Investigation Reveals Navy At Fault For Massive USS Fitzgerald Collision

dailycaller.com ^ | 7/21/2017 | Jonah Bennett

[rktman]

A preliminary investigation into the collision of the USS Fitzgerald and a Philippine cargo ship in June has revealed that the U.S. Navy is at fault.

According to two defense officials who spoke with CNN, the crew aboard the USS Fitzgerald made numerous abysmal mistakes which led to the collision with the ACX Crystal in an area known for commercial shipping.

The investigation is likely to result in recommendations for possible punishment, making the review “dual purpose.”

“They did nothing until the last second,” one official said, speaking of the crew on the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. “A slew of things went wrong.”

The second official stated that the crash “will wind up being our fault.”

Initial findings suggest that the Fitzgerald crew not only did not acknowledge the ship was approaching, but sailors also failed to perform their duties in order to stop the impact, which left a large gash in the side of the destroyer measuring about 200 feet.

The collision on June 17, which occurred 56 miles off the coast of Japan, resulted in the deaths of seven U.S. Navy sailors.

The findings up to this point will be sent to 7th Fleet Commander Vice Admiral Joseph Aucoin for review.

Aucoin has already stated the day after the collision that the damage to the Fitzgerald is major.

“The ship suffered severe damage rapidly flooding three large compartments that included one machine room and two berthing areas for 116 crew, ” Aucoin said. “The commanding officer’s cabin was also directly hit, trapping the CO inside.”

The Fitzgerald has undergone extensive repairs since the incident, but will have to return to a U.S. shipyard for full repairs. Pacific Fleet Commander Adm. Scott Swift is looking for a ship to take over the work of the Fitzgerald in the meantime.

[rktman]

👹 MM' are always way to busy to "enjoy" themselves. But, it's nice and dark in CIC. One DE, 3 DDs. Just sayin'.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Complacency makes the impossible inevitable.

[mrsmith]

Yeah, wait for official statements- not CNN hoopla.
But the Fitz was obviously at fault. ‘Social experimentation’ will probably be the cause.
But let’s see.

[Presbyterian Reporter]

“””The container ship neither had its running lights or transponder on”””

---

The problem with ‘loving and concerned Navy mother’s’ story is that the ACX Crystal did have its transponder on and that is why we know the path of the ACX Crystal. Unlike the Navy ships that apparently like to go ‘stealth’ in high traffic.

The US Navy has had six weeks to ‘investigate’ the collision. The longer the Navy waits to divulge the more guilty they become.

The Free Republic analysts have done a great job dissecting the collison. Too bad we cannot say the same about the mainstream media and Navy bloggers. At this point it appears the Fitzgerald will be found solely negligent.

[Sequoyah101]

Let us hope that the absolute consequences for failure of a Navy Officer to successfully execute his mission when he is given all but absolute control and necessary resources to do that job do not weaken.

35 years of attack can understandably weaken just about any system’s resolve.

[AndyJackson]

add QMOW and the Navigator (probably dual hatted as the Ops boss) who should have been called by the QMOW.

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

I don’t know if the specific container ship involved had what you’re calling a “bottlenose” hull (aka “bulbous bow”) but the overwhelming majority of newer tanker and container and even cruise ships have these. As I understand it, their biggest advantage is canceling out *some* of the bow wave which gets more important in the narrow (narrow, especially in relation to the larger size of modern ships) channels they sometimes operate in. The bulbs do NOT reduce resistance through the water at all speeds. Only when the ship is making enough speed to where the bulb generates a “counter” wave that partially cancels the normal bow wave. At very slow speeds, the bulb is an increase in the wetted surface and physics says there is thus more resistance.

[davidb56]

The OOD likely was asleep and trusted his bridge crew to navigate. They might have been women and the Navy doesn’t want the public to know about that detail. The Captain, unfortunately will be the scapegoat, although he was sleeping in his quarters.

[LonePalm]

What part of CBDR (Constant Bearing, Decreasing Range) did they NOT understand?

That is drilled into every one standing a bridge or CIC watch from the OOD down to the aft lookout. Even my Quartermaster of the Watch and Boatswain's Mate of the Watch understood that.

The OS on the surface search radar in Combat should have been screaming "CBDR" from the moment he first detected the contact's lack of bearing drift or if the contact would pass inside the minimum CPA (Closest Point of Approach).

The CICWO and JOOD had a duty to call for the Captain if they thought the ship was in danger and the OOD wasn't acting.

