The Briefing Room
General Category => Military/Defense News => Topic started by: rangerrebew on June 19, 2017, 08:37:50 am
-
June 18, 2017
Something is fishy about USS Fitzgerald story we are getting from the media
By Thomas Lifson
Under no circumstances should a US Navy vessel possibly be damaged by a container ship at sea. Multiple systems exist to prevent this. Even CNN is noticing how little we know about the catastrophe that took the lives of seven sailors and almost caused a powerful warship to founder.
The USS Fitzgerald, an anti-ballistic missile destroyer that was part of the USS Ronald Reagan carrier strike group, will no longer be ready to defend the carrier and other ships from missile attacks launched from North Korea, should push come to shove in the current confrontation with the rogue regime on the threshold of the capability to attack New York, Los Angeles, and our power grid with nuclear missiles. This is an incident that could affect the outcome of a nuclear confrontation of historic moment.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/06/something_is_fishy_about_uss_fitzgerald_story_we_are_getting_from_the_media.html#ixzz4kR4HloVS
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
-
So far the story doesn't make much sense. The destroyer has numerous radar systems to identify what is around the ship updating at a high rate of speed, transponder or no transponder. A huge freighter is hardly stealthy. The freighter likely has a bulbous bow under the water line that penetrated the destroyer below the water line. The destroyer is also likely low in the water due to all the water it has taken on hiding more of the damage.
-
Even if the cargo ship wanted to ram through navy ship there is no way it could have. Unless the navy crew was asleep.
-
Discussion by maritime type people here: http://forum.gcaptain.com/t/uss-fitzgerald-collides-with-acx-crystal-off-coast-of-japan/45129
-
Thank you Drago - interesting read.
-
http://gcaptain.com/us-navy-destroyer-collides-container-ship/
The track shows that the containership was traveling on a course of 068 degrees and a speed of 18.5 knots prior to the collision. At 16:30 UTC the vessel alters course to starboard. We do not know if the course change was a result of the collision or an attempt to avoid it.
(http://3kbo302xo3lg2i1rj8450xje.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Fullscreen_6_16_17__8_48_PM.jpg)
AIS Track of the ACX Crystal during the time of collision with the USS Fitzgerald Image via MarineTraffic.com.
-
But the real question is did the USN have a full complement of homos and trannies on board?
-
http://gcaptain.com/us-navy-destroyer-collides-container-ship/
The track shows that the containership was traveling on a course of 068 degrees and a speed of 18.5 knots prior to the collision. At 16:30 UTC the vessel alters course to starboard. We do not know if the course change was a result of the collision or an attempt to avoid it.
(http://3kbo302xo3lg2i1rj8450xje.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Fullscreen_6_16_17__8_48_PM.jpg)
AIS Track of the ACX Crystal during the time of collision with the USS Fitzgerald Image via MarineTraffic.com.
I'm assuming from that track that it was traveling 069, then made that sharp, 90 degree turn to starboard at or around the collision. It looks like it then did a 180 to come back to the areawhere it had made that initial turn. Then there's the confusing bit where it did an almost figure-eight that I assume was part of a survivor search, and it then resumed it's initial course of 069. But that's a guess.
The hard part to understand is that the Fitz was hit on the starboard side, meaning it was the give-way ship at the time of the collision. It's difficult to imagine how that could have happened. In my experience, it's the commercial ships who often ignore the rules of the road, and Navy ships that have to maneuver even if they have the right of way. But if the Navy ship was the give-way....that's just really odd.
If it was an overtaking situation, then it would seem that it might be the container ship at fault. But it almost looks like a direct hit rather than a glancing blow, so who knows.....
@thackney
-
The data will be deemed 'classified' by the US and we will not get a truthful report.
That said..........SITUATIONAL AWARENESS..........was nowhere to be found.
-
The data will be deemed 'classified' by the US and we will not get a truthful report.
That said..........SITUATIONAL AWARENESS..........was nowhere to be found.
The bridge crew probably weren't paying attention. Even if the cargo ship wanted to ram the navy ship there is no way it should have been able to. The navy ship is faster and more maneuverable.
