There's no way that container ship could have intentionally targeted the destroyer. A 30,000 GT ship maneuvers as well as an RV towing a schoolbus. Here is a clip of another Arleigh Burke making a sharp turn. That's a nimble ship. https://youtu.be/mzveUz-WRGQ?t=50s
USS Fitzgerald collision speculation
- Thread starter L_Sludger
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: xfactor9
There's no way that container ship could have intentionally targeted the destroyer. A 30,000 GT ship maneuvers as well as an RV towing a schoolbus. Here is a clip of another Arleigh Burke making a sharp turn. That's a nimble ship. https://youtu.be/mzveUz-WRGQ?t=50s
This
Originally Posted By: xfactor9
There's no way that container ship could have intentionally targeted the destroyer. A 30,000 GT ship maneuvers as well as an RV towing a schoolbus. Here is a clip of another Arleigh Burke making a sharp turn. That's a nimble ship. https://youtu.be/mzveUz-WRGQ?t=50s
Let the conspiracy theories begin.
Naval crews are trained to be able to avoid even intentional rams..let alone avoid a container ship..lol...Yes humans make mistakes for many many reasons. Reasonable to assume a number of errors were made by personnel on the navel vessel.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5475249534001/?#sp=show-clips
There's no way that container ship could have intentionally targeted the destroyer. A 30,000 GT ship maneuvers as well as an RV towing a schoolbus. Here is a clip of another Arleigh Burke making a sharp turn. That's a nimble ship. https://youtu.be/mzveUz-WRGQ?t=50s
This
Originally Posted By: xfactor9
There's no way that container ship could have intentionally targeted the destroyer. A 30,000 GT ship maneuvers as well as an RV towing a schoolbus. Here is a clip of another Arleigh Burke making a sharp turn. That's a nimble ship. https://youtu.be/mzveUz-WRGQ?t=50s
Let the conspiracy theories begin.
Naval crews are trained to be able to avoid even intentional rams..let alone avoid a container ship..lol...Yes humans make mistakes for many many reasons. Reasonable to assume a number of errors were made by personnel on the navel vessel.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5475249534001/?#sp=show-clips
Last edited:
I put most of the blame on the Navy officers that were sleeping on the job.
No high ranking officer was overseeing the path and direction of Navy ship ????
No high ranking officer was overseeing the path and direction of Navy ship ????
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
I put most of the blame on the Navy officers that were sleeping on the job.
Nobody was overseeing the path and direction of Navy ship ????
Of course there were people overseeing the current course and speed: Officer of the deck, Junior Officer of the deck, Quarter Master of the Watch, Helmsman/Throttleman, Radarman, Sonar Operators, Fire Control Operators, etc. All of them have access to course and speed while several of them have access to the tactical picture (ie nearby contacts). Even if the mid-watch, there should have been a watch bill full of dedicated operators...unless our newer ships are so automated to have removed considerable human-interface. When standing OOD back in the day, I had no less than 8 other operators within 25 ft of me at any time...the CO's state room was only 15 ft away. During times of heightened awareness that manpower could double.
My operational experience is 30 yrs old now....but even back then our Fire Control system would have every surface contact plotted with a course, range, and speed....and usually pretty accurately....right down to CPA (closest point of approach). If you don't know the range to a non-maneuvering target where radar may not be accurate (ie a merchant in rain/fog,etc.) then you make a maneuver to solve the range equation. Low or zero bearing rate contacts must be resolved as those are the ones that can lead to a collision. If you can't make a zero bearing contact produce some obvious bearing rate with a maneuver, you better get out of Dodge fast....and call the CO.
I put most of the blame on the Navy officers that were sleeping on the job.
Nobody was overseeing the path and direction of Navy ship ????
Of course there were people overseeing the current course and speed: Officer of the deck, Junior Officer of the deck, Quarter Master of the Watch, Helmsman/Throttleman, Radarman, Sonar Operators, Fire Control Operators, etc. All of them have access to course and speed while several of them have access to the tactical picture (ie nearby contacts). Even if the mid-watch, there should have been a watch bill full of dedicated operators...unless our newer ships are so automated to have removed considerable human-interface. When standing OOD back in the day, I had no less than 8 other operators within 25 ft of me at any time...the CO's state room was only 15 ft away. During times of heightened awareness that manpower could double.
