So, a warship with millions of dollars in sophisticated radar and sensors, a CIC staffed with sailors focused on threat detection and avoidance, look outs all over the ship scanning for anything the sensors might miss, and a bridge crew coordinating all of those efforts and while maintaining the ability to make drastic changes in course and speed.... got hit by a cargo ship 10x it's size?

Seems a lot like a corvette running around an abandoned airport with people standing up through the T-tops looking for obstructions, and some how managing to get surprised and hit by a metro bus.

All charts, graphs, timelines aside, there is something really wrong here. How do that many people tasked with the safety and security of a vessel... fail?

It seems to me that the US Navy spends a lot of time and money to train professionals to man warships so that they are safe from harm. Given history over the last few decades it appears it is a pretty good system. This just baffles me that so many well designed redundancies could fail.

My only question regarding this is the speed of the freighter faster than the destroyer. Based on photos of the damage, it seems the destroyer had to be traveling faster.

I don't know much about Navy ops, but how often would a Navy ship at sea, in shipping lanes, be steaming that much slower than a merchant ship?

6guns why does the damage indicate higher speed ?

The higher the DDG 62 speed, it would likely be less damage in this scenario.

I don't know, but it seems unlikely DDG 62 would be higher than 18 kts at 0130 on a normal mission. (that is a guess on my part)

sdy, only based on the apparent pushing aft of the structure. I say apparent as who really knows, but that's what it looks like. For that to happen, the speed of the destroyer would had to have been greater.

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
My only question regarding this is the speed of the freighter faster than the destroyer. Based on photos of the damage, it seems the destroyer had to be traveling faster.

I don't know much about Navy ops, but how often would a Navy ship at sea, in shipping lanes, be steaming that much slower than a merchant ship?

Just my assumption here, Balze should know... Merchant ships are trying to expedite delivery of cargo at optimum fuel burn rate to get to a port that generally operates 24/7.
Navy ships, during peacetime, operate on a schedule to moor at a pier that generally isn't staffed 24/7, so it's possible the merchant was running faster.

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
My only question regarding this is the speed of the freighter faster than the destroyer. Based on photos of the damage, it seems the destroyer had to be traveling faster.

I don't know much about Navy ops, but how often would a Navy ship at sea, in shipping lanes, be steaming that much slower than a merchant ship?

Just my assumption here. Merchant ships are trying to expedite delivery of cargo at optimum fuel burn rate to get to a port that generally operates 24/7.
Navy ships, during peacetime, operate on a schedule to moor at a pier that generally isn't staffed 24/7, so it's possible the merchant was running faster.

Point taken.

When you say pushing aft, that implies a head on collision w the 2 ships approaching each other.

W DDG 62 damage on starboard, and Crystal damage on port, it seems like the 2 ships could not have been heading towards each other.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
When you say pushing aft, that implies a head on collision w the 2 ships approaching each other.

W DDG 62 damage on starboard, and Crystal damage on port, it seems like the 2 ships could not have been heading towards each other.

My supposition would be that all of these guesses depend on the angle of impact. Funny things happen depending on the angle and contact points, especially when both objects are under power.

We're not talking about 2 vertical surfaces intersecting at a specific angle.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
When you say pushing aft, that implies a head on collision w the 2 ships approaching each other.

W DDG 62 damage on starboard, and Crystal damage on port, it seems like the 2 ships could not have been heading towards each other.

That's not what I mean. At the angle you describe, which I agree with, during collision, would cause steel on the destroyer to be pushed in an afterward direction, had the destroyer been traveling faster.

got it

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
My only question regarding this is the speed of the freighter faster than the destroyer. Based on photos of the damage, it seems the destroyer had to be traveling faster.

I don't know much about Navy ops, but how often would a Navy ship at sea, in shipping lanes, be steaming that much slower than a merchant ship?

Just my assumption here, Balze should know... Merchant ships are trying to expedite delivery of cargo at optimum fuel burn rate to get to a port that generally operates 24/7.
Navy ships, during peacetime, operate on a schedule to moor at a pier that generally isn't staffed 24/7, so it's possible the merchant was running faster.

Top speed of a cargo is around 20 knots. Running speed is around 15 knots (cost of fuel savings out weighs cost of wear and tear on the propulsion system vs few days saved underway).