-
But the real question is did the USN have a full complement of homos and trannies on board?
Yes, THE most important aspect that needs to be investigated, and necessarily made a priority of all our military forces to implement.
-
The data will be deemed 'classified' by the US and we will not get a truthful report.
That said..........SITUATIONAL AWARENESS..........was nowhere to be found.
Uh....no. At some point, the Navy will release publicly information that describes all the ship movements in detail before the collision. They may be a few redactions from the report that is released eventually, but the entire story will be apparent. That happens routinely with collisions at sea.
-
The bridge crew probably weren't paying attention. Even if the cargo ship wanted to ram the navy ship there is no way it should have been able to. The navy ship is faster and more maneuverable.
If it was deliberate, then it would be possible. Ships routinely pass close enough that a deliberate attempt to crash cannot be avoided in some cases -- you simply cannot turn a ship that big that fast, and I've seen passages less than a ship's length apart. But, if there was evidence this was deliberate, we'd already be hearing about it because it would seem to be terrorism.
-
If it was deliberate, then it would be possible. Ships routinely pass close enough that a deliberate attempt to crash cannot be avoided in some cases -- you simply cannot turn a ship that big that fast, and I've seen passages less than a ship's length apart. But, if there was evidence this was deliberate, we'd already be hearing about it because it would seem to be terrorism.
If it was terrorism we probably woudn't hear about it. They wouldn't want the enemy to have the public win.
-
If it was terrorism we probably woudn't hear about it. They wouldn't want the enemy to have the public win.
That doesn't really make sense to me. First, I don't think it's better to be portrayed as blindingly incompetent (which is how it now looks) rather than the victim of a unprecendented deliberate collision by a commercial cargo ship.
Second, doing nothing would just let the people who did this get away with it. Once the ship hits port -- which it already has -- the perpetrators would be unidentified and free. They successfully rammed a U.S. Navy ship, and got away with it. And if they managed that, why wouldn't they brag about it?
And Third, the Navy would want to alert not only it's own ships, but the ships of our allies, of this new risk. If they bury it, that just makes it far more likely to happen again.
-
That doesn't really make sense to me. First, I don't think it's better to be portrayed as blindingly incompetent (which is how it now looks) rather than the victim of a unprecendented deliberate collision by a commercial cargo ship.
Second, doing nothing would just let the people who did this get away with it. Once the ship hits port -- which it already has -- the perpetrators would be unidentified and free. They successfully rammed a U.S. Navy ship, and got away with it. And if they managed that, why wouldn't they brag about it?
And Third, the Navy would want to alert not only it's own ships, but the ships of our allies, of this new risk. If they bury it, that just makes it far more likely to happen again.
ISIS et al strives for popular support. Its one of their main recruiting tools. One way to get that is to show they can win. They could brag about it but thats a lot different then say a USS Cole incident where its publicly acknowledged.
Now they may not keep the true cause a secret, we'll never really know. But to say it doesn't makes sense to keep information which could help the enemy a secret is contrary to decades of history.
-
FWIW..........now the Japanese containership and the USNavy ship cannot even agree on what time it was then they collided.
For now it's best to ignore all reporting on the collision.
-
ISIS et al strives for popular support. Its one of their main recruiting tools. One way to get that is to show they can win. They could brag about it but thats a lot different then say a USS Cole incident where its publicly acknowledged.
Now they may not keep the true cause a secret, we'll never really know. But to say it doesn't makes sense to keep information which could help the enemy a secret is contrary to decades of history.
But that logic cuts both ways. If having that information become public helps the enemy, then the enemy would expose it themselves to claim responsibility and reap the glory. That's what they do every single time. What good does it do to be a terrorist if you're going to conceal your victories?
The reality is that if there was a hint of terrorism, the Navy would have dispatched assets to try to grab that ship before it ever reached port.
-
http://gcaptain.com/us-navy-destroyer-collides-container-ship/
The track shows that the containership was traveling on a course of 068 degrees and a speed of 18.5 knots prior to the collision. At 16:30 UTC the vessel alters course to starboard. We do not know if the course change was a result of the collision or an attempt to avoid it.
