Mapping the ACX Crystal's collision with the USS Fitzgerald using publicly available info

Vessel of Interest Websit ^ | June 17, 2017 | Steffan Watkins

[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?

[Reno89519]

I think that the timing is the issue. My guess is once they sort it out, the freighter was going along smoothly till it hits the Navy ship and then has that strange pattern until it resumes it’s path the Tokyo. It makes no sense to suggest that this was in anyway intentional, that the ship was circling looking for a navy ship. In the middle of the night in the complete darkness, does not make sense. Further, nothing from the neighbor he suggested they felt threatened by the freighter traveling up the coastline. I suspect the both crews were simply not paying attention.

[US_MilitaryRules]

Doesn’t show anything. Are the tracks that are coming back to the scene of the collision? That is what it looks like to me because there is no impact time on the tracking.

[lgjhn23]

Was a muzzle steering the freighter???.....hmmm...that “might” be the answer.

[Gay State Conservative]

...chances are pretty good that one or both will find career at an end, whatever the circumstances and fault turn out to be.

So IOW the Navy believes that top Command personnel must always anticipate stupid acts by other vessels and must ensure that no harm to the Navy will come as a result?

That may be a stupid question but,as I said...no knowledge of the Navy plus I only achieved the rank of SP5 (E-5,no command authority) during my stellar Army career.

[rlmorel]

Heya GSC...I am not of the opinion that this is hostile. I think this is standard human error. I'll reserve my right to change my mind as more information comes in. In a post 9/11 world, it is hard to rule out completely terrorism. But I think it unlikely.

See this other thread with HT Freeper TXnMA who posted this update: (click here to see updated AIS data graphed at full resolution with a corrected time and location of collision, along with speed data on the ACX Crystal tells an entirely different story.

(I have reposted your graphic here TXnMA, and shrunk it just a little to fit on one page, hope that is okay):

TXnMA: Based on an apparent misinterpretation of "Japan Local Time", the collision was originally reported as at location, "A", which is at the end of ACX Crystal's bizarre maneuvering. Correction of the time now places the collision location at position "B", which is where ACX Crystal first deviated from her normal course with a 90-degree turn to starboard. (IOW, the bizarre maneuvering followed -- not preceded-- the collision.) Addition of ACX's speed info now tells a totally different story: it now appears that after the collision, ACX Crystal (somewhat belatedly) reversed course, and approached and circled the USS Fitzgerald at dead slow speed -- apparently offering aid and assistance.

This scenario makes far more sense to me just from a commonsense perspective.

At point B, where the updated time data shows the collision occurring, the color of the circles along the path indicating speed shows the speed of the containership dropped from 18-25 knots down to 5-12 knots in two increments, consistent with a collision, in my opinion. This just seems right to me. The challenge of having a 30,000 ton sluggish containership maneuver and ram an 8,000+ ton speedy and agile destroyer (a class of vessel that has a well deserved sobriquet of "Greyhound of The Sea") is a stretch. Not impossible, but a stretch.

The skipper at the very least is going to be disciplined, probably the OOD, and others as well, and severely. Even if this were hostile, they will still be disciplined. Some people are offended at me for saying so, but having grown up in a Navy family, served a tour myself, and taken an interest in naval history, I have seen this before...many, many, times before. This isn't the same as hitting an uncharted seamount or colliding with another ship under combat situations.

I wish it weren't so. There is so much about today's Navy that I find appalling, but I have no desire to see proof of it in poor execution of operating procedures, especially with so much loss of life.

[arthurus]

My father was a career naval officer and yes Navy commanders are required to anticipate erratic moves by other vessels.

[Pollster1]

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?

The Captain was by definition at fault, no matter what the tanker did. He will almost certainly be disciplined, and he will probably retire rather than face a paper-pushing career in disgrace plus the guilt of his men dying when it was his job to prevent their deaths. Some other officers will also face severe to career-ending repercussions, including possibly the XO (even though he only had two months on the job), the Navigator, the OOD, and perhaps other officers. This sort of thing gets ugly, quickly, whether an officer did something stupid in the moment or merely had a responsibility to ensure training that would have avoided the collision.

[Fhios]

I think everybody skips the easiest. If it was an accident then it could be just by paid agents of North Korea and have little to do with Islam.

[Enchante]

Hardly a total “failure” in jihadist terms, 7 US sailors are dead and a major warship is sidelined for a year or more.

But I am skeptical of the claims of an attack. Someone on another thread argued persuasively that with the revised/corrected timescale, the maneuverings of the cargo ship were AFTER the collision, not before. Still wouldn’t explain how a US Navy destroyer allowed itself to be in a collision with a large cargo vessel, but we will have to see what the real facts are....

[wideminded]

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!

This actually makes me feel a lot better about FR.

[rlmorel]

These board of inquiries are harsh by nature, and intentionally so.

When an officer takes command of a vessel, he is in charge of United States territory, and there is a lot of responsibility that goes along with that, apart from the possibility of damaging the vessel due to incompetency or accident.

They know that when they take command, and when something happens, there is merciless armchair quarterbacking. That is by design.

If you are the Captain of a US Navy vessel, then you know in advance, you are not going to get any mercy, forbearance, or consideration from one of these boards. You just don’t expect it.

It does occasionally happen, though. Chester Nimitz as a young Ensign, ran the USS Panay (not the same one the Japanese destroyed on the Yangtze River) aground in the Philippines and appeared before a board of inquiry. He argued his case so convincingly (that the charts were outdated) that they actually let him off. Very rare.

It did have an effect later in his career on his conduct as a Captain and Admiral, where he was known to show leniency for first time offenders. One of his favorite sayings was “Every dog deserves a second bite...”

[wideminded]

Very interesting but of course it would be much more informative to see the tracks of both ships.

[Bull Snipe]

It didn’t confound the Captain. He was in his stateroom, probably asleep. The motion of the container ship confounded the Lt or Ltjg that was the OOD at the time.
One thing is for sure. The written orders from the Captain to the OODs of ship probably required them to call him if any ship was going to approach closer that a specific distance, say 2000 yards or so. This, apparently did not happen. That is the OOD’s responsibility. Why did it not happen will be a question for the OOD to answer from his end of the long green table.

[rlmorel]

See my post above at #25...TXnMA provided this. As I have been saying, until all the facts are in, I won’t come to a final conclusion, but in my opinion, this is going to be human error.

[rlmorel]

“...Long Green Table...”

[DugwayDuke]

If one looks closely, one will see the container ship was fitted with one of those protrusions just under water from the bow of the ship. Do you have any idea what that would have done to the destroyer in a perpendicular collision?

[Enchante]

ahhh yes, thanks, that is what I was trying to remember!

IF the timing is as suggested there then ofc the whole situation looks different, no more need to speculate about any possible attack. Still quite a mystery how this could happen, crazy world.

[rlmorel]

My guess it it caused extensive damage below the waterline not seen in any of the footage shown, which only appears to show damage to the superstructure.

It is likely why they appear to have a lot of pumps going full bore, pumping water over the side.

[VTenigma]

7 sailors died. From a jihadi point of view that’s a win.

[rlmorel]

I will reserve the right to change my mind on this once more facts are in, but...given the crew of 20 on the ACX Crystal will be interviewed...we are going to find out if there is more behind it.