quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

quote:

Originally posted by OcCurt:
To the Navy guys on the board:

How much damage can a modern ship take and still fight effectively? Or even fight at all?

The Stark took a single missile hit and almost sank. The Cole took the equivalent of a single missile hit and almost sank. The damage the Fitzgerald took seems about equivalent to a missile hit and appears to be combat ineffective as a result. British warships in the Falklands were taken completely out of action by single hits, several destroyed outright by fire or sinking. Several US Navy ships hit mines in DS/DS and were crippled.

I mean, these are warships right? Taking hits and damage yet still being able to fight would be part of their design, right?

You can't change physics. A single hit from a missle to a ship is a huge impact. When they build these ships, it's all a balance of strength, speed, and maneuverability. Sure, you could build a destroyer to survive multiple hits ad still fight, BUT then it would only go 10 mph, so what good is that. It would be totally ineffective at fighting due to it's slow speed. Or you could build fast AND strong but so big it wouldn't turn worth a darn and still be ineffective.

The truth is small fleet cans are expendable and will try to draw fire from the carrier. The carrier is king, the others are pawns.

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
Looking at the various plot posts, I'm still a bit confused about "our" suspected point of collision. If it's where I think it is, why does the freighter make jog to starboard and then back to port to continue on long before the u turn. It make me think they knew about the collision long before actually making the u turn.

They did a Williamson turn, which is a turn to bring a ship back to the same point while under power (without stopping and reversing which would take a long time in a freighter) In order for a ship to get back to the same spot, you steer to starboard 60 degrees for a period of time/distance (depending on your speed, turning radius, and length) and then make a sharp left turn to make a 180 and you will end up in the same spot. If you make an immediate hard right or left turn you will end up far behind whatever it is you hit or the MOB.

I know what a Williamson turn is. I'm referring to the short jog to starboard right after the speculated collision, which tells me they knew they hit something. Then they went on a straight path before performing their Williamson turn. It was during that straight path that I assume they were trying to decide what action to take and probably in contact with their office for recommendations.

You're right and after looking at the AIS track of the freighter again. I too think 1:30am was the collision. I think the starboard turn WAS the collision. I think the freighter hit the destroyer without ever seeing it and the actual collision shifted the path of the freighter and made it turn hard over or about 90 degrees to starboard. That's a pretty hard collision and then the autopilot (which I'm sure the ship was on prior to the collision) and was probably still on and the autopilot brought it back to the same course. I believe the freighter knew they hit something, but wasn't sure what, then they took 30 minutes to damage assess as they needed to send crew to the bow to inspect, inspect inside of the bow and make sure they weren't taking on water, wake the Captain. At 2:03 they realized they collided with something (a ship) of size and not something floating under the surface or bottom and turned around to go back and render assistance.

At this time the destroyer was doing it's own disaster mitigation and if it's communications room was destroyed, might have taken 30 minutes to get to a working VHF radio.....either a handheld or one in one of the small boats on the ship or something.

I agree there is no way the ship did a U turn for no apparent reason and then hit the destroyer 10-15 minutes later.

I also agree, there is NO WAY to see the damage to the bow from the bridge. With all those containers on there, they cannot even see the bow......maybe only 200 yards in front of the bow and further forward. They had to send a crew member(s) up there to visually inspect it. I'm sure they FELT they hit something from the bridge and throughout the ship. But saw it, no.

I think BH described what happened. My version is Iron Mike had the conn. There was a noticeable thump, bump. Everyone got their pants on and ran around trying to figure out what it was. When they realized the possibility, they turned around and headed back, as is required if there is a collision at sea. In the meantime, they called back to consult with HQ. I don't believe the track shows any slowing immediately after the presumed hit.

Maybe they also heard calls from the ship on Ch.16 etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by f2:
Vice speculating. Hold your horses. This isn't russia. Is this russia?

I'll tell you this, I am 100% positive the collision did not happen at 0220 that the Navy is reporting and 100% positive that it did not happen at 0230 that Fox News is reporting. 100%.

All that from mainstream media reports and internet ship tracks (and more than likely 24/7 cable talking heads). Wow. That's why if you want speculation, go to the wardroom. If you want action, you go to the Chief's Mess.

quote:

Originally posted by f2:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by f2:
Vice speculating. Hold your horses. This isn't russia. Is this russia?

I'll tell you this, I am 100% positive the collision did not happen at 0220 that the Navy is reporting and 100% positive that it did not happen at 0230 that Fox News is reporting. 100%.

All that from mainstream media reports and internet ship tracks (and more than likely 24/7 cable talking heads). Wow. That's why if you want speculation, go to the wardroom. If you want action, you go to the Chief's Mess.