(http://3kbo302xo3lg2i1rj8450xje.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Fullscreen_6_16_17__8_48_PM.jpg)
AIS Track of the ACX Crystal during the time of collision with the USS Fitzgerald Image via MarineTraffic.com.
Interesting. What that doesn't show is all the traffic in the area at the time. Here is a historical run of the ACX Crystal for 18th (the 17th isn't available that I can see). It was running through a high traffic area and there are several places where it was coming very close to other vessels. If one thinks of this on open water with miles and miles of space between ships, it seems fishy, but when one looks at it in light of all the traffic there, I'm surprised there aren't collisions more often. http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:139.685/centery:35.401/zoom:12
I really doubt we'll ever know the specifics until far in the future when the FOIA is released, the Navy won't want to release vulnerabilities, the owners of the container ship won't want to say anything publicly that could hold them legally or financially liable or impede insurance claims. Unfortunately 'not knowing' breeds stories and speculation.
I also find the letter from the mother suspicious because she references his 'rate', but the Navy stopped using rate classifications and switched to Navy Occupational Specialties (NOS), so discussing his 'rate' is not current terminology.
-
Interesting. What that doesn't show is all the traffic in the area at the time. Here is a historical run of the ACX Crystal for 18th (the 17th isn't available that I can see). It was running through a high traffic area and there are several places where it was coming very close to other vessels. If one thinks of this on open water with miles and miles of space between ships, it seems fishy, but when one looks at it in light of all the traffic there, I'm surprised there aren't collisions more often. http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:139.685/centery:35.401/zoom:12
I really doubt we'll ever know the specifics until far in the future when the FOIA is released, the Navy won't want to release vulnerabilities, the owners of the container ship won't want to say anything publicly that could hold them legally or financially liable or impede insurance claims. Unfortunately 'not knowing' breeds stories and speculation.
I think this actually will come out pretty quickly. We may not know what happened internally, but I'd be somewhat surprised if we didn't know about the courses/tracks sooner rather than later.
I also find the letter from the mother suspicious because she references his 'rate', but the Navy stopped using rate classifications and switched to Navy Occupational Specialties (NOS), so discussing his 'rate' is not current terminology.
I think you may be confusing "rates" with "ratings"? The Navy still uses "rates" as far as I know. And I think the move away from ratings was reversed after just a few months.
-
I think this actually will come out pretty quickly. We may not know what happened internally, but I'd be somewhat surprised if we didn't know about the courses/tracks sooner rather than later.
I think you may be confusing "rates" with "ratings"? The Navy still uses "rates" as far as I know. And I think the move away from ratings was reversed after just a few months.
Probably, I've always heard the classification system used as both 'rate' and 'rating' (not to be confused with compensation rates). The mother specifically mentioned not being able to say his 'rate' which would imply his 'ranking' for those with land legs.
https://news.usni.org/2016/09/29/navy-eliminating-241-year-old-rating-system-new-enlisted-rank-overhaul
-
I also find the letter from the mother suspicious because she references his 'rate', but the Navy stopped using rate classifications and switched to Navy Occupational Specialties (NOS), so discussing his 'rate' is not current terminology.
Navy scuttles sailors' enlisted rating titles in huge career shake-up
https://www.navytimes.com/articles/navy-scuttles-sailors-enlisted-rating-titles-in-huge-career-shake-up
September 29, 2016
Ratings restored: Effective immediately, sailors will get their job titles back
https://www.navytimes.com/articles/ratings-restored-effective-immediately-sailors-will-get-their-job-titles-back
December 20, 2016
Navy leaders are reversing their controversial decision to eliminate sailors’ ratings and will restore job titles across the fleet, according to a Navy message set for release Wednesday.
Effective immediately, enlisted sailors will officially regain their ratings, the traditional job titles that have inspired a deep cultural loyalty and that have defined enlisted career tracks for generations, Navy officials said.
The move comes three months after the Navy stunned sailors around the world in September by eliminated ratings titles, including those such as boatswain’s mate that dated back to the founding of the service....
