Posted on 06/19/2017 6:42:45 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
The ramming of the USS Fitzgerald – still being misreported as a “collision” – is shrouded in puzzling behavior. This is an accident (if indeed it was unintentional) that should not have been possible. Now comes news of something very suspicious. The Associated Press has just filed a non-bylined story, “Japan investigates delay in reporting US Navy ship collision,” that reveals:
Japan's coast guard is investigating why it took nearly an hour for a deadly collision between a U.S. Navy destroyer and a container ship to be reported.What was going on that prevented prompt report?A coast guard official said Monday they are trying to find out what the crew of the Philippine-flagged ACX Crystal was doing before reporting the collision to authorities 50 minutes later.
The coast guard initially said the collision occurred at 2:20 a.m. on Saturday because the Philippine ship had reported it at 2:25 a.m. and said it just happened. After interviewing Filipino crewmembers, the coast guard has changed the collision time to 1:30 a.m.
Nanami Meguro, a spokeswoman for NYK Line, the ship's operator, agreed with the revised timing of the collision.Meguro said the ship was "operating as usual" until the collision at 1:30 a.m., as shown on a ship tracking service that the company uses. She said the ship reported to the coast guard at 2:25 a.m., but she could not provide details about what the ship was doing for nearly an hour.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Heard an alternate explanation for the U-Turn on reddit:
“Most likely reason was, it was attempting to burn off speed, which a uturn would do.”
I would love to hear the mariners chime it. This explanation of the manuever sounds pretty unlikely for an high-traffic area like the Yoko bay.
If there is any substance to this – that the ACX Crystal disabled protective systems and rammed the Fitzgerald at high speed aimed at critical facilities (evident from the damage)
Something is fishy about USS Fitzgerald story we are getting from the media
I'd like to see some context.
Nearly impossible?? Remember the Cole!
The actual time of the collision is crucial in understanding the reasoning behind a u-turn by the Crystal. These latest reports seem to suggest the collision happened an hour earlier than first stated, meaning the U-turn was made after the collision. That would seem consistent with the Crystal returning to the site of the collision to offer assistance either to the Fitzgerald or in the search for lost sailors.
Merchant ship - Wonder what the speed was....Once in motion....
A drawing I saw shows the Merchant Ship turning into the Fitzgerald.
YOKOSUKA, Japan >> The mother of a U.S. Navy sailor who survived a direct hit to his sleeping berth during a collision at sea said her son kept diving to try to save his shipmates until the flooded berth began running out of air pockets, while others — believing the ship was under attack — hurried to man the guns.
Mia Sykes of Raleigh, N.C., told the Associated Press today that her 19-year-old son, Brayden Harden, was knocked out of his bunk by the impact, and water immediately began filling the berth, after their destroyer, the USS Fitzgerald, collided with a Philippine-flagged container ship four times its size off the Japanese coast.
He says many of these freighters will "tack" (that's sailboat terms) back and forth waiting for the docks to open. He also said, the Commander of the ship said to this crew, wake him if another ship gets within 2 miles of us. It was a direct hit on the Commander's cabin and sleeping crew, of which 7 have perished.
The timelines are not synced. I suspect from looking at the multiple ones shown, that it was on pretty direct route until the collision, then briefly going in those circles. Seems like some reports now suggesting. Seems obvious. Besides at around 2 a.m., not likely circling and targeting a navy ship. And the navy ship, their path? Seems like everyone surprised. No one paying attention.
“What was going on that prevented prompt report?”
I sent 6-months on the USS LaSalle in 1989. Saw all sorts of tankers coming and going through the Persian Gulf.
Tanker traffic early morning were usually on auto-pilot and the third-world crew is in bed. No matter right of way, the tankers just plow ahead because the crew is asleep.
Why the delay? Probably because the US Navy has to pilot the ship first, then activate ship-board actions.
A “mayday” call immediately after the collision doesn’t help because what can anyone do except maybe send a post-card to your family next Christmas.
The ship and crew are trying to figure out what happened and they do not have complete knowledge of the circumstances. . .but they do need to drive the ship, assess damage, account for crew, save the tapes, fight fires, stop leakage, communicate with nearest ship in the squadron for immediate help, activate ship-board damage control protocols and teams, etc. . .a lot to do before calling someone.