"Ceterum censeo Islam esse delendam."

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

[Retain Mike]

What about constant bearing, decreasing range couldn’t they understand?

I subscribe to the U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings. Each year there is one issue where they list each commissioned ship, and they have picture of each Navy admiral. For as long as I can remember, there have always been more admirals than commissioned ships.

[mad_as_he$$]

“And no steenkin’ merchant ship would have caused as much damage.”

That is just crazy talk. 20,000 tons moving at 27 knots T-bones your 8,900 sea going Ferrari there is going to be lots of damage. Very lucky we didn’t loose the whole ship and more of the crew.

[LonePalm]

Given the size of the Fitzgerald's wardroom I would expect the Navigator to be an Ensign or more likely a JG while the Ops Boss would be a LT doing a Department Head tour. CHENG and Weaps are likely LCDRs.

Given the distance from land, I don't expect the Navigator has anything to worry about unless he was one of the derelict watch standers.

"Ceterum censeo Islam esse delendam."

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

[Repealthe17thAmendment]

Did anyone else find some irony in the ship being named Fitzgerald...?

Yeah, they retire hurricane names when there's been a disaster. You'd think they'd retire ship names, too. Even though the Edmund Fitzgerald was a private freighter.

[IronJack]

So that must have been the part that struck the Fitz below the waterline. The visible damage all seems to be to the superstructure, and I’ve been wondering how any of that flooded.

[Robe]

Yup it had a large bulbous bow

[The_Media_never_lie]

Is there no automatic alarm during these days of amazing digital technology?

[tophat9000]

Pictures of the freighter show the symbol for the bulb nose, on the bow by the depth markings

---

Thank for pointing that out ol..looking at the photo the water is so clear you can see it below the water

[Yosemitest]

There are several reports of an earlier ship coming within close proximity of the USS Fitzgerald,
and that was just before all the lights on the ship went out.
This might have been an EMP Generator attack from another ship; or a curse missile or drone, that knocked them off line.

Read this

USS Fitzgerald — The Victim of an Electromagnetic Warfare Attack.

... I am presenting it for your consideration, as I know many readers here are following this story – we have the following:

The first time the container ship approached the USS Fitzgerald, the Fitz was still fully functional.

An airplane or drone flying overhead was responsible for the energy pulse that killed all electricity on the warship. (the whole event took place in the wee hours of the morning from 1:30 to 2:20 AM)

The container ship was required to turn back toward the Fitzgerald to do its job as commanded by whoever EMPulsed the ship.

In turning back to do the “job” the container ship did not have great positioning to destroy the vessel and so ended up only disabling rather than sinking the thing.

Thus, the CIA-planned story (aka false flag attack) could not be used as many on board the Fitzgerald saw what really happened, and survived.

The CIA plot was probably an attack by Russia or China or NK.  A contingency plan was then quickly implemented; one that they could feed to those present as a legitimate story.

The bottom line here is that this attack was quite likely a false flag operation in the tradition of the USS Maine (“Remember the Maine!”), the RMS Lusitania (World War I false flag), and the USS Maddox (aka the Gulf of Tonkin inciden).

Conclusion

Either someone wants war.  Or, someone else seeks to prevent war.

While this attack on the USS Fitzgerald appears to be a typical CIA-coordinated false flag attack designed to start a war, it appears to have been a real attack perpetrated to prevent one.

In other words, it was an conspiracy within a conspiracy, and/or a false flag within a false flag. Yes, it’s really that complicated.  As it frequently when one camp is trying to start a war as aggressively as the other side is working to avert one.

To my knowledge, no one from government, or corporate controlled media, has yet even stated that this was an attack: the “attack” hypothesis seems to be largely concentrated – at present – in the free and independent media.

The scenario is, however, worth noting, because as the article itself avers, the incident could be seen as a part of a wider pattern of such electromagnetic interference with US forces, beginning with the now infamous Donald Cook incident, to the alleged Russian defeat of NATO communications systems in Syria shortly after that nation’s intervention there, to a repeat of the Donald Cook incident, involving the Donald Cook once again, this time, in the Baltic Sea with yet another Russian Sukhoi-22 fighter-bomber. While I have not seen corroboration of the allegation that there was an airplane overhead during the incident, there would not need to be, if indeed this was an electromagnetic attack, which for the reasons outlined above I believe it to be. Such an attack could have come from the container ship itself or other nearby vessels, and perhaps even from the shore.