-
The move comes three months after the Navy stunned sailors around the world in September by eliminated ratings titles, including those such as boatswain’s mate that dated back to the founding of the service....
I believe the backlash from enlisted ranks, was akin to taking away an Army infantryman's identity as a "Rifleman," e.g. 11B or 11 bravo as it is commonly named.
With the Navy's ill conceived change, quickly reversed, it had the equivalent effect of making no distinction between an Army "rifleman" and "cook" and "clerk."
Something like that. Anybody can explain Navy jobs versus pay grades?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Navy_ratings
-
I believe the backlash from enlisted ranks, was akin to taking away an Army infantryman's identity as a "Rifleman," e.g. 11B or 11 bravo as it is commonly named.
With the Navy's ill conceived change, quickly reversed, it had the equivalent effect of making no distinction between an Army "rifleman" and "cook" and "clerk."
Something like that. Anybody can explain Navy jobs versus pay grades?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Navy_ratings
The linkage is even stronger in the Navy. In the Navy, enlisted are actually addressed by a title that includes a reference to their rating (MOS), whereas enlisted elsewhere are referred to as "PFC" "Corporal", or "Sergeant", regardless of MOS. It was a real slap in the face to a lot of them to have that taken away.
"Paygrades" in the Navy most closely translate to "rates". So an E-5 (paygrade) is a "Petty Officer Second Class" (rate). The "rating" is "Boatswains Mate", or "Machinists Mate", etc.. It would be entirely proper -- even preferred -- to refer to such an individual as "Boatswain's Mate Jones" rather than "Petty Officer Jones". For E-1 through E-3, you'd call them "Fireman's Apprentice Smith" rather than, well something not rating-specific.
In the Marines, for example, we didn't do that. If you were a Corporal (paygrade equivalent of a Petty Officer Third Class), you'd be referred to as "Corporal Jones", not "Rifleman Jones" or "Fire Direction Controlman" Jones.
Navy has some pretty cool traditions.
-
The linkage is even stronger in the Navy. In the Navy, enlisted are actually addressed by a title that includes a reference to their rating (MOS), whereas enlisted elsewhere are referred to as "PFC" "Corporal", or "Sergeant", regardless of MOS. It was a real slap in the face to a lot of them to have that taken away.
"Paygrades" in the Navy most closely translate to "rates". So an E-5 (paygrade) is a "Petty Officer Second Class" (rate). The "rating" is "Boatswains Mate", or "Machinists Mate", etc.. It would be entirely proper -- even preferred -- to refer to such an individual as "Boatswain's Mate Jones" rather than "Petty Officer Jones". For E-1 through E-3, you'd call them "Fireman's Apprentice Smith" rather than, well something not rating-specific.
In the Marines, for example, we didn't do that. If you were a Corporal (paygrade equivalent of a Petty Officer Third Class), you'd be referred to as "Corporal Jones", not "Rifleman Jones" or "Fire Direction Controlman" Jones.
Navy has some pretty cool traditions.
Thanks for the clarification. I served in an Army battalion Hq. personnel office. The four company clerk positons, plus the Hq. positions, provided for specialization. As an E5 I prepared the daily Morning Reports, for example. My MOS was 71H30, but changed to 71H20 for a promotion. 71H30 is Military Personal Management Specialist.
A person would simply be addressed by rank, in most circumstances. However in certain Army career fields, I think it might be different. For example a Medic, an Air related position. For example I have known Army Crew Chiefs, for rotary. Likewise door gunner.
My understanding is the Marine Corps prides itself, with EACH Marine is first of all an Infantryman. My dad taught me that.
-
http://gcaptain.com/us-navy-destroyer-collides-container-ship/
The track shows that the containership was traveling on a course of 068 degrees and a speed of 18.5 knots prior to the collision. At 16:30 UTC the vessel alters course to starboard. We do not know if the course change was a result of the collision or an attempt to avoid it.
(http://3kbo302xo3lg2i1rj8450xje.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Fullscreen_6_16_17__8_48_PM.jpg)
AIS Track of the ACX Crystal during the time of collision with the USS Fitzgerald Image via MarineTraffic.com.
