quote:

but she will be scrapped.

I would hope not. Yes, the damage is pretty severe, but localized. I was on a tanker that ran aground and much of the hull had to be replaced. The ship wasn't scrapped.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
For those reading the tracking information, the Japanese Coast Guard said today that they received the distress call at 1720 GMT, not 1730 as initially reported.

quote:

The Japanese coast guard said it received an emergency call from the container ship, the ACX Crystal, reporting the collision at around 2:20 a.m. (1720 GMT Friday). It was questioning crew members of the ACX Crystal, which is operated by the Japanese shipping company Nippon Yusen K.K., and was treating the incident as a case of possible professional negligence, said Masayuki Obara, a regional coast guard official.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s...=2017-06-17-09-21-07

The story also says that area is very busy with sea traffic and that conditions were clear at the time of the crash.

If that's the case, I have to believe that the Container ship side-swiped the destroyer. If it was an almost dead on collision at around 15 knots, that destroyer likely would've been sliced in half.

How many people on the USS Fitzgerald would of been actively navigating, directing and lookouts?

Have any bodies been recovered?

quote:

Originally posted by LoungeChair:
Maybe. From the look of the damage on the freighter, it may be that the freighter struck the naval obliquely from behind.

I can see how one might come to that conclusion, but, looking at the damage to the destroyer's superstructure I see just the opposite. The damage looks to be pushed aft.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
You can't possibly say whose fault this is at this point without all the information.

True, but, we can surmise from the limited available evidence and knowledge of maritime rules.

quote:

Originally posted by whanson_wi:

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:
So there is no other possible scenario?

There are millions of possible scenarios where this isn't the destroyer's fault.

IANAL versed in Admiralty and Maritime Law, but, what I do know of Colregs tells me there's only one, in this scenario, given the little evidence we have at the moment: Vessel not under command. (Rule 27 -- Vessels Not Under Command or Restricted in Their Ability to Maneuver, Vessel not under command)

In which case she should have been showing the appropriate lights and shapes. Then it would be the freighter's fault.

I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Have any bodies been recovered?

Yes. What of the missing sailors?

quote:

The damage looks to be pushed aft.

Given the freighter had damage on the port bow, that seems impossible.

Since we're all just speculating here....if the Fitz was going faster than the freighter, that would nominally drag debris rearward after impact right?

quote:

Originally posted by preten2b:
Since we're all just speculating here....if the Fitz was going faster than the freighter, that would nominally drag debris rearward after impact right?

Good point.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
For those reading the tracking information, the Japanese Coast Guard said today that they received the distress call at 1720 GMT, not 1730 as initially reported.

quote:

The Japanese coast guard said it received an emergency call from the container ship, the ACX Crystal, reporting the collision at around 2:20 a.m. (1720 GMT Friday). It was questioning crew members of the ACX Crystal, which is operated by the Japanese shipping company Nippon Yusen K.K., and was treating the incident as a case of possible professional negligence, said Masayuki Obara, a regional coast guard official.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s...=2017-06-17-09-21-07

The story also says that area is very busy with sea traffic and that conditions were clear at the time of the crash.

If that's the case, I have to believe that the Container ship side-swiped the destroyer. If it was an almost dead on collision at around 15 knots, that destroyer likely would've been sliced in half.

Like the Frank Evans, sliced in half by the Aussie carrier Melbourne in 1969.

Is the Fitzgerald a steel hull aluminum superstructure vessel?

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:

quote:

The damage looks to be pushed aft.

Given the freighter had damage on the port bow, that seems impossible.

Not impossible, just strange. Really curious to know exactly how this came about. Something about this is not right. Possibly many somethings.

Prayers for the missing sailors, but sadly I can't imagine a positive outcome for them.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
For those reading the tracking information, the Japanese Coast Guard said today that they received the distress call at 1720 GMT, not 1730 as initially reported.

quote:

The Japanese coast guard said it received an emergency call from the container ship, the ACX Crystal, reporting the collision at around 2:20 a.m. (1720 GMT Friday). It was questioning crew members of the ACX Crystal, which is operated by the Japanese shipping company Nippon Yusen K.K., and was treating the incident as a case of possible professional negligence, said Masayuki Obara, a regional coast guard official.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s...=2017-06-17-09-21-07

The story also says that area is very busy with sea traffic and that conditions were clear at the time of the crash.

If that's the case, I have to believe that the Container ship side-swiped the destroyer. If it was an almost dead on collision at around 15 knots, that destroyer likely would've been sliced in half.

