Skip to comments.Mapping the ACX Crystal's collision with the USS Fitzgerald using publicly available info
Posted on 06/19/2017 4:55:31 PM PDT by The Klingon
Per the USNavy's 7th Fleet public affairs office; USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62) was involved in a collision with a merchant vessel at approximately 2:30 a.m. local time, June 17, while operating about 56 nautical miles southwest of Yokosuka, Japan.
The merchant vessel was the Filipino-flagged ACX Crystal container-ship (IMO:9360611) and she did have her AIS transponder on at the time of the incident.
From the news footage below you'll notice an area of severe damage which looks to me to be from an impact at a perpendicular angle, and not a grazing strike, since there is no scraping or dragging down the length of the USS Fitzgerald. I'm not suggesting the impact was deliberate, only that the vessels would have deflected if they had hit with a glancing strike, where to me it looks like the bow of the Crystal embedded itself for a short period in the USS Fitzgerald. I originally thought the USS Fitzgerald was stationary before the impact, but I've since changed my mind, since I've been told that there would be no operational reason to be stationary near an area of high traffic, on a moonless night. Valid point. Then if she wasn't stationary, why was she crossing the path of the shipping lane and how didn't they notice the 30,000 Ton ship on a collision course with them?
(Excerpt) Read more at vesselofinterest.com ...
bump (no pun intended)
“...you’ll notice an area of severe damage which looks to me to be from an impact at a perpendicular angle,...”
That is to say, she T-boned.
Savage was ranting today that it was a Filipino crew with ISIS members.
No proof of anything yet but the track is very different. In 26 years in the Navy, I never saw a merchant ship do that.
Was John F. Kennedy IV the captain of the destroyer? Looks like a result that JFK I could have attained.
I’m an old Army guy (and landlubber) who knows nothing about ocean going vessels...military or civilian.I’m wondering which,if any,Navy personnel might be subject to discipline as the result of this incident if,by chance,it becomes evident that the tanker was at fault?
Last night over at American Thinker the feedback had determined that it was North Korean backed Jihadis who had used a container ship to sneak up on an alert destroyer. They determined this from unsubstantiated conjecture. Pretty neat. Worthy of the FR!
From comments by Matt Bracken at source:
Matt Bracken17 June 2017 at 20:04:00 GMT-4
One theory: sea jihad. Third Mate Muhamid Pongo on duty. Realizes from AIS they just passed a USN “kafir infidel” warship. Makes a U-turn on his own. Looks at the CPA plot, uses it in reverse to create a collision. Last few minutes, lies on the ship to ship radio. (Taqiyya/Kitman, “Holy Lying.) “Don’t worry captain, I’m turning to port, you turn to starboard.” (As he turns to starboard.” Next on the USN recording, which, following Orlando Pulse night club protocals will be kept secret from the world: “Allahu Akbar!”
Just a theory. You come up with a better theory for the container ship’s U-turn and collision course.
Unsubstantiated conjecture is the only thing that could result in such a conclusion.
If it was an attack, it was a failure, insofar as the Fitzgerald made it to port.
I’m sure State Farm will get it straightened out as to who did what.
the motion of the container ship is immaterial.
Error in judgment by the OOD on the Destroyer comes to mind as the most likley explanation of the collision.
Regardless of any actions/deceptions on the part of the container ship, the far more maneuverable DDG should have easily been able to avoid the collision. IMHO, negligence, incompetence, complacency or some combination of those kept the OOD and his bridge watch from avoiding it.
” Realizes from AIS they just passed a USN kafir infidel warship”
The destroyer was dead in the water?
Would the crew on the container ship have noticed the change-of-course?
Maybe not ....2 in the morning
One theory: The MERSHIP was ahead of schedule for Tokyo, so was running racetracks to delay arrival
I automatically assume the warship to be at fault because container hips being large and ungainly are presumed to have he right of way but that animated track shows the container maneuvering with much more agility than I would have expected. It maybe confounded the warship skipper as to its course.
The skipper and nav will definitely be in front of a board of inquiry and chances are pretty good that one or both will find career at an end, whatever the circumstances and fault turn out to be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.