It was claimed the transponder for the freighter was turned off. If that were true there would be no tracking of it as shown in the image you posted.
-
It was claimed the transponder for the freighter was turned off. If that were true there would be no tracking of it as shown in the image you posted.
I have not seen that claim. I did see discussion that was possibly turned off for the Navy ship.
-
http://gcaptain.com/us-navy-destroyer-collides-container-ship/
The track shows that the containership was traveling on a course of 068 degrees and a speed of 18.5 knots prior to the collision. At 16:30 UTC the vessel alters course to starboard. We do not know if the course change was a result of the collision or an attempt to avoid it.
(http://3kbo302xo3lg2i1rj8450xje.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Fullscreen_6_16_17__8_48_PM.jpg)
AIS Track of the ACX Crystal during the time of collision with the USS Fitzgerald Image via MarineTraffic.com.
I don't know the scale of that image, but it looks like the first right turn was where it may have collided and after that they first resumed course but then decided to go back and check on the other ship. Once they did that they swung around and resumed course. But who knows...
-
Keep in mind for the following that the time of the collision is still disputed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4617742/Shambolic-start-probe-USS-Fitzgerald-collision.html
There is a mysterious discrepancy between both sides on the timing of the crash
The cargo ship's Japanese owners say it happened at 1.30am on Saturday
The US Navy says that the collision occurred at 2.20am - nearly an hour apart
Defense experts say they do not know why the US Navy is sticking to this story
He says that the abrupt U-turn of the cargo ship was to examine what it hit
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/19/20/418F602300000578-4617742-image-a-8_1497899943733.jpg)
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/19/20/418F602700000578-4617742-image-a-9_1497899975460.jpg)
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/19/20/418F7CDB00000578-4617742-image-a-10_1497900073126.jpg)
Did they miss hitting the Naval Ship at 1:30 am? Turn around to investigate and hit it as they returned?
-
Keep in mind for the following that the time of the collision is still disputed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4617742/Shambolic-start-probe-USS-Fitzgerald-collision.html
There is a mysterious discrepancy between both sides on the timing of the crash
The cargo ship's Japanese owners say it happened at 1.30am on Saturday
The US Navy says that the collision occurred at 2.20am - nearly an hour apart
Defense experts say they do not know why the US Navy is sticking to this story
He says that the abrupt U-turn of the cargo ship was to examine what it hit
Did they miss hitting the Naval Ship at 1:30 am? Turn around to investigate and hit it as they returned?
So the cargo ship kept going for 30 mins before turning around? That seems odd
-
It was claimed the transponder for the freighter was turned off. If that were true there would be no tracking of it as shown in the image you posted.
That claim came from the two anonymous letters being circulated by fringe sites, with no proof they are correct. People who want to believe the conspiracy just assume they are real. For all we know, a 12 year old on 4Chan wrote them.
-
So the cargo ship kept going for 30 mins before turning around? That seems odd
http://gcaptain.com/investigators-seek-answers-into-containerships-collision-with-uss-fitzgerald/
June 19, 2017
Nearly an hour elapsed before a Philippine-flagged container ship reported a collision with a U.S. warship, the Japanese coastguard said on Monday, as investigations began into the accident in which seven U.S. sailors were killed....
...The collision happened at around 1:30 a.m. but it was not until 2:25 a.m. that the container ship informed the Japanese coastguard of the accident, said coastguard spokesman Takeshi Aikawa told Reuters.
He declined to elaborate on why the ship took nearly an hour to report the accident but said it could take ships time to notify authorities as they dealt with more urgent matters.
Right after being notified of the accident by the container vessel, the Japanese coastguard made contact with the U.S. ship and confirmed it, Aikawa said....
-
It's simply not true.
What we are being told (fed) is nonsense. There is absolutely no way possible that this happened as it is being presented.
That destroyer was engaging the other vessel. The Captain was trying to stop or harass her.
He would have 'cut the bow' of the oncoming ship. Which is thoroughly against all accepted Maritime Law.
