With the damage to the destroyer, I'm surprised we don't see more damage to the bulbous bow. Yes, it's greatly fortified, but most of the hull paint is still in tact. I think I see what looks like one dent near the top of it.

Navy investigating
U.S. Coast Guard investigating
Japanese Transport Safety board investigating
Japanese Coast Guard investigating

The safety board is focusing on the cause of the collision and the lessons to be learned, while Japan’s coast guard is investigating possible professional negligence in the accident.

The collision occurred in Japanese waters, but it is uncertain if Japanese authorities will have access to U.S. investigation results because the U.S. military has the primary right to investigate U.S. warships involved in accidents under a bilateral Status of Forces Agreement.

Following a 2009 collision between a U.S. naval ship and a Japanese boat, Japanese authorities were not allowed access to the warship investigation, Japanese transport officials said.

http://www.seattletimes.com/na...s-warship-collision/

quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:
I do know you cannot weld aluminum to steel and they cannot be touching, they need to be isolated due to galvanic corrosion and they use a synthetic material in between the two metals.

You most certainly can weld the two together....you just have to use a "datacoupler".

The USCG has over 80 ships with steel hulls and aluminum superstructures...they are joined with a datacoupler-which is literally a strip of the two types of metal that were compressed under explosives; such that the two metals are now one....when the side of the metal strip is unpainted you can actually see the two different types of metal.

What you're calling a datacoupler is properly called "bimetallic transition inserts" they are not considered either steel or aluminum...... yes both metals are fused together to make one but the fusing process transforms the properties as well of both metals.

Exactly....the military uses a transition insert which is a synthetic (man made) material. Just like how carbon becomes a diamond, heat and pressure. It is now a different material and will never go back to what it was prior. When you consider that you compress the two metals under explosives you're fusing the two metals together into one metal, 2 metals with properties they typically do not have changing it into a different metal with a different property than either steel or aluminum......you cannot directly weld aluminum to steel without something in between the two metals...so the Navy is welding the aluminum side to the formerly aluminum side of the thermocoupler, and the steel to the formerly steel side..... a coupler is something that joins 2 dissimilar things together...You CANNOT weld aluminum plate directly to steel plate....it won't happen. On yachts there is a simpler synthetic material that they put between the two haves......Aluminum is a lot lighter than steel for it's weight, but not nearly as good as steel when it comes to puncture resistance. It does have good impact resistance but not puncture. Steel is the strongest all around ship building material, but also the heaviest in weight.

However, I just ran a HEAVY aluminum sportfish with a tower around 65' that ran over a whale at 25 mph in california, to where it completely brought the boat to a dead stop and killed the whale and didn't hurt the boat at all.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jimmy123x,

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
Regarding the photo sdy posted above, I'm a little surprised there isn't a tarp or something keeping eyes away from the hull.

There is absolutely nothing special about that hull design, so no reason to hide it.

6guns may have been concerned about the picture showing the SQS 53 sonar dome.

At one time that probably was considered sensitive. But that design has been used for quite a while now.

DDG 62 was commissioned in 1995. When the SQS 53 actively transmits, many countries could have recorded the acoustic transmissions and developed an understanding of frequencies, pulse length, even transmit power.

Comparing the 2 pictures,

Given how high the Crystal bow rail is from the water line, the ellipse is a general indicator of where it probably struck DDG 62

The SLQ-32 platform is there, but the SLQ-32 itself isn't visible

At the bottom, that bent up mess was formerly flat. Now it actually sticks out over the side

The section that has the number "3" on it appears to have broken along weld seams at the top and left side. It is oriented downward when it used to be horizontal.

The bottom right section has 4 small red circles. Comparing the undamaged to the damaged, the left side of that section has been significantly pushed towards the bow.

Still hard to envision how Crystal did so much damage while coming out of it with so little on the Crystal hull.