My operational experience is 30 yrs old now....but even back then our Fire Control system would have every surface contact plotted with a course, range, and speed....and usually pretty accurately....right down to CPA (closest point of approach). If you don't know the range to a non-maneuvering target where radar may not be accurate (ie a merchant in rain/fog,etc.) then you make a maneuver to solve the range equation. Low or zero bearing rate contacts must be resolved as those are the ones that can lead to a collision. If you can't make a zero bearing contact produce some obvious bearing rate with a maneuver, you better get out of Dodge fast....and call the CO.
Good info.
I still blame the higher trained Navy military officers in a much smaller ship.
I still blame the higher trained Navy military officers in a much smaller ship.
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
Good info.
I still blame the higher trained Navy military officers in a much smaller ship.
Yes. They always end up with the responsibility and blame no matter the reason. The month before I reported to my very first ship, she ran aground coming into a port call during inclement weather. My first upkeep was in a dry dock setting.
The Navy is somewhat top heavy with senior officers. And not every one that wants command of a ship can get it. So the weeding out process includes unexpected events/incidents to shrink the pool.
Good info.
I still blame the higher trained Navy military officers in a much smaller ship.
Yes. They always end up with the responsibility and blame no matter the reason. The month before I reported to my very first ship, she ran aground coming into a port call during inclement weather. My first upkeep was in a dry dock setting.
The Navy is somewhat top heavy with senior officers. And not every one that wants command of a ship can get it. So the weeding out process includes unexpected events/incidents to shrink the pool.
From Wiki:
NYK stated that none of the 20 crew members aboard the container ship, all Filipino, were injured, and that the ship was not leaking oil. They also confirmed their full co-operation with the Japan Coast Guard's investigation of the incident, which began the same day.[6][8] Although the cause of the collision is not yet known, local broadcaster NHK claimed that ACX Crystal made a sharp U-turn just before the collision (based on GPS-transponder data). The ship later continued to Tokyo Bay.[6][9]
Probably only a couple people on the bridge of the merchant. I forgot about the lookouts on the Fitzgerald. We always had 2 top-side look outs with binoculars. Considering the height of the container ship, it's mast head light should have first been visible around 10 miles out....and all running lights easily visible within 5-6 miles assuming clear skies.
I suspect there will be nothing new found in this incident that hasn't occurred before with naval collisions at sea. The human element is always there.
Latest news
NYK stated that none of the 20 crew members aboard the container ship, all Filipino, were injured, and that the ship was not leaking oil. They also confirmed their full co-operation with the Japan Coast Guard's investigation of the incident, which began the same day.[6][8] Although the cause of the collision is not yet known, local broadcaster NHK claimed that ACX Crystal made a sharp U-turn just before the collision (based on GPS-transponder data). The ship later continued to Tokyo Bay.[6][9]
Probably only a couple people on the bridge of the merchant. I forgot about the lookouts on the Fitzgerald. We always had 2 top-side look outs with binoculars. Considering the height of the container ship, it's mast head light should have first been visible around 10 miles out....and all running lights easily visible within 5-6 miles assuming clear skies.
I suspect there will be nothing new found in this incident that hasn't occurred before with naval collisions at sea. The human element is always there.
Latest news
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
I put most of the blame on the Navy officers that were sleeping on the job.
No high ranking officer was overseeing the path and direction of Navy ship ????
Of course you do.
Because you have no idea how a ship is run and you assume the worst in people.
What evidence do you have of sleeping on the job? Oh, that's right...none...no facts have yet emerged other than the death of seven sailors.
I put most of the blame on the Navy officers that were sleeping on the job.
No high ranking officer was overseeing the path and direction of Navy ship ????
Of course you do.
Because you have no idea how a ship is run and you assume the worst in people.
What evidence do you have of sleeping on the job? Oh, that's right...none...no facts have yet emerged other than the death of seven sailors.
Why is everyone discounting terrorism? News reports are now saying the Philippine ship "unexpectedly made a U turn"... The facts are not all out but it looks to me that the merchant ship at least COULD have intentionally rammed the Navy vessel. Remember the USS Cole ambush?
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
I put most of the blame on the Navy officers that were sleeping on the job.
No high ranking officer was overseeing the path and direction of Navy ship ????