Like the Frank Evans, sliced in half by the Aussie carrier Melbourne in 1969.

Is the Fitzgerald a steel hull aluminum superstructure vessel?

No, all steel. The only aluminum is the funnels.

I would bet that the missing sailors are in a berthing area that had to be sealed for flooding, so they wont be found until the ship is in dock and they get divers to either get in there or can pump the compartments of water.

I believe the collision actually occurred here at just before 0130 local time.


The container ship I'm sure felt the impact but did not understand initially the extent of the damage or what they hit. The ship continued underway while an investigation was performed. When the crew finally got to the bow and discovered the extent of the damage, it is then that they reversed course to find out what they hit.

This is the only scenario that makes sense to me as to why they turned around the way they did. They simply had no idea what happened or how bad it was until they put eyes on the damage. It makes sense too that they are knocked off course to STBD considering that most of the damage is to the Port bow.

I can't for the life of me see how this could happen. That Can is bristling with radars, there are radar repeaters all over the bridge, the Old Man's sea cabin is usually just off of the bridge, and there are many, many lookouts on duty, not to mention the guys topside aft sharing a joint or two. Someone really fucked up and from the looks of the damage to the freighter, particularly around the anchor chain area, it very well may have been the USN. No doubt several naval careers were ended yesterday, as they should be. I fear they'll find the missing guys somewhere down in the berthing area. God bless them.

From that first picture of the Fitzgerald, it looks like the P250 Handy Billys (am I dating myself?) are getting a good workout.

Fitzgerald. What's with that name and maritime tragedies?

quote:

Originally posted by bozman:
Intentional?

With the way the container ship turned back, could it have been an intentional act? Possibly the sailors on watch didn't pick up on the turn of the freighter (thought it was a non-issue and didn't pick up on the turn)?

Do we know the nationality of the crew of the container ship?

I don't understand this either...

Unlikely IMO, its not like the Navy ship is yelling "WE ARE A NAVY SHIP" and a container ship isn't exactly the best ship out there for some sorta ad hoc jihaid attack, hoping to find a US Navy ship somewhere.

Not saying it couldn't be the case, just very, very unlikely IMO.

The container ship appears to have been riding much lower in the water at the time of the incident, just by eyeballing the damage to the DDG and the container ship.

No idea about the 180, but there could have been another ship or ships out there that required the turn.

And as to fault, in the eyes of the US Navy it's the Bridge Team, CIC, and lookouts fault. With all the available tools onboard, there is no reason for this to occur, minus the DDG having been complete DIW at the time of the incident. And even then, the lookouts would have had actions they could have taken to signal the container ship (flares, etc).

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
I believe the collision actually occurred here at just before 0130 local time.


The container ship I'm sure felt the impact but did not understand initially the extent of the damage or what they hit. The ship continued underway while an investigation was performed. When the crew finally got to the bow and discovered the extend of the damage, it is then that they reversed course to find out what they hit.

This is the only scenario that makes sense to me as to why they turned around the way they did. They simply had no idea what happened or how bad it was until they put eyes on the damage. It makes sense too that they are knocked off course to STBD considering that most of the damage is to the Port bow.

Makes sense, they hit and kept trucking, then turned around to investigate / assist the DDG.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
I believe the collision actually occurred here at just before 0130 local time.


The container ship I'm sure felt the impact but did not understand initially the extent of the damage or what they hit. The ship continued underway while an investigation was performed. When the crew finally got to the bow and discovered the extend of the damage, it is then that they reversed course to find out what they hit.

This is the only scenario that makes sense to me as to why they turned around the way they did. They simply had no idea what happened or how bad it was until they put eyes on the damage. It makes sense too that they are knocked off course to STBD considering that most of the damage is to the Port bow.

I think this is a very good hypothesis.

The depth of SIG Forum members' naval knowledge is truly impressive.

If the collision actually occurred at 1630 UTC, Marine Traffic says the cargo ship was traveling at 17.3 knots and 112 deg heading

At 1628 UTC, 18.5 knots, 68 deg heading

Balze' hypothesis is the first one that would explain a lot



1630 is when the track appears to do a 90 deg right turn (probably was more like 45 deg, but the data is coming at roughly 2 minute intervals)


1627 UTC 18.5 knots / 68 deg

1628 UTC 18.5 knots / 68 deg

1630 UTC 17.3 knots / 112 deg

1633 UTC 11.2 knots / 118 deg

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

That changes things quite a bit.

Now looks like the Destroyer was traveling faster than the cargo ship and hit her.
The cargo ship than did a 180 to have a look.