The gash on the front of the Crystal bow must have occurred somewhere in the middle of the highest damage area.

The bulbous bow would have hit on an angle rather than straight in. 6guns noted in one of the bulb pics there is a dent in the left side of the bulb.

There are horizontal lines from the top and bottom of the dent. Those lines might be scrape marks of the bulb penetration. The lines are 10 feet long.

Some of it lines up, but still hard to see exactly how the Crystal penetrated and then disengaged from DDG 62.

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

By Tim Kelly

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.

In the first detailed account from one of those directly involved, the cargo ship's captain said the ACX Crystal had signalled with flashing lights after the Fitzgerald "suddenly" steamed on to a course to cross its path.

The container ship steered hard to starboard (right) to avoid the warship, but hit the Fitzgerald 10 minutes later at 1:30 a.m., according to a copy of Captain Ronald Advincula's report to Japanese ship owner Dainichi Investment Corporation that was seen by Reuters.

The U.S. Navy declined to comment and Reuters was not able to independently verify the account.

The collision tore a gash below the Fitzgerald's waterline, killing seven sailors in what was the greatest loss of life on a U.S. Navy vessel since the USS Cole was bombed in Yemen's Aden harbour in 2000.

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.

A spokesman for the U.S. Navy's Seventh Fleet in Yokosuka, the Fitzgerald's home port, said he was unable to comment on an ongoing investigation.

The incident has spurred six investigations, including two internal hearings by the U.S. Navy and a probe by the United States Coast Guard (USCG) on behalf of the National Transportation Safety Board. The Japan Transport Safety Board, the JCG and the Philippines government are also conducting separate investigations.

Spokesmen from the Japan Coast Guard (JCG), U.S. Coast Guard and ship owner, Dainichi Invest, also declined to comment. Reuters was not able to contact Advincula, who was no longer in Japan.

The investigations will examine witness testimony and electronic data to determine how a naval destroyer fitted with sophisticated radar could be struck by a vessel more than three times its size.

Another focus of the probes has been the length of time it took the ACX Crystal to report the collision. The JCG says it was first notified at 2:25 a.m., nearly an hour after the accident.

In his report, the ACX Crystal's captain said there was "confusion" on his ship's bridge, and that it turned around and returned to the collision site after continuing for 6 nautical miles (11 km).

Shipping data in Thomson Reuters Eikon shows that the ACX Crystal, chartered by Japan's Nippon Yusen KK, made a complete U-turn between 12:58 a.m. and 2:46 a.m. (Reporting by Tim Kelly; Additional reporting by Nobuhiro Kubo; Editing by Alex Richardson)

Link

Does anyone anticipate the completion of the offical US Navy investigation in anything less than 6-12 months?

All those multi-million dollar electronic gizmos and yet this still happened on a night with clear weather conditions.
A regular sailor from 200 years ago on a square rigger, standing watch, could have easily prevented this.

quote:

The container ship steered hard to starboard (right) to avoid the warship, but hit the Fitzgerald 10 minutes later at 1:30 a.m., according to a copy of Captain Ronald Advincula's report to Japanese ship owner Dainichi Investment Corporation that was seen by Reuters

The data from Crystal and the data from DDG 62 should be able to definitively prove or disprove that statement.

The Marine Traffic data has Crystal at 68 deg from 115 am to 127 am. The statement above says Crystal did a hard right at 120.

The fact that Marine Traffic has Crystal course at 112 deg at 130am, would support a hard right turn just before the collision.

The distance Crystal traveled from 127 to 130 am was about 1 mile

I sure hope the Norks don't have any container ships.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:

quote:

The container ship steered hard to starboard (right) to avoid the warship, but hit the Fitzgerald 10 minutes later at 1:30 a.m., according to a copy of Captain Ronald Advincula's report to Japanese ship owner Dainichi Investment Corporation that was seen by Reuters

The data from Crystal and the data from DDG 62 should be able to definitively prove or disprove that statement.