The AIS path on Marine Traffic and AIS data is spot on and accurate. It's how ships all over the world avoid each other.

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:


The AIS path on Marine Traffic and AIS data is spot on and accurate. It's how ships all over the world avoid each other.

Most of the time.

Maybe radar and Mark 1 Mod 0 Eyeballs aren't completely outmoded.

I watched ships come and go in San Diego Harbor via AIS and APRS for years, and it is quite accurate.

We're looking at a scale that makes it less useful for see and avoid.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:


The AIS path on Marine Traffic and AIS data is spot on and accurate. It's how ships all over the world avoid each other.

Most of the time.

Maybe radar and Mark 1 Mod 0 Eyeballs aren't completely outmoded.

I watched ships come and go in San Diego Harbor via AIS and APRS for years, and it is quite accurate.

We're looking at a scale that makes it less useful for see and avoid.

No, AIS is an aid to navigation, not a replacement. The AIS boats show on your actual radar, at that point it will also show the AIS boats current heading, you can then click on the ais boat on the screen and pull up all sorts of info, length, type, speed, current heading, name etc etc......But radar and visual navigation come first.....AT night you're primarily navigating from Radar, then eyeball as it's hard to see navigational lights and determine exact direction, but especially distance of another ship or it's speed unless you watch it for a minute....

quote:

Originally posted by f2:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by f2:
Vice speculating. Hold your horses. This isn't russia. Is this russia?

I'll tell you this, I am 100% positive the collision did not happen at 0220 that the Navy is reporting and 100% positive that it did not happen at 0230 that Fox News is reporting. 100%.

All that from mainstream media reports and internet ship tracks (and more than likely 24/7 cable talking heads). Wow. That's why if you want speculation, go to the wardroom. If you want action, you go to the Chief's Mess.

100%.

And to the contrary to your statement, it wasn't until I decided to ignore the information coming from the media and "24/7 cable talking heads" and just look at the AIS information and damage pics objectively that it dawned on me that the collision had to have happened at 0130.

I'm making this assessment from the information at hand and my experience. Period. Not what the clueless mouthpieces are saying on TV.

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

quote:

Originally posted by f2:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by f2:
Vice speculating. Hold your horses. This isn't russia. Is this russia?

I'll tell you this, I am 100% positive the collision did not happen at 0220 that the Navy is reporting and 100% positive that it did not happen at 0230 that Fox News is reporting. 100%.

All that from mainstream media reports and internet ship tracks (and more than likely 24/7 cable talking heads). Wow. That's why if you want speculation, go to the wardroom. If you want action, you go to the Chief's Mess.

The AIS path on Marine Traffic and AIS data is spot on and accurate. It's how ships all over the world avoid each other.

Clearly not always accurate, perfect, or competently used...

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

quote:

Originally posted by f2:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by f2:
Vice speculating. Hold your horses. This isn't russia. Is this russia?

I'll tell you this, I am 100% positive the collision did not happen at 0220 that the Navy is reporting and 100% positive that it did not happen at 0230 that Fox News is reporting. 100%.

All that from mainstream media reports and internet ship tracks (and more than likely 24/7 cable talking heads). Wow. That's why if you want speculation, go to the wardroom. If you want action, you go to the Chief's Mess.

The AIS path on Marine Traffic and AIS data is spot on and accurate. It's how ships all over the world avoid each other.

Clearly not always accurate, perfect, or competently used...

I'm a USCG 500 Gross Ton master. While nowhere near qualified to Captain either the destroyer or the freighter, I'm more qualified than a lot of normal Captains. I do a lot of nautical miles in the ocean on deliveries on different yachts mostly around 70', some larger some smaller. More miles per year than most people drive cars. Around 15,000 NM's which equated to 17,250 miles. Every year since 2004 (and some but less from 1999-2004 about half that each year.) I also do some night voyages and we are extremely diligent about watching out for commercial traffic and tracking them since we're a heck of a lot smaller.

What I have seen from the vessel's AIS reporting system on my electronics has always been accurate. I have never personally seen a glitch or something off in the data reported and broadcast via AIS. That all ships within range and with an AIS reciever will recieve. Could it be wrongly reported via one of the stations to Marine Traffic dot com, yes, but it's very rare.

That being said, user error or bad judgement makes up the vast majority of major losses on ships, over 90% of them actually.

I haven't looked at any of the news feeds at all on this. I looked at the AIS and saw an instant 90 degree turn and determined it to be the place of impact based on the damage and made my judgement just like the rest of the maritime professionals that have given their view. I personally don't think the freighter could've normally made a turn that sharp, that quickly 90 degrees (on AIS) without some external force pushing it, Ie. impact with the destroyer. If you look at all of the other ships turns, they're a lot wider.

