[TXnMA]

"Does it suggest a turn to port (left turn) by the USS Fitzgerald to avoid the collision?"

~~~~~~~~~~

I expect it does. I've done a lot of failure analysis, and I'm analyzing the damage on both ships to see if it reveals anything re their relative motions during and after collision.

Notably, the damage is high up on the ACX Crystal (which should be significantly "taller" than the "low-freeboard Fitzgerald. And, the damage is low down on the Fitz -- suggesting that either (or both) of the following occurred:

1. Prior to collision, the Crystal reversed engines -- causing the ship to "squat" or "nose-dip" (the bow "dived" or depressed downward toward the sea surface).

2. Prior to and during collision, the Fitzgerald was "heeled over" due to a hard avoidance turn to port. That would have raised its main deck to better match with the "notch" in the Crystal's stem. Also, it would have exposed a deeper underwater section of her bottom to damage by the underwater "ram-like" forward projection of the Crystal's bow.

If anyone who reads this can help get scale elevation profiles of both ships, that could help put the above analysis on a quantitative basis...

~~~~~~~~~

Bottom line: I now envision a brief, low relative speed, glancing collision, with the ACX Crystal's bow deflecting to starboard (as shown in the AIS data) -- and the (entire) USS Fitzgerald deflecting (displacing) to port.

[rlmorel]

I am guessing when the collision occurred, the Fitgerald rode up on that bow protuberance, which also caused the bow of the Crystal to ride down on the superstructure of the Fitzgerald.

Can’t see the damage below the waterline, but I’ll bet when we do see it after it gets into drydock, we will understand why there was significant flooding.

[rlmorel]

"...Bottom line: I now envision a brief, low relative speed, glancing collision, with the ACX Crystal's bow deflecting to starboard (as shown in the AIS data) -- and the (entire) USS Fitzgerald deflecting (displacing) to port..."

That is precisely how I see it.

[jonrick46]

You give a good analysis.