Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

More fishiness in the ramming of USS Fitzgerald
American Thinker ^ | Thomas Lifson

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.

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.

What was going on that prevented prompt report?
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 ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: mystery; usnavy; ussfitzgerald
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 last
To: voltaire
If the captain was on the bridge, that means he was woke and called to the bridge. There is much more to this than just an unfortunate collusion.

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.

81 posted on 06/19/2017 9:52:49 AM PDT by Bob (Damn, the democrats haven't been this upset since Republicans freed their slaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: fortes fortuna juvat
You mean how this could happen “unintentionally.” It could easily happen if the freighter was in attack mode.

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.

82 posted on 06/19/2017 10:00:05 AM PDT by Bob (Damn, the democrats haven't been this upset since Republicans freed their slaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Lou L
To me, a "ramming" of the destroyer seems unlikely--it seems as though the destroyer may have misjudged a maneuver in order to cross in front of the container ship, but failed to pass soon enough. If such a move occurred, it demonstrated poor judgment by whomever was driving the destroyer at the time.

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"?

83 posted on 06/19/2017 10:02:55 AM PDT by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Simon Foxx
Both ships were probably on autopilot.

Ever been on a Navy ship? They don't have an autopilot.

84 posted on 06/19/2017 10:04:07 AM PDT by Bob (Damn, the democrats haven't been this upset since Republicans freed their slaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

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.


85 posted on 06/19/2017 10:15:34 AM PDT by BykrBayb (Lung cancer free since 11/9/07. Colon cancer free since 7/7/15. Obama free since 1/20/17. PTL ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Hulka
Tanker traffic early morning were usually on auto-pilot and the third-world crew is in bed.

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.

86 posted on 06/19/2017 10:28:04 AM PDT by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Bob

>> 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.


87 posted on 06/19/2017 10:31:49 AM PDT by fortes fortuna juvat (God, Guns, and Trump will save the USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Cementjungle
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"?

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.

88 posted on 06/19/2017 11:02:22 AM PDT by Lou L (Health "insurance" is NOT the same as health "care")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

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.


89 posted on 06/19/2017 11:30:48 AM PDT by SmokinGun (No site given......No source...Looks a little like beef fertilizer....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SmokinGun

USS Antitiem ran aground in the same waters 6 or 7 years ago.


90 posted on 06/19/2017 11:37:25 AM PDT by Covenantor (Men are ruled...by liars who refuse them news, and by fools who cannot govern. " Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: SmokinGun

Was the Contaner Ships Bridge Crew ISIS Jihadis ?


91 posted on 06/19/2017 11:52:15 AM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: SmokinGun
Perhaps the crew was too busy learning about the new military policies on male pregnancy.
92 posted on 06/19/2017 12:04:05 PM PDT by Jim Noble (Single payer is coming. Which kind do you like?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux
8 years redesign of the Navy (& other branches) under the Kenyan had an affect. Incompetence on the Fitzgerald.

+

Philippine based opportunistic Jihadi(s) seizing the moment to ram their vehicle into a significant target.

=

Disaster.

93 posted on 06/19/2017 1:07:30 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

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.


94 posted on 06/19/2017 3:00:35 PM PDT by Oatka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Looks like a height mismatch of the damage.


95 posted on 06/19/2017 3:59:29 PM PDT by Paladin2 (No spelchk nor wrong word auto substition on mobile dev. Please be intelligent and deal with it....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lou L

http://www.vesselofinterest.com/2017/06/mapping-acx-crystals-collision-with-uss.html


96 posted on 06/19/2017 5:14:11 PM PDT by TennesseeProfessor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: TennesseeProfessor
That's interesting. I just find it difficult to believe that a large ship, in a very busy shipping lane, would rely solely on auto-pilot and leave the bridge completely unattended.

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?

97 posted on 06/19/2017 6:43:34 PM PDT by Lou L (Health "insurance" is NOT the same as health "care")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

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.


98 posted on 06/19/2017 6:59:31 PM PDT by RinaseaofDs (Truth, in a time of universal deceit, is courage)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson