Posted on 06/19/2017 10:20:48 AM PDT by Kaslin
“It was a sudden U-turn. Big difference.”
ACX Crystal can’t make a sudden U-turn, imo.
Too big and going too fast.
I think the U-turn was after the collision.
“This could be like 2012 USS Porter collision. Total incompetence.”
Staggering. You always come right.
Well, we don’t agree.
Now what?
You weren’t there.
I have seen people killed by incompetence in the military.
I have investigated how military equipment was damaged.
I learned to get all the facts.
This could very well have been incompetence.
But, you don’t have all the facts and you are not investigating.
I won’t disparage our Sailors until all the facts are known.
100 miles or so off the SE coast of Japan is most certainly open seas.
“crowded” in maritime terms means there’s a ship every few miles...or 20.
“Wasn’t the captain injured in his cabin?”
Travis, if this is true, then the Fitz crew (apparently) failed to follow protocol on a number of different levels.
Otherwise, what reasonable explanation has the Capt in his cabin at the time of impact (unless he went back to retrieve something...)?
Amen to that.
And how much time at sea do you have?
Strange, yes. But lets open up our considerations. There are BIG things going on in the world.
Russia would like *things* to happen. And other countries.
AND China is doing big big uncontained things, that we cant control, easily, trying to get control of the ?China Sea.
Previous threads have thrown out these things:
- As I recall, saying China could block the radar.
- Russia is working on a radar blocker. ?wanting to test it ?
Clearly, if the radar was not functioning, could cause this.
Was container ship jazzing around afterwards to check out what they had done? And then collect their Russian $$ -
I guess the senior officer on watch that night will have some splainin to do.
lt jg US Navy PT boat Captain, John Fitzgerald Kennedy
adrift at night rammed by a Japanese tincan.
sailors lost at sea.
“It wasn’t in the open sea, the area was crowded”
There’s always a lot of traffic in that area.
Surely it wasn’t a rendezvous.
Many photos
I'm going to say we never find out - surprise
I would have hoped that after the attack on the USS Cole that awareness and security against any kind of ramming attacks would be drilled into every US Navy officer ad nauseum.
btw, it was asserted on another thread that the initial public timeline for the cargo ship’s maneuvers is messed up, and that those cargo ship turning maneuvers occurred AFTER the collision. I don’t know for sure if that’s the case, but it might have to be considered. In that case the two ships would have been on converging courses in the same general direction, and perhaps the USS Fitzgerald tried to pass in front of the cargo ship. Still doesn’t begin to explain how such a crazy collision could occur for a US Navy destroyer, but it might change the picture.
“I guess the senior officer on watch that night will have some splainin to do.”
He/she and the Captain will have plenty of opportunity at their Courts Martial...perhaps along with others on watch that night.
And how much time do you have investigating military accidents?
Yep, no matter what or why, the Fitzgerald 0000 - 0400 bridge watch should FRY
I would take my 4 Westpacs as authoritative over somebody who investigates how the breech of a 155 exploded.
Or how it was possible a M1A1 ran over a Humvee.
The Fitz had propulsion after the collision, and most certainly before. It was hit at an oblique angle by a cargo vessel, at low speed, on the open seas.
There are no other relevant factors or conditions.
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.