ALSO, I will go as far and say that it was the destroyers fault. A ship (destroyer) crossing the freighters bow from left to right (port to starboard) does not have right of way, it is the give way ship. In open ocean a ship crossing in front of the starboard side of the other ship has right of way. I determine this based on the collision on the port bow of the freighter and starboard side of the destroyer. Either way, a cargo freighter puts/displays a massive target/image on even the cheapest of radar's, let alone one advanced as a US Destroyer would have.

I also feel the destroyer was probably at around a 45 degree angle to the freighter when they hit,both sort of going in the same general direction, if it was a direct hit (t-bone) that cargo ship would've sliced that destroyer into 2 pieces like a knife through hot butter. The destroyer got VERY lucky.

But, these are just my thoughts.....interpret them as you wish.

Vietnam era sailor, DOD/Navy contractor, turned in my CAC at the end of 2013 upon retirement. Ship movement not my forte.

Saddened by our loss, condolences to the families, and especially to the shipmates that had to dog their friends in.

We are lacking in solid information, one point to remember is the commercial ships small crew size, and its duty not to sink too.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:


I'm making this assessment from the information at hand and my experience. Period. Not what the clueless mouthpieces are saying on TV.

It is the media's job to provide the facts at hand, not drag us into the deep dark woods of ignorance and uncertainty with incompetence, superstition, speculation and political correctness.

DDG 62 starboard side before damage

most of the collision damage is in the middle third of this pic

*******************

"I also feel the destroyer was probably at around a 45 degree angle to the freighter when they hit,both sort of going in the same general direction"

very similar to my thoughts.

I was actually thinking an angle less than 45 deg. (based on port damage of Crystal)

w Crystal at 68 deg course, DDG 62 may have been heading in a generally easterly direction

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sdy,

The theory that the cargo ship's adjustment at 1:15am to avoid the island was not caught by the destroyer for 15 minutes prior to the collision makes the most sense to me. It allows for the shallow angle strike, with the destroyer going faster than the cargo ship.

Would they have plotted its course more frequently than 15 minutes? If they had already decided their paths weren't going to cross, or where going to cross with an acceptable margin of safety, at what point would they have noticed a change?

And if their radio room was destroyed, their delay in notification makes sense. Except one would expect a Navy destroyer to have some satellite phones, and their skipper being nearly killed and 7 missing sailors would seem to be a reason to use one.

quote:

Originally posted by f2:
Vice speculating. Hold your horses. This isn't russia. Is this russia?

You watch too much TV.

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
The theory that the cargo ship's adjustment at 1:15am to avoid the island was not caught by the destroyer for 15 minutes prior to the collision makes the most sense to me. It allows for the shallow angle strike, with the destroyer going faster than the cargo ship.

Would they have plotted its course more frequently than 15 minutes? If they had already decided their paths weren't going to cross, or where going to cross with an acceptable margin of safety, at what point would they have noticed a change?

And if their radio room was destroyed, their delay in notification makes sense. Except one would expect a Navy destroyer to have some satellite phones, and their skipper being nearly killed and 7 missing sailors would seem to be a reason to use one.

Yes, someone should be plotting nearly every minute with a vessel in such close proximity. If you acquire a target on radar you set up an EBL and VRM and basically just watch the target on radar either follow down your line or away from it etc. The ships course adjustment was enough that someone should have noticed it within a minute.....we're not talking about a 2 degree adjustment which is within a normal amount of error.

I'm still struggling to come up with an explanation for how another ship got within a mile of an operating Navy warship without that Navy warship doing something to avoid it.

It's as though nobody in the Navy crew lifted a finger, Captain asleep, etc.

There is no credible explanation I can come up with.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:


I'm making this assessment from the information at hand and my experience. Period. Not what the clueless mouthpieces are saying on TV.

It is the media's job to provide the facts at hand, not drag us into the deep dark woods of ignorance and uncertainty with incompetence, superstition, speculation and political correctness.

I might suggest it's the media's job to sell advertising, providing factual or accurate information is quite far down the priority list.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
I'm still struggling to come up with an explanation for how another ship got within a mile of an operating Navy warship without that Navy warship doing something to avoid it.

It's as though nobody in the Navy crew lifted a finger, Captain asleep, etc.

There is no credible explanation I can come up with.

The credible explanation is they fucked up, bad.

Either an aligning of all the cheese holes to make it happen, or that ship was fucked up like Hogans goat.

I'd imagine is was just an aligning of inattention, complacency, and stupidity, all at the wrong time.

Fascinating commentary and analysis as well as a tragic loss of life.