Posted on 06/17/2017 7:20:21 PM PDT by proust
YOKOSUKA, Japan -- A number of Sailors that were missing from the collision between USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62) and a merchant ship have been found. As search and rescue crews gained access to the spaces that were damaged during the collision this morning, the missing Sailors were located in the flooded berthing compartments. They are currently being transferred to Naval Hospital Yokosuka where they will be identified. The families are being notified and being provided the support they need during this difficult time. The names of the Sailors will be released after all notifications are made.
Captain of stricken $1.5bn US Navy destroyer is airlifted to hospital as up to SEVEN sailors are missing or feared dead after it collided with 29,000 ton cargo ship off Japan
Absolutely NOTHING there to back up your fantasy. Sorry.
bookmark
Trying to prove something here?
Yes. If there was hostile intent, it will not be concealed. My expectation is that it is not hostile intent. But in this post 9/11 world, nothing is impossible.
No. What the Fitzgerald has is an AN/SPS-67 2D surface search radar. You get azimuth and range, that's it.
Some misconceptions on this thread about surface search radar - it isn't magic, and what you actually see on it in this situation is a spot of light that slows down relative to your ship. You don't pick up its new course right away until it's actually assumed it and been on it long enough to trend. You don't get doppler, so you have to calculate it.
A sudden maneuver such as the one presented in the track data would not be picked up right away and would probably confuse hell out of any OOD unfortunate enough to encounter it. Visual would help (if you have it). I've conned a ship in these waters and things get crazy pretty quickly when somebody on a standard course goes squirrely on you all of a sudden.
We'll know more when we get both ships' track data and their deck and comms logs. Until then, it's all speculation. But I can tell you from personal experience that conning a ship in restricted waters is not a straightforward thing.
The container ship “U-Turn” came after the collision according to analysis here:
http://www.vesselofinterest.com/2017/06/mapping-acx-crystals-collision-with-uss.html?m=1
Speculation is that the container ship was on autopilot at 2:30am and hit the Fitz and by the time the container ship senior crew got up to the bridge to disengage the autopilot about 20 minutes passed...then the container ship flips the u-turn.
Speed at the arrow at the hard starboard turn = 17.3 knots (my guess at impact)
Speed at the next tick mark = 11.2 knots (holy shiite, what happened?)
Speed at the infamous U-turn 7.6 knots. Slowing all the way to the hard port U-turn.
Speed where the tight maeuvering is going on = 2.9-3.7 knots, what I would gather to be minimum steerage speed (I was not a swabbie, just what I have read)
Speed as the 90 ° starboard turn back toward Yokosuka = 1.0 knots.
What a coincidence!
I am not going to be surprised if they find prayer rugs on the freighter that hit the Fitz.
I guess I don’t get why everyone is saying ‘U-turn.’ Sorry for my ignorance. The track of the ship looks like it makes two U-turns to me. Like it made one U-turn to go back the way it came, and then another to go back the way it was going originally. Did it hit our ship after the first U-turn, then try to go back on course or something?
Freegards
>There is a lot of speculation here that the USS Fitzgerald was rammed intentionally.
If just one islam was in control I suspect it.
A sudden maneuver such as the one presented in the track data would not be picked up right away and would probably confuse hell out of any OOD unfortunate enough to encounter it. Visual would help (if you have it). I've conned a ship in these waters and things get crazy pretty quickly when somebody on a standard course goes squirrely on you all of a sudden.
We'll know more when we get both ships' track data and their deck and comms logs. Until then, it's all speculation. But I can tell you from personal experience that conning a ship in restricted waters is not a straightforward thing.
Oh, poor widdle navy. Anything from an OKC ammonia bomb on a barge to Battlestar Gallictica can sneak up on them and blow them to smithereens.
If your concept of our naval defense is correct, we've wasted a LOT of money.
We have seven dead sailors out there, asshole.
I guess the question is whether this happened at the first 180 degree change in course or the third? Like they hit it, went back to check and then turned around and kept going the way they were or did it reverse direction first, hit it then changed direction for the third time?
Freegards
Speculation from that site I posted, and the map posted at #119 seem to indicate that the container ship was cruising along on autopilot and didn’t vary course until hitting DDG 62...it right turned as a result of the collision but the autopilot brought it back on course. Container ship crew rushes up to the bridge and disengage the autopilot and “flip a u-turn” to return to the site of the collision to render aid, etc.. Later the container ship heads for Tokyo again. Informed speculation at the moment, but I am sure that accurate track/speed data is available for both ships and an accurate account will come out soon.
Yes. In this post 9/11 world, it is impossible not to entertain the idea.
That is uncalled for.
criticizing your post, not them, not that it matters to you.
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.