Damaged Destroyer USS Fitzgerald Moves to Dry Dock in Japan -PHOTOS

gCaptain ^ | July 12, 2017 | Mike Schuler

[rlmorel]

Gad. Yes, that sounds like a complete arab sh*thole.

I heard that back when the muslims weren’t a majority yet (which they accomplished through the kind of culturally destructive invasion we see going on in Europe) Beirut was a beautiful place.

I can just imagine them emptying their sewers and bulldozing the trash right into the ocean. Disgusting pigs.

[Lou L]

I apologize, Norseman...I didn’t realize that auto-correct must’ve changed your name in my last post.

[Lou L]

Which is a DDGINO.

LOL!

Stealthy or not, it's a hideous-looking vessel.

[Lou L]

it sure does look like structural pieces on the Fitzgerald were displaced downward and forward from the downward motion of the Crystal’s hull.

It may be difficult to visualize, but Navy ships like the Fitzgerald generally heel to the opposite side they're turning. Assuming the Fitz was trying to avoid the Crystal (far too late) by turning away from her (to port), her starboard side would have been lower; i.e., closer to the the water. But a strike from the Crystal's bulbous bow would have lifted the Fitz's hull and starboard superstructure right into the top of the Crystal's bow.

The damage to the Fitz, and the scuffs on the Crystal's bow are consistent with this description. I suspect if you looked below the waterline at the Crystal, the bulbous bow would show the same.

[rlmorel]

I agree. I think all four of these things come into play:

The heeling of the Fitz making her starboard side closer to the water

The bulbous protrusion on the bow of the Crystal forcing the Fitz up out of the water

Pressure of the Fitz downward on the bulbous protrusion of the Crystal giving a downward impetus to the bow of the Crystal

Forward motion of the Fitz and forward motion of the Crystal.

[Norseman]

Thanks. I’m obviously speculating on what eventually transpired, but I’m reasonably certain the Wan Hai will factor into the final explanation.

If all three ships were within, say, two miles of each other, moving at 20 knots (or possibly higher in the case of the Fitzgerald), a lot can happen in five minutes, especially if the first two or three minutes are taken up by decisions and actions to avoid the course of the Wan Hai.

I agree with you that “the Fitz” should have detected and tracked both ships, and suspect that it will turn out that the information about the Crystal’s existence/track either never made it to the bridge, or was mis-interpreted when it arrived. Perhaps someone was so focused on the Wan Hai that they applied it to that ship instead of a second ship. Also, the Wan Hai would have been behind and to the port side of the Fitzgerald which might partially explain the failure of the watch to see the Crystal on the starboard side in time if they were attending to the Wan Hai.

Overlaying all this would be a concern by the OOD that maybe he should call the captain to the bridge given the proximity of the Wan Hai (assuming my description is reasonably accurate.) It certainly appears he should have done so, in retrospect.

[UCANSEE2]

[UCANSEE2]

The damage to the Fitz, and the scuffs on the Crystal's bow are consistent with this description. I suspect if you looked below the waterline at the Crystal, the bulbous bow would show the same.

Well.... here is a picture of the bulbous bow.

[OldeGoat]

The drydock may be large enough to accommodate a Nimitz class carrier, but be aware that another factor enters in. The floor and subfloor of the drydock need to be strong enough to support a 94,000 ton carrier on blocks and not have the block(s) break through the floor of the drydock. Those supertankers may look huge but do not weigh that much empty (when being built). They only get to be huge mega-tonnages after they are floated out of drydock and then loaded with oil.

[Presbyterian Reporter]

Norseman,
I subscribed to Marine Traffic (two week free subscription. I did the premium version, but I would recommend the PRO or SAT version as you can download data.

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/p/plans

There were two ships nearby the ACX Crystal at the time of the collision.

On its port side the WAN HAI 266 (a container ship) was about two miles directly north of the ACX Crystal and was destined for Yokohama.

On its starboard side the Maersk Evora (a container ship) was about three miles behind and was destined for Los Angeles.

If you look at the paths of the three ships preceding the collision at 1:30 am, there was nothing unusual. The ACX Crystal had been on a 90 degree course for several hours and had recently changed to a 70 degree course to avoid Toshima Island and the Maersk Evora that was on a 60 degree course, traveling at 19.5 knots, and coming up on its starboard side.

What we do not know is the path of the USS Fitzgerald that somehow found a way to get between the Wan Hai 266 and the ACX Crystal and get hit.

[rlmorel]

I agree. A Nimitz and Forrestal are two different things. I think I remember seeing the Kitty Hawk or the Constellation dry-docked there. Fascinating place to be as a kid.

[TXnMA]

And, here's the "bulbous bow" in its full, undamaged glory -- in an orthogonal view with a long lens -- without all the foreshortening and distortion that compromises other available shots:

As you can see, the underwater bulbous protrusion (aka "Ram") extends at least as far forward as the (relatively flimsy) white upper bow bulwarks and rail...

And, as is obvious from the after-colllision views, it is obviously very strong -- showing only superficial scraping damage after its devastation to the Fitzgerald's lower hull.

My expectation is that the protrusion is actually a forward extension of the ACX Crystal's keel, itself.

I have no problem postulating that it lifted and heeled over to port the Fitzgerald, and that its damage extends considerably further toward the Fitzgerald's keel than is obvious from the photos in this article.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

The designers of the bow rams on ancient Phoenician, Athenian, and Roman trireme warships

would be envious... '-)

[Norseman]

PavewayIV posted this in another thread. Note that there’s a link included going to the original translator on another site.

Excerpt begins:

The English Reuters article gives a garbled picture of what happened. Translation issues? Editing? No idea, but I found a better account from a poster estarzinger post #421 on CruiserForum http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f90/us-navy-destroyer-collision-186441-29.html

Perhaps a one-step better translation . . . .* “This is my English translation of the same report by Reuters in Japan in Japanese.
ACX Crystal captain wrote to the company that while cruising to Tokyo bay at 18 knots, TWO watch crews of ACX found the destroyer on 40 degree port side 3NM in distance around 1:15AM. 5 minutes later the destroyer suddenly started moving and continued on their collision course. While manually steering, ACX gave caution to the navy ship by turning on/off the light without any reaction. then decided to take hard starboard turn for collision avoidance but both ships crashed around 1:30AM.* Takeshi from Yokohama”

Probably still not perfectly accurate representation of details from the actual captain’s report

Excerpt ends.

The description of the original location of the Fitzgerald is what I was using to place them ahead of and on the course of the Wan Hai. On examining it further, I just now noted the comment that the Fitzgerald started moving five minutes later. If the Fitzgerald was indeed stationary at 1:15, and two to three miles ahead of the Wan Hai, the Wan Hai could have gotten quite close to the Fitzgerald in those five minutes. Maybe it even got under a mile distant. (All speculation, of course.)

But if that’s close to being the case, the OOD would have had two things to worry about, getting underway and out of the way of the approaching Wan Hai, and wondering whether the captain should be notified. From the description of the captain of the Crystal, it appears the OOD of the Fitzgerald remained unaware of the Crystal right up to the time of the collision. I find it hard to believe that no one on the Fitzgerald was aware of the existence of the Crystal, but whoever knew apparently was unsuccessful in getting the information relayed to, or perhaps just understood, by the OOD.

[TXnMA]

That's a really nice graphic -- but, one of the reasons I haven't used that frame from the (Chinese?) animation sequence is that the artist (or his graphic software) depicts the ACX Crystal's lower bow protrusion in the wrong position.

Perhaps it was supposedly a correction for seawater refraction, but the protrusion is angled off several degrees to starboard -- which would have placed the underwater damage too far forward on the Fitzgerald.