Of course you do.
Because you have no idea how a ship is run and you assume the worst in people.
What evidence do you have of sleeping on the job? Oh, that's right...none...no facts have yet emerged other than the death of seven sailors.
I understand taking up for your own but I can't imagine any reasonable excuse. My mind goes to thinking about enemies of all types sneaking up on them to do much more harm than that and it don't give me warm fuzzies.
This is a humiliating incident for the USA.
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
I put most of the blame on the Navy officers that were sleeping on the job.
No high ranking officer was overseeing the path and direction of Navy ship ????
Of course you do.
Because you have no idea how a ship is run and you assume the worst in people.
What evidence do you have of sleeping on the job? Oh, that's right...none...no facts have yet emerged other than the death of seven sailors.
I understand taking up for your own but I can't imagine any reasonable excuse. My mind goes to thinking about enemies of all types sneaking up on them to do much more harm than that and it don't give me warm fuzzies.
This is a humiliating incident for the USA.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
Why is everyone discounting terrorism? News reports are now saying the Philippine ship "unexpectedly made a U turn"... The facts are not all out but it looks to me that the merchant ship at least COULD have intentionally rammed the Navy vessel. Remember the USS Cole ambush?
how long does it take to make the axe crystal turn 180°, do you think?
Why is everyone discounting terrorism? News reports are now saying the Philippine ship "unexpectedly made a U turn"... The facts are not all out but it looks to me that the merchant ship at least COULD have intentionally rammed the Navy vessel. Remember the USS Cole ambush?
how long does it take to make the axe crystal turn 180°, do you think?
I have no idea, but it wouldn't have to be a 180. A 90 degree turn by a passing ship would T-bone another vessel.
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
I have no idea, but it wouldn't have to be a 180. A 90 degree turn by a passing ship would T-bone another vessel.
this is pretty much what I imagine it would be like
Definitely a "terrorist" pattern here, but the true axis of evil is the Sea Floor
So many attacks and why is nobody in the MSM talking about this threat.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/politics/uss-antietam-damaged-japan/index.html
http://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/notorious-ship-grounding-incidents-involving-the-navy
I have no idea, but it wouldn't have to be a 180. A 90 degree turn by a passing ship would T-bone another vessel.
this is pretty much what I imagine it would be like
Definitely a "terrorist" pattern here, but the true axis of evil is the Sea Floor
So many attacks and why is nobody in the MSM talking about this threat.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/politics/uss-antietam-damaged-japan/index.html
http://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/notorious-ship-grounding-incidents-involving-the-navy
Originally Posted By: Astro14
no facts have yet emerged other than the death of seven sailors.
My worst fears are confirmed. I'm so sorry for their families. I hope they get proper recognition from the top levels because they died serving our Nation. There is no higher honor in my opinion. Heaven rest their souls.
no facts have yet emerged other than the death of seven sailors.
My worst fears are confirmed. I'm so sorry for their families. I hope they get proper recognition from the top levels because they died serving our Nation. There is no higher honor in my opinion. Heaven rest their souls.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
I put most of the blame on the Navy officers that were sleeping on the job.
No high ranking officer was overseeing the path and direction of Navy ship ????
Of course you do.
Because you have no idea how a ship is run and you assume the worst in people.
What evidence do you have of sleeping on the job? Oh, that's right...none...no facts have yet emerged other than the death of seven sailors.
Why do you get mad at me for stating my opinion that there is obvious incompetence from senior officers on that Navy ship ?
When I said sleeping on the job.... I should have said total disregard of their duties as leaders in making sure their Navy ship is not in danger and not noticing a very large container ship miles away as 69GTX explained in his post.
Military officers love to brag how many people are under their command, when something goes terribly wrong and people get killed due to their incompetence they refuse to take the blame.
100% of this crash is the fault of the Navy officers, not the much larger and difficult to navigate container ship.
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
I put most of the blame on the Navy officers that were sleeping on the job.
No high ranking officer was overseeing the path and direction of Navy ship ????
Of course you do.
Because you have no idea how a ship is run and you assume the worst in people.
What evidence do you have of sleeping on the job? Oh, that's right...none...no facts have yet emerged other than the death of seven sailors.
Why do you get mad at me for stating my opinion that there is obvious incompetence from senior officers on that Navy ship ?
