EXCLUSIVE-U.S. warship stayed on deadly collision course despite warning-container ship captain

Reuters ^ | June 26, 2017 | Tim Kelly

[AU72]

TOKYO, June 26 (Reuters) - A U.S. warship struck by a container vessel in Japanese waters failed to respond to warning signals or take evasive action before a collision that killed seven of its crew, according to a report of the incident by the Philippine cargo ship's captain.

Multiple U.S. and Japanese investigations are under way into how the guided missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald and the much larger ACX Crystal container ship collided in clear weather south of Tokyo Bay in the early hours of June 17

Those who died were in their berthing compartments, while the Fitzgerald's commander was injured in his cabin, suggesting that no alarm warning of an imminent collision was sounded.

[TXnMA]

See the AIS data at

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3562360/posts?page=77#77

~~~~~~~~

IMO, Crystal's total accident deflection was recorded in the data for the 16:30Z point. Don't let Crystal's position to the south three minutes after the collision fool you. IMO, that was an "avoidance move".

My analysis indicates that Fitzgerald was traveling faster than Crystal at the time of impact.

Fitzgerald wasn't "dragged" down to the south. When the Crystal returned and circled her an hour later, she was , apparently, well to the north of the point of collision.

IMO the Crystal's "sharp turn to starboard" due to all the forces of collision (impact by the faster Fitzgerald, rudder inputs, etc...) was a maximium of 12 degrees (from 70 deg to 88 deg).

[Presbyterian Reporter]

“”Fitzgerald was actually hung up on the anchor and drug along for a while””

---

Thanks for bringing the role of the anchor. To my knowledge it has not been discussed before.

I agree the Crystal’s port anchor looks like it got hooked into the Fitzgerald as the anchor appears bent and is hanging outside the hawsepipe.

But it believe it was the Fitzgerald dragging the Crystal with the hung anchor and not the Crystal dragging the Fitzgerald.

Most have agreed the Fitzgerald was likely moving faster than the Crystal at the point of collision.

If the Fitzgerald was dragging the Crystal that would explain the 90 degree turn made by the Crystal in the three minutes following the collision.

[Presbyterian Reporter]

Do we know if this starboard photo of the Crystal was taken after the collision?

I do not believe it is, because the port photo of the Crystal taken after the collision the bulbous bow is underwater.

[TXnMA]

TXnMA, you are a big dummy!!!

I guess it's from "juggling too many balls at once", but, in my big post re "damage to both ships and their relative speeds", this "top-down vector sketch of both ships in collision position"

should have been this carefully analyzed and annotated image of the damage on the USS Fitzgerald!

~~~~~~~~~

Mea Goofa!!! '-)

Now, do my comments re "hawsepipe and anchor damage to the Fitzgerald" make better sense?

[TXnMA]

Freepmail for you...

[Presbyterian Reporter]

Thanks.

The time you have spent analyzing and then explaining what happened is why I consider FR my principal news source.

[TXnMA]

No, AFAIK, that photo of the very lightly laden ACX Crystal -- with the bulbous lower bow gloriously exposed -- was taken on a date prior to the accident.

But it surely gets the "point" across... '-)

I'm using a scaled, vectorized object of it in my "Z-Axis" vector analysis of the rolling and twisting I believe the Fitzgerald underwent during the collision...

(BTW, one of my first questions was, "How did the main deck of the low-slung Fitzgerald get raised high enough to cut that big slash through the stem of the Crystal?"

(Did the Crystal, at the last moment, hit reverse thrust -- causing its bow to "dive"?

~~~~~~~~~~

BTW, I agree with you -- in that I also expected more visible "scraping and dinging" on the bow protrusion -- but... WYSIWYG...

I guess anti-fouling paint is designed to be tough -- as, apparently, is that bow protrusion...

[TXnMA]

Thank you!

Aside from doing things like researching and creating my HRC vs National Security video -- how else can an old geezer "on the return leg of his 80th orbit around our local star", and, on a retirement income, contribute from 'way out in the northeast Texas Piney Woods boondocks...? '-)

[Presbyterian Reporter]

Thanks for confirming the starboard photo is pre-collision.

I am still puzzled by the lack of paint scrapes or dents to the Crystal’s bulbous bow.

We see the scrapes down to the metal on the Crystal where it slid against the superstructure of the Fitzgerald. I am guessing the superstructure of the Fitzgerald is 1/4 inch steel to maybe 1/2 inch max.

Meanwhile, the bulbous bow hits the hull of the Fitzgerald, punches a 10 or 14 foot hole in the hull, and nary a scratch to the paint job. I am guessing the hull of the Fitzgerald is 3/4 inch steel. So why no damage to the bulbous bow?

Maybe I need to wait until Sept when the Navy tells us. Or maybe we need to send a FR sleuth to the Crystal drydock which I believe will be in Thailand.

[Oztrich Boy]

Something isn't right

All the AIS traffic appears north of where you've placed the TSL bend

[doorgunner69]

Cannot say for the destroyer design of the Ftiz, but the Ticonderoga Aegis cruisers were mostly aluminum. I gather there was some steel surrounding critical spaces for a modicum of ballistic protection, but mostly aluminum. I would suspect similar desigh on this Aegis destroyer class.

All that electronic stuff above the waterline makes things top-heavy, hence the liberal use of aluminum in the design. The Tico class I rode on rolled like a drunken pig unless really hauling the mail.

That may affect your analysis of the damage. Steel (ACX) cuts through aluminum rather easily.

[UCANSEE2]

But it believe it was the Fitzgerald dragging the Crystal with the hung anchor and not the Crystal dragging the Fitzgerald.

When a Prius hits a tractor-trailer truck, does the Prius drag the truck ? The laws of physics would indicate that the much larger ACX Crystal would drag the Fitzgerald.

[UCANSEE2]

Thanks for the link. Good discussion over there.

[TXnMA]

"TSL bend"?

¿No comprende?

[TXnMA]

According to the Arleigh Burke class specs, the earlier classes' weak and fire-vulnerable aluminum was replaced with steel in the entire Arleigh Burke class...

[UCANSEE2]

Thanks for bringing the role of the anchor. To my knowledge it has not been discussed before.

Actually, if you go to the link in POST 240, the role of the anchor is discussed.

I haven't checked the timestamps to see if it was before or after I mentioned it, but that isn't important.

Pretty good analysis and discussion of that factor, and others, on that thread.

[Ethrane]

What you post is NOT TRUE. Rules of the road apply to all vessels.

[Ethrane]

If your conjecture is true, I’ll eat my hat.

The OOD doesn’t just ‘leave the bridge’, not even for a quickie.

[UCANSEE2]

Good pictures, great work. I think it would be helpful to also have a BEFORE picture for comparison.

[Ethrane]

Finally, someone that is talking sense here. There was no drugs, quickies or alcohol involved. Can I explain this? Ummm...no. But some of the nonsense posted here is insane.

Based on current evidence, the USN ship was at fault. It’s been 30 years since my OOD days, but the failure on so many levels is mind boggling .

I’m sure this container ship was tracked for miles by multiple people both on the bridge AND in CIC; the CO, whose at sea stateroom was like 5 feet away from the bridge should have been notified many miles out when the contact became CBDR. The lookouts are just that...look outs. they have no bearing on the ships reaction to their reports to the bridge.

It is so strange that I’m gonna wait until the Navy’s investigation is complete and reported...because I cannot explain this at all.