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 ...
Multiple articles that I've seen have reported that the captain was in his stateroom, not on the bridge.
On Navy destroyers when I was in (many decades ago), the captain's underway stateroom (or 'sea cabin') was at the bridge level, just a few steps directly behind the bridge itself. Apparently, on the Fitzgerald, it's off to the starboard side where the collision damage occurred.
That statement is utter and complete bullspit.
The maneuverability advantage of a Navy destroyer would have easily allowed it to counter any "attack" by quickly getting out of the container ship's path.
I wonder how it works in these situations. I know that with aircraft, the two warning systems on the 2 planes either talk to each other or have some sort of set rules to instruct each plane to change course away from each other rather than give them conflicting instructions that only compound the situation.
Obviously if 2 ships are on a collision course, one needs to slow down while the other perhaps should speed up... or both should change course away from the predicted collisions spot.
Do the ships talks to each other either by voice or by computer to say "You go that way and I'll go this way"?
Ever been on a Navy ship? They don't have an autopilot.
Yes, thank you.
If I had all the right time zone info, and did all the math correctly, that peak in speed occurred right about 2:00 AM local time, which is when the early reports (for about a day) were saying the “collision” occurred.
Am I wrong in deducing that peak on the graph represents the moment of impact? I can’t imagine how a container ship could come to a screeching halt under its own power. So until somebody can show me something more convincing than what I’ve seen, I’m sticking with the impact occurring about 2:00 AM.
I had a summer job as a teenager of a Danish cargo ship (40+ years ago) and even as a very junior member of the crew I had to have my turns at being on watch. We always had at least three of us on watch... the junior members watched port and starboard sides (usually standing out on the flying bridge) while a more senior guy was inside the bridge manning the controls.
We were a small ship, only 9,000 tons, so the last thing we wanted was to get creamed by some giant freighter. We all took our watch duties very seriously for sure.
>> The maneuverability advantage of a Navy destroyer would have easily allowed it to counter any “attack” by quickly getting out of the container ship’s path.
Of course, but it didn’t get out of the way. Why didn’t it? And the fact that it could have does not resolve the question of whether it was rammed by accident or intentionally.
Do the ships talks to each other either by voice or by computer to say "You go that way and I'll go this way"?
If two ships are on a collision course, one of the ships has the 'right of way.' Without going into all the specifics, the ship to the starboard has the right of way in a passing situation.
That said, international maritime rules says that you never intentionally hazard your ship, even to claim a right-of-way. Regardless, judging from the visible damage to both ships, the Fitzgerald did not appear to have the right of way. In an ideal world, both ships should have taken steps to avoid placing themselves in extremis; i.e., to the point of collision. It's harder for the cargo ship, so the destroyer should've taken the initiative to do this.
To your question about communications between two ships, it's possible they could've spoken through bridge-to-bridge radio, especially if there were other circumstances that didn't allow them to alter their courses or speeds. They could've also used flashing signal lights, if radio communications weren't possible. I think communications between the two ships would come out in the final report, so I'll be looking for that. To my knowledge, no other "automated" mechanism exists--ships simply do not travel as fast as aircraft, nor should they need such instantaneous course changes.
Stupid thing to say.
Look, it could have been that one or both nav radars, were out. This would have required more watches, and possibly putting watch standers on more watchs that they were not adequately trained for. They are coming into homeport, so they should have been aware of shipping traffic. If nav equipment is out then CIC has some explaining to do. In the Navy, there never has been much mercy when it comes to poor navigation, faulty watch standers, or lousy maintenance of equipment. I believe that the Navy should investigate the crap out of this. Why are so many American Ships having problems with routine navigation and seamanship. This is isolated, and is not good in anyway. 7 American lives are now lost due to some sort of failure to keep their ship an adequate safe distance from there area of operation. America is not currently at war. These things are not suppose to happen.
Prayers and tears for lost sailors.
USS Antitiem ran aground in the same waters 6 or 7 years ago.
Was the Contaner Ships Bridge Crew ISIS Jihadis ?
+
Philippine based opportunistic Jihadi(s) seizing the moment to ram their vehicle into a significant target.
=
Disaster.
The fact that these container ships have ram-type bows (streamlining) reminiscent of the old Greek/Roman galley ships means there’s going to be some serious underwater damage not evident in the photos.
Looks like a height mismatch of the damage.
That said, I'd like to hear the results of the investigation--did either ship try to contact the other via bridge-to-bridge comma? Did they use signal lights? Was there any response?
A DDG is like a Ferrari. A cargo ship is like a stake truck from the early 90s.
The DDG was struck on the right side of the ship. The DDG is the GIVE WAY vessel. The cargo ship’s job was to maintain course and speed. The DDG was supposed to avoid the commercial traffic.
Unless . . .
The one reason I can see the DDG wanting to maintain station would be to recover SPECWAR guys for some reason that a Sub wasn’t available to do that, but they were too far from shore for that, and the CO was in his rack, and that would not be the case if that were true.
No, the junior officer OOD likely killed seven of his shipmates and got his CO court martialed.
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.