Most merchant ships travel slower than that. I do believe container ships try to make faster speeds with quicker turn around. Tankers, where I spent most of my career, usually make 12-15 knots.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Mixing what we think is true with some speculation, here is one possible scenario

Crystal was at 18.5 kts (21 mph) on course 68 deg at time of collision. Collision was either 0128 or 0129 local time

(above is very likely given Marine Traffic data)

The angle between DDG 62 and Crystal was in the range of 20 to 30 degrees

(a guess given the damage area of the Crystal was only on the port bow)

If your assumption is correct, this could be a situation where the container ship was technically overtaking the Navy ship. If so, it is the overtaking vessel's responsibility to keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken. (See the full rule below)

As I alluded to earlier, the radar signature of a destroyer from behind can be very small. Moreover, depending on the angle, the only visible light from the destroyer was probably just her stern light (if even on), and I'd venture to say that the stern light for this Navy ship is not overly bright.

But again, that doesn't answer the question as to why the Navy vessel didn't take action to avoid a collision. That is still the responsibility of both ships, obviously.

RULE 13: OVERTAKING
(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules [of Part B, Sections I and II / 4 through 18], any vessel overtaking any other shall keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken.

(b) A vessel shall be deemed to be overtaking when coming up with a another vessel from a direction more than 22.5 degrees abaft her beam, that is, in such a position with reference to the vessel she is overtaking, that at night she would be able to see only the sternlight of that vessel but neither of her sidelights.

(c) When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether she is overtaking another, she shall assume that this is the case and act accordingly.

(d) Any subsequent alteration of the bearing between the two vessels shall not make the overtaking vessel a crossing vessel within the meaning of these Rules or relieve her of the duty of keeping clear of the overtaken vessel until she is finally past and clear.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:

This “coming from behind” geometry is probably not where most of the DDG 62 bridge watch would be focused. And it is poor from a visibility standpoint given the ship structure.

don't forget the aft lookout.

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:

I fall back to my initial conclusions, the bridge of the DDG was lollygagging around and not standing a proper and disciplined watch which leads to the question - was this just the nature of those individuals on watch which was amplified when the four to six of them were together; was this watch section so familiar with the routine they lost situational awareness; or was this watch section indicative of all the watch sections under this CO's command?

Agreed.

Lots of people asleep at the wheel, or goofing off, whathaveyou.

It's the only way this kind of thing could have happened.

Inattention, lack of leadership and discipline on the watch section, maybe the whole ship.

In one of the news site links posted in this thread yesterday, a journalist wrote that the Navy ship had a skeleton crew on board. I've not seen a mention of that anywhere else. The ship may have been undermanned and underway in some specific situation or unusual circumstance but certainly not the norm.

quote:

Originally posted by Hobbs:
In one of the news site links posted in this thread yesterday, a journalist wrote that the Navy ship had a skeleton crew on board. I've not seen a mention of that anywhere else. The ship may have been undermanned and underway in some specific situation or unusual circumstance but certainly not the norm.

Take that with a grain of salt and today's journalists ability to accurately report what they hear.

It is like the reporter heard "at the time, there was a skeleton crew..." meaning, "at 0100 there was a skeleton crew awake and on duty."

We cruised at 8-12 kts and had unlimited fuel. 18 is getting into the low ahead full range and on gas boats would burn a lot of fuel needlessly.

quote:

Originally posted by Hobbs:
In one of the news site links posted in this thread yesterday, a journalist wrote that the Navy ship had a skeleton crew on board. I've not seen a mention of that anywhere else. The ship may have been undermanned and underway in some specific situation or unusual circumstance but certainly not the norm.

Agree with what LS1 GTO says about the validity of a media statement like that.

But if it were manned abnormally, even more reason the leadership (CO, XO, senior O-4) should have been integrated into the watch standing routine. IE, taken a firmer hand / watch over things to ensure more compliance.

I've seen that in squadrons when they get mothballed for awhile, or have a minor incident / issues. Each flight is led by a more senior individual, more senior maintainers are on the launch, etc. Steps are taken to rein everyone in to make sure people are doing things right.

Hence the name, leadership.

Because stuff like this rarely just 'happens', because it shouldn't happen. Multiple safeguards failed to allow it to occur.

The Navy isn't disputing anything speculative or otherwise in the media or information other maritime agencies promulgate and isn't forthcoming with very much information. In this digital and social media age, ship's crew is putting little if anything out there. With op tempo in that part of the world lately, who knows what the Navy may have been trying to do. Was the ship ordered not to deviate from course, was protecting a sub or something else on the surface (yeah, I'm really reaching here) ... frantically tried to contact Crystal but the bridge was unmanned? It's all very bizarre.