A Destroyer is going to have a speed of roughly 30 knots or more. There is no way a cargo ship can ram a Destroyer.
I'm sorry man. It simply cannot happen. I don't know what went on out there. But this story is pure bullshit. It is just not possible.
-
It's simply not true.
What we are being told (fed) is nonsense. There is absolutely no way possible that this happened as it is being presented.
What, specifically, do you claim didn't happen? That the collision was an accident?
A Destroyer is going to have a speed of roughly 30 knots or more. There is no way a cargo ship can ram a Destroyer.
Sure there is. The destroyer may have been traveling at a much slower speed, possible to time it's arrival differently, or there was a course change at some point that made the container ship have a higher speed relative to its course.
It is just not possible.
Yes it is.
-
Never attribute to conspiracy what can easily be explained by incompetence.
-
Yes it is.
No it is not possible.
The only way this collision could happen is for that Destroyer to be somehow in front of that ship's bow. That cannot happen. There are watch stations all over the ship that would have give warning. There are radar OS's that would have been screaming. There is a helmsman would see a ship coming.
No man, no, no, It can't happen that way. This is a wartime ship. If you are going to convince me that a 'warship' was rammed by a cargo freighter. No sir!
I respect you, but I will not eat boloney, and call it a steak.
-
The best description of what happened, that I have read so far: the two vessels were both heading into the Japanese port, and were nearly parallel.
For some reason one turned into the other, and the bow of the cargo ship hit the side of the Navy ship.
The questions are many. Could a cargo ship crewman done this intentionally? Or was it the Navy ship, which changed course? Or both?
Was any of it intentional? Don't they both have instruments that warn of possible collision courses?
-
I do suggest that anyone who hasn't done so click the link @Drago supplied in post 3. It's still speculation, but more informed speculation from seagoing types. Some interesting points there, and some information we'd never find on our own. For example, I had no idea that container ships can't really change speed while using heavy fuel oil.
-
The best description of what happened, that I have read so far: the two vessels were both heading into the Japanese port, and were nearly parallel.
For some reason one turned into the other, and the bow of the cargo ship hit the side of the Navy ship.
The questions are many. Could a cargo ship crewman done this intentionally? Or was it the Navy ship, which changed course? Or both?
Was any of it intentional? Don't they both have instruments that warn of possible collision courses?
Cargo ships often run auto-pilot out in the open water. I posted the port tracking link far up thread and that is a very, very busy area. It is very, very possible that the crew on the cargo ship were being lazy, left it on auto-pilot and/or weren't paying attention. Imagine busy shipping lanes with ships passing this close to each other at 20 knots or so, when one at a very last minute course drifts. It is hard to react.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Container_ships_President_Truman_%28IMO_8616283%29_and_President_Kennedy_%28IMO_8616295%29_at_San_Francisco.jpg/1200px-Container_ships_President_Truman_%28IMO_8616283%29_and_President_Kennedy_%28IMO_8616295%29_at_San_Francisco.jpg)
Digging around, it is also not unheard of in these very busy shipping lanes.
(https://latimesphoto.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/la-fg-new-zealand-spill01.jpg)
(http://www.benlineagencies.com/images/article/ship_accident.jpg)
A very similar accident a few years ago with a Japanese destroyer and cargo ship.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223392/Inferno-Battle-extinguish-blaze-Japanese-naval-destroyer-hits-container-ship.html
-
Military releases details about how USS Fitzgerald crashed
The Navy on Sunday revealed details of the final moments of seven sailors who died aboard a destroyer after it collided with a container ship near Japan — ripping open the warship and sending seawater gushing into the rooms where the men lay asleep.
“The damage was significant. This was not a small collision,” U.S. 7th Fleet commander Vice Adm. Joseph Aucoin said at a press conference in Yokosuka.
The Philippine-flagged ACX Crystal plowed into the far smaller USS Fitzgerald around 2:20 a.m. Saturday, “opening the hull to the sea” and rapidly flooding three large compartments that included two berthing areas for 116 crew members, Aucoin said.
The ship’s captain, Cmdr. Bryce Benson, was trapped inside his cabin, which was hit directly, Aucoin said. He survived but had to be airlifted to Naval Hospital Yokosuka, where he’s in stable condition.