For my two cents’ worth of high octane speculation, however, I have difficulty believing this was a CIA plot that was also, as the article states “an attack by Russia or China or (North Korea).” This would imply the CIA is in cahoots with those nations in an overly complicated plot to start a war. While I don’t put anything past the departments and agencies of the federal swamp and believe they’re pretty much capable of anything in spite of the many good people in government, I just find that one a bit too much to swallow.

What I don’t have difficult swallowing, however, is the possibility that those nations may have learned of a plot, or course of action. After all, the US Navy has recently deployed three carrier battle groups to that region, which is an enormous concentration of naval power usually presaging some sort of American action.

Then…

… the electronics system, and maybe even the steerage system, of an expensive frigate fails…

…completely.

And that translates into the message that the article begins with: “your navy may not be in as solid control of the sea lanes as you think it is.” And that means the same might go for (1) aircraft, and more importantly (2) space-based assets, if a similar electromagnetic platform exists in space, or on the ground capable of reaching space. And that means in turn, those “smart bombs” may not work too well, and it may be rather difficult moving troops and supplies to deal with “threats.”

Of course, for years, there have been rumors that the Russians have very advanced electronic warfare systems, rumors which the Russians from time to time have “stoked.” Shortly after the first incident with the Donald Cook, Russian television aired a one hour review of some of those systems – no doubt for the deliberate attention of analysts in the Pentagram – and the effect of that broadcast was that it gave the impression that this electronic warfare interference with missile systems would make them behave like wildly misfiring bottle rockets, going off crazily in all directions… everywhere, but on target.

It’s a very Russian sort of approach to such things. The American anti-missile system is, we’ve been told, one of the approach of hitting a bullet with a bullet. The Russian anti-missile system approach is simple to interfere with the flight path by whatever means, including scrambling the electronics and turning expensive American rockets into crazy bottlerockets.

In any case, messages are being sent, and it’s interesting to note that, for a brief moment, things quieted down after the Fitzgerald incident.

See you on the flip side…

And read Did Crystal's Pinoys Deliberately Ram USS Fitzgerald?

... The massive damage to the destroyer USS Fitzgerald suggests that the container ship, the ACX Crystal, might have slammed into it at a significant speed. This has raised questions as to whether there was proper communication between the two vessels, particularly given how busy the waters in the area are.

The container ship was seen making a U-turn before the collision on some ship trackers, a move that has raised questions about what happened. All of the ACX Crystal's 20-member Filipino crew were safe, according to Japanese shipping company Nippon Yusen K.K., which operates the ship.

The waters where the collision occurred see as many as 400 ships pass through every day, according to Japan's coast guard. They are especially congested in the early hours of the day, with ships carrying cargo for early morning delivery in Tokyo. The waters also have fast currents, making it a tricky area that requires experience and skill to navigate.


Marine traffic records show the Crystal made a series of sharp turns about 25 minutes before the collision, which in crowded seas might have caused a cascade of maneuvers by other vessels as they tried to avoid one another.





(ACX Crystal's Pinoys saw the USS Ftzgerald and the rare opportunity to sink a famous US Warship.
So they turned right then left and did a long U-Turn and caught up with the USS Fitzgerald.
They then did a sharp turn right and ram the warship and turned right towards Tokyo.)

The Fitzgerald, under international maritime rules, would be expected to give the Crystal the right of way because it was on the destroyer’s starboard side when they hit. But Admiral Stavridis said the container ship “may have carried out some bizarre maneuver” before the crash.


The ACX Crystal weighs 29,060 tons and is 222 meters (730 feet) long, much larger than the 8,315-ton destroyer. The container ship's left bow was dented and scraped, and it did not appear to have sustained any major structural damage when it was docked in the Tokyo bay late Saturday.

But on Sunday, a group of accident investigators from the Japanese transport ministry found damage to the container ship that had been hidden under the waterline when it arrived in Tokyo the previous night. Footage from Japanese broadcaster NHK showed a sharp horizontal cut across the bow area, which looked like a shark's mouth. Many scratches were also seen in the frontal area.


The Japanese coast guard questioned crew members of the ACX Crystal, and is treating the incident as a case of possible professional negligence, said Masayuki Obara, a regional coast guard official. But a case of possible terrorist attack was not ruled out completely yet.

Please be sure you check those links to get the full articles.

[hal ogen]

Who was in the chain of command and responsible???

[Bull Snipe]

Could not think of one