When I said sleeping on the job.... I should have said total disregard of their duties as leaders in making sure their Navy ship is not in danger and not noticing a very large container ship miles away as 69GTX explained in his post.
Military officers love to brag how many people are under their command, when something goes terribly wrong and people get killed due to their incompetence they refuse to take the blame.
100% of this crash is the fault of the Navy officers, not the much larger and difficult to navigate container ship.
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
100% of this crash is the fault of the Navy officers, not the much larger and difficult to navigate container ship.
Can we please wait for the all of the facts to become public before assigning fault? There are a million things going on in a busy waterway. There are now reports being circulated alleging that the container ship may have veered into the destroyer.
100% of this crash is the fault of the Navy officers, not the much larger and difficult to navigate container ship.
Can we please wait for the all of the facts to become public before assigning fault? There are a million things going on in a busy waterway. There are now reports being circulated alleging that the container ship may have veered into the destroyer.
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
Why is everyone discounting terrorism? News reports are now saying the Philippine ship "unexpectedly made a U turn"... The facts are not all out but it looks to me that the merchant ship at least COULD have intentionally rammed the Navy vessel. Remember the USS Cole ambush?
how long does it take to make the axe crystal turn 180°, do you think?
If the container ship started it at dusk it might have been complete by dawn. Would have taken a supercomputer to calculate that maneuver to hit the Navy Boat.
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
Why is everyone discounting terrorism? News reports are now saying the Philippine ship "unexpectedly made a U turn"... The facts are not all out but it looks to me that the merchant ship at least COULD have intentionally rammed the Navy vessel. Remember the USS Cole ambush?
how long does it take to make the axe crystal turn 180°, do you think?
If the container ship started it at dusk it might have been complete by dawn. Would have taken a supercomputer to calculate that maneuver to hit the Navy Boat.
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
Why is everyone discounting terrorism? News reports are now saying the Philippine ship "unexpectedly made a U turn"... The facts are not all out but it looks to me that the merchant ship at least COULD have intentionally rammed the Navy vessel. Remember the USS Cole ambush?
how long does it take to make the axe crystal turn 180°, do you think?
If the container ship started it at dusk it might have been complete by dawn. Would have taken a supercomputer to calculate that maneuver to hit the Navy Boat.
And there is no radar / navigation / guidance / collision avoidance systems on a modern US Navy ship constantly scanning to 'see' if there's anything near them while cruising in the open waters in poor weather or complete darkness ???
Something is not adding up here...
Those Navy officers will have to explain to the 7 families why sailors died on their watch and under their command.
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
Why is everyone discounting terrorism? News reports are now saying the Philippine ship "unexpectedly made a U turn"... The facts are not all out but it looks to me that the merchant ship at least COULD have intentionally rammed the Navy vessel. Remember the USS Cole ambush?
how long does it take to make the axe crystal turn 180°, do you think?
If the container ship started it at dusk it might have been complete by dawn. Would have taken a supercomputer to calculate that maneuver to hit the Navy Boat.
And there is no radar / navigation / guidance / collision avoidance systems on a modern US Navy ship constantly scanning to 'see' if there's anything near them while cruising in the open waters in poor weather or complete darkness ???
Something is not adding up here...
Those Navy officers will have to explain to the 7 families why sailors died on their watch and under their command.
Doesn't make sense
It seems I have superior situational awareness in my 28 Ft Speed boat to that of the SS Fitzgerald.
Your mom could drive this thing at night only looking at the map and pull right up to the ramp/ dock.
with radars that high you'd see a container ship coming 10-15 miles away and AIS would identify it out to at least 10 miles or more .
If you look at my map AIS is picking the triangle in the upper left corner of the bay, and the red line if the vehicles rudder angel so I can predict and avoid an intercept.
UD
It seems I have superior situational awareness in my 28 Ft Speed boat to that of the SS Fitzgerald.
Your mom could drive this thing at night only looking at the map and pull right up to the ramp/ dock.
with radars that high you'd see a container ship coming 10-15 miles away and AIS would identify it out to at least 10 miles or more .
If you look at my map AIS is picking the triangle in the upper left corner of the bay, and the red line if the vehicles rudder angel so I can predict and avoid an intercept.
UD
Last edited:
- Status
