This is what rammed the Fitzgerald which explains the near sinking. In fact it's amazing that the crew were able to keep it afloat. I hope the full story of how something like this could ever occur is made public.
Posted on 06/26/2017 5:56:24 AM PDT by 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.
See my post at #42...I smell a whiff of BS too.
I wa in aviation, and that was years ago, so I have no idea what the navigation or warning systems are like nowadays.
But some aspects of human behavior likely haven’t changed much.
Why are you swallowing this FAKE news as truth?
It must be pretty embarrassing, since we don't have much information about what happened. Who was on the bridge of the Fitz? Where were the decision makers? What was going on? Drinking, drugs, incompetence or just the millennial "Whatever" attitude? They'll just come back and tell us it's all classified.
The OOD that night was likely a LT, and may have had a LTjg, or an Ensign as JOOD. The rest of the bridge team that night would've been enlisted personnel, likely a couple of petty officers as maybe the Quartermaster of the Watch, and maybe the helmsman. The lookouts on the bridge wings and fantail were likely seamen.
Regardless of WHO was on the bridge, the OOD was in charge of the bridge team, and was qualified by that ship's Commanding Officer to be there. If there was any doubt in the CO's mind that OOD was NOT qualified to "drive the ship," that officer should not have been there alone.
As to the other "senior" officers, no one would've been required to be there. In fact, some senior officers like the Supply Officer, are NOT typically qualified to stand bridge watches like OOD. Air "Bosses," those officers in charge of the aircraft (on this ship, only a pair of helos), are also not usually qualified to stand bridge watches. The Chief Engineering Officer was likely qualified, but would've been mostly concerned with engineering spaces and their statuses.
The Commanding Officer likely posted standing orders to all bridge watchstanders that he was to be wakened immediately upon certain events. A close abroad situation was most certainly one of them. Was a messenger sent from the bridge to wake the Captain that night? If so, when? This would've been entered in a log book, and will be available to investigators.
The bridge team does not drive the ship alone, however. There is a surface watch team in the Combat Information Center as well. This team is headed by an officer, most likely a LT, who reports to the Combat Systems Officer of the Watch, likely a LT or Lt. Commander. These officers have Operations' Specialists (enlisted personnel), monitoring surface traffic. All of these people would've been relaying information to the bridge team, and any reports of close-in contacts would've been entered in their log book.
There should've been ample backup, including multiple mid-grade officers, giving information to the bridge. Perhaps with all the systems, all the backups, the OOD had information overload, or was just being human. Time will tell.
Thanks for that, and prayers are up.
After all is said and done, there is one guy who is responsible for this, the OOD, who is the guy responsible for the safe navigation of the ship on his watchsection.
From everything I can see about the collision, a simple maneuver would have avoided all of this - a 90-120 degree turn to port- approximately perpendicular to the merchant's track - while the vessels were 4,000 down to maybe 2,000 yards apart, to rapidly open the distance from the merchant's track, and then continue a 360 degree turn to port back to base course, passing clear astern of the freighter.
It is a simple order from the OOD to the helmsman to turn the ship. You could also increase speed at the same time, but with a bit of forehandedness that would not have been necessary.
A competent OOD would never allow a close aboard situation to occur in the open ocean (and this was many many miles from nearest shoal water).
Ok, thanks for the good info
If the bridge had time to issue the collision warning--enough time to actually allow the sleeping crew to do something, they would have had time to alter course and avoid the container ship. A harder turn to port, even an all-back full command might've been enough.
We don’t know that the watch standers weren’t reporting the ship and yelling about this.
I have to wonder if the Bridge Officer didn’t do this purposefully.
“I cannot think even of any best case scenario that exonerates the navy vessel.”
I am thinking that is why the ACX Crystal owners gave the Captain’s report to Reuters. The Crystal owners were growing weary of the stream of media stories about the Crystal being on autopilot which implied nobody was on the bridge.
The USS Fitzgerald has been stationed at Yokosuka for 13 years. The officers and crew would be very knowledgeable of the traffic patterns approaching Yokohama.
Prior to the collision the ACX Crystal was following the same course as other ships follow when they approach Yokohama.
Some else that doesn’t add up: finding itself on a collision course, a large merchant vessel steers hard right rudder. This swings the stern to port, pointing the vessel in a new direction. In a large vessel, hard right might mean 25 or 30 degrees. Presumably you have the option to alter engine speed as well. Running at 12 knots, you can cover about 2 miles in 10 minutes. You still have not been able to get out of the way of a fast and maneuverable smaller vessel?
This is not intended to exonerate the crew of the Fitzgerald by the way. ISTM they are even more to blame.
Easy. It was a planned attack using an electronic weapon leaving the Fitzgerald dead in the water, so the YUGE container ship could RAM it and hopefully kill the captain on impact and sink the Fitzgerald. All the evidence points to this conclusion.
That’s how. It is the ONLY explanation that makes sense. There is a lot of evidence out there, timeline, speed, course, tracks, high resolution photos.
Forget what anyone “SAYS”. People LIE! Have agendas, secrets to keep. EVIDENCE is what counts.
This is what rammed the Fitzgerald which explains the near sinking. In fact it's amazing that the crew were able to keep it afloat. I hope the full story of how something like this could ever occur is made public.
That might well be true. Fighting their initial battles in the media.
Honestly, I don’t see much wrong in the movements of the ACX crystal...I don’t think their bridge was unmanned...I just think whoever was there wasn’t paying attention.
I am very suspicious of this “we signaled them by light” thing. As far as I am concerned, if they did not enter this in their log, they didn’t do it.
Doesn’t put them at fault IMO, but...it seems like ass-covering.
“:This dispels the ‘nobody was on the ACX Crystal bridge” theory.”
Oh, there was. Steering their ship right at the disabled Fitzgerald.
Good summary, Lou L.
Oh, I agree. The destroyer should not have allowed the situation to get to that, and should've long since taken evasive action.
I have not heard of other vessels in the area, influencing either ship, but that is a possibility. An appearance of one would not absolve anyone, but at least it would be an excuse.
The u.s. Navy is focused on the wrong things.
they’re focused on diversity, getting women into the Navy, on special bathrooms for them, integrating transvestites, Muslims stuff.
they’re focused on everything except being ready and strategy and tactics.
the US Navy has been transformed into some kind of expensive sociology experiment.
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.