The Marine Traffic data has Crystal at 68 deg from 115 am to 127 am. The statement above says Crystal did a hard right at 120.

The fact that Marine Traffic has Crystal course at 112 deg at 130am, would support a hard right turn just before the collision.

Yep, that doesn't make a lick of sense.

I fully realize the speeds and distances it takes to maneuver these large ships, but hard right ten minutes before colliding?

It also likely means a crossing situation rather then overtaking.

Since I don't know anything about such things, I need to ask those in the know. How close, both in time & distance can these two get to each other and still have the time (and/or distance) to maneuver & avoid this collision?

quote:

The container ship steered hard to starboard (right) to avoid the warship, but hit the Fitzgerald 10 minutes later at 1:30 a.m., according to a copy of Captain Ronald Advincula's report to Japanese ship owner Dainichi Investment Corporation that was seen by Reuters.

The U.S. Navy declined to comment and Reuters was not able to independently verify the account.

Most accurate and important part of the quote bolded.

Exclusive: U.S. warship stayed on deadly collision course despite warning - container ship captain

http://www.reuters.com/article...lusive-idUSKBN19H13C

It depends on who was burdened and who was privileged.

If they were crossing, the destroyer was required to maneuver to avoid. If the destroyer was being overtaken, it is required to maintain course and speed. This was discussed a few pages back.

In addition to lights, ship's whistles are to be sounded 7 short 1 long, IIRC.

quote:

Originally posted by vinnybass:
Since I don't know anything about such things, I need to ask those in the know. How close, both in time & distance can these two get to each other and still have the time (and/or distance) to maneuver & avoid this collision?

It depends on many things. When they get to a position that no combination of rudder and engine on either ship will avoid a collision, that is called "in extremis." It can be a long time and a long way, because ships are hard to stop and do not turn quickly, the bigger they are.

I think it may have been JALLEN who at one point said, "The graveyard is full of motorcycle riders that had the right-of-way."

Or something similar.

not sure of the data source, but here is a very detailed video of Crystal track. (don't know which tracking service this is)

from vesselfinder.com

Note time is in the upper left corner

https://youtu.be/m1b58yelh_c

from the report:

http://www.maritime-executive....onse-from-fitzgerald

The last statement is

"On Friday, Navy officials speaking to the Washington Free Beacon said that the Crystal was on autopilot at the time of the collision, with no crew member "manning the controls." "

I wouldn't give that much credibility given no one else reported it. Remains to be seen

adding: since there is so much concern about autopilot, I should clarify. If there was no crew member at the controls when the collision occurred, that makes the Crystal's Captain remarks about a hard right turn 10 min before the crash sound untrue.

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

I guess it depends what is meant by "at the controls."

The bridge of a ship has all sorts of equipment. The controls have to include the wheel used to steer the ship, and the engine order telegraph used to communicate engine commands to the engine room below decks where a crewman is on watch to set engine power, ahead, back, what rpm, etc.

I imagine an autopilot would handle the wheel controlling the rudder (s). That could be overridden by a crewman as needed, assuming there is one on watch. A radar display, navigation gear, radios are all conveniently located.

On the Navy bridges I have been on, there are two sailors "at the controls" a helmsman at the wheel and a lee helmsman on the engine order telegraph, plus a quartermaster recording commands in the ship's log and other events, one or more phone talkers in constant contact with CIC where the radar watch works, lookouts nearby, a messenger or two, often a Junior OOD, all kinds of activity, all under the control of the Officer of the Deck, who is in charge of the ship while the Captain isn't.

In my day, visual and radar contacts were assigned "bogey" names, alpha, baker, charlie, etc. and a nonrated sailor kept a board up to date with pertinent info on all active contacts.

I would like to find the data to compute how long the container ship would take to make a complete circle at hard right rudder. To go hard right rudder, then collide ten minutes later seems like nonsense.