Also, per my visualization, the relative speeds (Fitzgerald considerably faster) would, at that point/instant of approach, had the ACX Crystal's 90-degree course in line with the very front of the Fitzgerald's bow -- not with the actual point of contact...

[Presbyterian Reporter]

On the website you posted there is another translation further down. The Wan Kai 266 was on a parallel course, slightly behind, and about two miles to the port side of the ACX Crystal.

Not sure how the three miles between the USS Fitzgerald and the ACX Crystal works.

“”About 5 minutes later, the Aegis vessel “suddenly” moved [from the Japanese it is not clear whether this was a move from a stationary condition or a change in movement, i.e. a course change].””

I would think the ‘sudden movement’ was a course change. This makes it sound almost as though the Fitzgerald was committing suicide.

Here’s a link to the Japanese-language article on the Reuters Japan website:

https://jp.reuters.com/article/fitzgerald-idJPKBN19H12U

And here’s my own (entirely unauthorized) quick translation of it. I make my living as a translator from Japanese, but I give no guarantees as to absence of errors, and in any case, there are always any number of ways a given Japanese sentence can be rendered in English. Here I tried to be as literal as possible, though. The article also (as is often the case in Japanese) does not clearly differentiate between quotations and the rest of the article. The first paragraph is basically a summary, and the second and third paragraphs are descriptions of the content of the report. From “In this collision” onwards, it’s back to Reuters’ journalistic writing.

---

Container ship tried to warn U.S. vessel Fitzgerald by light signals

[Tokyo, June 26, Reuters] The content of a report submitted by the captain of the container ship that collided with an Aegis class destroyer of the U.S. Navy off the Izu peninsula to the owners of the container ship has come to light. The container ship spotted the Aegis vessel on its port side and tried to attract its attention by means of flashing a light, but the U.S. ship maintained its course. The container vessel then tried to turn to the right to avoid a collision, but there was not enough time.

According to the report, the Philippine-flagged container ship ACX Crystal was heading towards Tokyo Bay at a speed of 18 knots (about 33 km/h). At 01:15 a.m. on June 17, two lookouts spotted the Aegis class vessel Fitzgerald at 40 degrees off the port side at a distance of 3 nm (about 5.6 km).

About 5 minutes later, the Aegis vessel “suddenly” moved [from the Japanese it is not clear whether this was a move from a stationary condition or a change in movement, i.e. a course change]. Because a collision seemed likely on this course, the container ship, while manually steering, tried to attract the attention of the other ship by flashing a light. However, the American vessel seemed to maintain its course. The container ship therefore turned the rudder hard to starboard, but at 01:30 a.m. the two ships collided.

In this collision, seven members of the crew of the Aegis vessel lost their lives, making it the worst tragedy for a U.S. navy vessel since the bomb attack on an Aegis class vessel in Yemen in 2000. The captain of the Fitzgerald was wounded in his own quarters, which suggests the possibility that no warning was sounded prior to the collision.

The owners of the ACX Crystal, Dainichi-Invest Corporation (based in Kobe, Hyogo Pref.) declined to respond to inquiries by Reuters, saying that they could not provide any comment in relation to an ongoing investigation. The U.S. Navy, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Japan Coast Guard which are investigating the accident also declined to comment.

[mad_as_he$$]

“
It may be difficult to visualize, but Navy ships like the Fitzgerald generally heel to the opposite side they’re turning
“
So is it possible the Fitz was turning to starboard? Now that is a new wrinkle. We need dimensions of both ships and a sketch of damage to the Fitz with measurements noted.

[UCANSEE2]

Some new pictures here

Sample

[UCANSEE2]

[mad_as_he$$]

Interesting image. Thanks.

[Lou L]

So is it possible the Fitz was turning to starboard?

Sorry, I know it's been several days since your post, but I did not imply the Fitz was turning to starboard. It seems that if she turned at all, it would have been to port.

Of course, if the Fitz somehow thought the Crystal's bow was it's stern, and tried to turn in behind it, that could explain a starboard turn. Very unlikely, in my opinion.