“Mayday, this is the USS Pelosi, I don’t know what just happened, have no idea if anyone is hurt, have no idea how badly damaged the ship is, clueless if the ship is still underway, making way. . .don’t even know if I need immediate assistance. . .”
Just my thoughts.
2nd that,,!!
It was not a ramming. The tankers nose did not hit the USS Fitzgerald fist.
Not possible.
This one is coincidence, two vessels in the same place at the wrong time. Nobody on look out in the tanker and for some reason the USS Fitzgerald traveling right into the path of an oncoming ship.
A few seconds later or earlier and it would have been a near miss. Such is fate.
When I was in the Navy, there would be multiple people on the bridge--the place where the ship is driven. On this size ship, there would've been a minimum of one officer, a helmsman, a quartermaster, a messenger, and likely some lookouts on both sides of the bridge. Additionally, a lookout may have been posted on the aft part of the ship.
The bridge would've had access to at last one radar unit, as well as a tactical display that's fed from all the sensors. This ship is equipped with Aegis, in which all contacts--surface, air and subsurface can be fed through a number of ways.
In addition to the bridge personnel, there would've been watchstanders in the Combat Information Center, also looking at surface and air radars. It's very likely that sonar operators in Sonar Control would've detected this large (and loud) vessel as well. I have no doubt that all of those sensors detected a large surface contact, close abroad. The surface watchstanders in CIC would've undoubtedly been in contact with the bridge, calling out distances: "1000 yards, 500 yards..." etc.
Assuming detection by the Fitzgerald, the first question that comes to mind is, why did they place themselves in extremis by remaining that close? This type of ship is highly maneuverable, and should've given a wide berth to the container ship. There was nothing to be gained by challenging the much larger vessel.
Another question I have is did the bridge personnel on either ship contact the other via bridge-to-bridge radio or flashing signal lights? Was there some kind of misunderstanding between such communication, if it occurred?
Another question is about other vessels in the area. I understand this is a highly-congested shipping lane. Did the container vessel (or the destroyer) have to turn unexpectedly to avoid another ship? Within a narrow channel, that might be a concern; farther out at sea, there shouldn't have been anything forcing the Fitzgerald to take such a drastic action as to turn in front of the ACX Crystal.
While the Navy doesn't employ "black boxes" like they do on civilian aircraft, there should be ample logs showing the exact location of the vessel. They will also be able to reconstruct where all the surface vessels were, including all their headings and speeds. There will be logs kept on the bridge of the Fitzgerald--the log book will be most interesting to read (and likely revealing), because it will include all the navigational commands given, and any reports from the lookouts. CIC Watch logs will also be useful.
My initial assessment is that this is an accident that need not have happened. It's certainly an investigation that should be very straightforward in evidence and very clear about how things happened. It's very likely that higher-ups already have a good idea of what happened, but will wait for a full report before disclosing anything.
The problem with this map is the collision time. The ACX Crystal didn’t report the incident immediately.
*****************
Correct. A lot of info that has yet to verified......
The Japanese Coast Guard said that at about 1:30 a.m. the ship struck the U.S.S. Fitzgerald.
The container ship continued east for another half hour before reversing around 2:00 a.m.
and returning to the scene. The Japanese Coast Guard and U.S. Navy initially said the collision
happened at 2:20 a.m. because the ACX Crystal did not report it until 2:25 a.m.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/18/world/asia/path-ship-hit-uss-fitzgerald.html?_r=0
Looking at photos of damage to both vessels and knowing that “Fitz” suffered below waterline damage (prolly from bulbous bow of freighter) I wonder how long both vessels were in physical contact. Could the destroyer have been pinned to the bow of the freighter for a time,caught between bulbous bow, prow and force of water from freighter’s headway?
I cannot understand how this could possibly happen in the open sea. A contact is picked up miles out. It’s course and speed is computed and watched for changes. A full steaming watch is on duty: Conning officer, Radarmen, lookouts (forward, aft, port and starboard), a quartermaster records a log of all events and orders given on the bridge. You never allow your ship to come within 1000 yards of yours. They knew where the cargo ship was from more than ten miles out and tracked it constantly. If the captain was on the bridge, that means he was woke and called to the bridge. There is much more to this than just an unfortunate collusion.
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.