
Which brings up the point of…who put the scope on the rifle backward in the first place? Granted, things have changed a lot since I retired 20 years ago, but I’ve never known a Gunner’s Mate in charge of the small arms locker so incompetent they’d have done that. Again, to me, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was intended as a joke, happened to be photographed, the photo shared, and the nimrods at DVIDS didn’t notice (or didn’t know enough to notice) before publishing the photo.
Concur on the scope probably being a prank. Then the PAO got hold of the pic and said “Wow, this makes our Captain look like a warrior!” And all stupidity broke loose.
“Which brings up the point of…who put the scope on the rifle backward in the first place? Granted, things have changed a lot since I retired 20 years ago, but I’ve never known a Gunner’s Mate in charge of the small arms locker so incompetent they’d have done that. Again, to me, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was intended as a joke, happened to be photographed, the photo shared, and the nimrods at DVIDS didn’t notice (or didn’t know enough to notice) before publishing the photo.”
I think you have the gist of it. A “joke” that horribly backfired, with everything going wrong that COULD go wrong.
This issue had nothing to do with him being relieved of command.
Before he was commander, he was a combat systems and weapons officer on a different ship. I mean, the lens cap appears to be on, also. I find it 100% impossible for him to have been that stupid to not say anything about it.
There probably was a joke component here, but why was it sent to DVIDS? Clearly there was someone stupid there, and also with the Navy’s Instagram account. Unless they were told – hey, we’re making this guy look like an idiot, pass it on….
If that were the case, good Lord.
This post doesn’t portray him as as incompetent as this photo makes him look, which I think is a fair assessment. Maybe his men knew something we don’t? I don’t know.
“By the way, a ship’s hydraulic power unit “gushing” or “spewing” hydraulic oil typically creates a fine oil mist in the affected space…”
The YouTuber who runs the Sub Brief channel served on a submarine in sonar, and has told a story of being in a submerged sub that had just this happen, cleaning up the oil with towels and mops and hoping the mist settled before anything sparked.
The USS John McCain had a steering issue. It kept veering to the left.
to port
In my experience, and I have more then a little, hydraulic system problems are almost always caused by dirt in the hydraulic systems. Which almost always happens from improper maintenance. Including failure to change all the myriad filters on a regular basis as called for..
Wait- isn’t there a system for ensuring that filters are routinely changed? Why, yes, yes there is. PMS, Planned Maintenance System, And every ship in the Navy routinely passes it’s PMS inspections with scores of 99-100%. It works!
Yeah. It doesn’t, really. I have stories. But finding gundecked (falsified) PMs doesn’t make yo a problem solver, it makes you a troublemaker. Because you have to bring it to the attention of people who’s job it was in the first place to notice such things- and by bringing it to their attentions- you’re telling them they’re not doing their job… even if you never say it.
The “experts” looking at root causes are not going to look at such mundane tasks as being responsible for the failures- and they may- or may not be- responsible for them. Because they assume such routines are always carried out routinely as they should be. But that’s the first thing I would look at- pull every filter in the system and inspect it’s condition. Then I would look for something else.
IMO this an effort to scapegoat this guy. SR officers O-6 don’t want to hear an O-5 telling them they ain’t mission capable. That would mean they had to go their two star boss or his 1 star deputy and the explain why. That 2-star doesn’t want to tell his 3 star boss why. ‘Make it happen’ and/or ‘Figure it out’ are common responses from those SR officers to raising legitimately insurmountable problems that lead to being unable to accomplish a particular mission. Very few exceptions in my experience almost all from SR officers who already knew they were probably at their terminal rank/grade so future promotion wasn’t a consideration. These sorts and the few with a naturally occurring spine ..gasp..reward subordinate leaders who tell them the truth instead of what folks believe they want to hear ..All good Sir ready and able.
I also note that after relieving him there is no indication that they are going to put the ship in dry dock, it’s still on duty.
You can tell when a military hasn’t had a good war in a while, it becomes top heavy with politicians in uniform rather than good leaders and commanders.
The Navy is currently suffering from under investment from GWOT when funds were shifted to ground forces in the Army and USMC. Had to be done to an extent but that’s coming back on us. As is the overwork and deferred maintenance of GWOT and since then on the fleet.
The Navy has a bunch of older ships which were ‘rode hard and put away wet’ so to speak. They are much harder to maintain in their 3rd decade of service than their first. Then there’s the personal problem of retaining trained crews. The Navy has been working its ass off for a while now. Every time some dust up occurs ‘send a Carrier Group’ or a Surface squadron…oh it didn’t end on the expected timeline? Just extend their deployment on station. Which messes up the deployment timeline of the rest of the Navy down the line.
I’m an Army guy but the Squids been humping pretty damn hard being tasked repeatedly with very little break as our political masters react to events. Too many taskings impacts the ability to attend professional schools and achieve certifications …which means as folks retire or ETS from being overworked that no one is qualified to replace them or it they are then the qualification standards were reduced to get them qualified ‘on paper’.
I give a break for the captain not realizing the scope was placed backwards. I personally would recognize it but have used ar pattern rifles a lot over the past 25 years. If a Marine officer has done it with their motto of every marine a rifleman that would bother me. I want the destroyer captains to be well versed in the skills of their role.
I do have a problem with female commanders (even if they are not woke dykes), or indeed any female in harms way, unless we run out of able-bodied fellows.
Not sure about all this… ALL of my rifle scopes (well above a dozen, perhaps two dozen) have the larger diameter end as the objective one, that is, the one toward the “object” or target. This scope has the larger diameter end toward the target. It does appear the forward end as mounted has the round end formed so as to facilitate easy grasp for adjusting. I know there are a number of new “ideas” or “advancements” in rifle scopes these days. I teach rifle marksmanship and see a lot of different styles out there. I have not seen a scope yet with the objective end smaller than the eyepiece. Which is what we would see were this scope dismounted and remounted the opposite way round. So I question whether tis whole thing isn’t a sendup of the military? (not that such a thing would be undeserved at all….)
His ship evidently had had SERIOUS mechanical problems and he not only knew about them he had taken what steps were within his power to attemt to get then set aright. He sailed under protest, specifically detailing his ship’s control systems. Would the Air Force demand a captain of, say, a B 52, take flight with similar control surface problems? I rather think not. The captain ALWAYS has final say whether the piece of equipment is fit for service. But today’s politicised military may well old to a “new” and “better” standard. He was ordered to sea in spite of his vessel’s unfit condition.
I have examined the photograph of his replacement. The person goes by a traditionally femnine name. But the ore I look at the FACe in that image, the more I wonder.. does this individual have two XX chromosomes, or one X and one Y? Looks to me like this person has one X and one Y… in other words, transgender. This former captain may well have been railroaded out to make place for this DEI hire. I fits today’s military MO. Which spells TROUBLE going forward. Hopefully we will have a more mature and capable CinC sometime early next year. He will do his best to put an end to the current shenannigans in “leadership”.
What I find not so amusing is that I own a somewhat similar rifle, though not a military grade weapon, and I have a scope on mine with an adjustable magnification feature. The scope mounted on my rifle looks almost identical to the scope this officer has on his gun, and it’s mounted the same way. It’s also very accurate and shoots very well, while giving me the proper optics for shooting. So tell me, is this scope really on backwards, or are all the experts really idiots? If the scope was mounted backwards, the adjustments dials would be on the other side.