The 300 brave sailors under his command quickly sprang into action to contain the flooding and save the boat from ending up at the bottom of the ocean — then navigated the damaged ship back into the busy port with only a magnetic compass and backup equipment.
“Heroic efforts prevented the flooding from catastrophically spreading which could have caused the ship to founder or sink. It could have been much worse,” Aucoin said.
More: http://nypost.com/2017/06/18/military-releases-details-about-how-uss-fitzgerald-crashed/
Still thin on detail. Japanese have a take, at least.
-
Makes it sound like the cargo ship did it intentionally
-
The ship’s captain, Cmdr. Bryce Benson, was trapped inside his cabin
Sorry guys. I am. But I am not buying one single word of this bullshit. Something happened, we know that. The details do not make any sense.
The captain would be on the bridge pulling into port. I say, BULLSHIT!
The more I hear, the less I believe.
-
It's simply not true.
What we are being told (fed) is nonsense. There is absolutely no way possible that this happened as it is being presented.
That destroyer was engaging the other vessel. The Captain was trying to stop or harass her.
He would have 'cut the bow' of the oncoming ship. Which is thoroughly against all accepted Maritime Law.
A Destroyer is going to have a speed of roughly 30 knots or more. There is no way a cargo ship can ram a Destroyer.
I'm sorry man. It simply cannot happen. I don't know what went on out there. But this story is pure bullshit. It is just not possible.
Anything is possible. But for this to happen to a very modern US warship would require some multiple of cluster F*-$ IMHO!
-
Anything is possible. But for this to happen to a very modern US warship would require some multiple of cluster F*-$ IMHO!
Not the first time between a destroyer and cargo ship in the same area. (albeit a Japanese destroyer but their tech is very similar to ours).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223392/Inferno-Battle-extinguish-blaze-Japanese-naval-destroyer-hits-container-ship.html
-
Anything is possible. But for this to happen to a very modern US warship would require some multiple of cluster F*-$ IMHO!
In addition in this day and age, it would seem prudent to assume all other ships are potentially hostile. That you would keep enough distance between you and other shipping allowing options to respond to sudden changes in course by other ships.
-
The ship’s captain, Cmdr. Bryce Benson, was trapped inside his cabin
Sorry guys. I am. But I am not buying one single word of this bullshit. Something happened, we know that. The details do not make any sense.
The captain would be on the bridge pulling into port. I say, BULLSHIT!
The more I hear, the less I believe.
Are you a Navy guy or something? I went to the Naval Academy, and spent a few months on board Navy ships during some summers, so I was never a line officer in the Navy. But what you're describing doesn't make sense.
The Captain would indeed be on the bridge when a ship is "pulling into port". But the Fitz wasn't pulling into port -- it was hours away, and it is entirely normal for the Captain to be in his stateroom at that time of night. Also, if this was some kind of planned intercept or something, the ship would have been at general quarters. Nobody, including the sailors who were killed, would have been in their quarters sleeping.
Accidents like this happen because the Navy, unlike commercial ships, tracks more than just those few ships that potentially impede its course. They're tracking far more targets, partially for tactical/security reasons, partially for training. And because they're paying so much more attention to so many more ships, it's easier to miss one.
This is not the first collision between a Navy ship and a commercial ship, and it won't be the last.
-
@Maj. Bill Martin
Are you a Navy guy or something? I went to the Naval Academy, and spent a few months on board Navy ships during some summers, so I was never a line officer in the Navy. But what you're describing doesn't make sense.
I agree. You are just repeating what I said. Look man, anytime a ship is in a strait, or on a mission, the Captain is on-deck. They will sleep up there if they have to.
I do not believe the facts that are being presented. I understand that you think maybe this was an accident. I get that.
You would never hit a ship I was ever on. If you ever tried, we would go down shooting. Fire control would be locked on, and the magazines would be loading.
It is not true that all ships go to general quarters, sometimes you just do what you do. If you are aboard a Naval vessel, at sea, then all of it is general quarters in a way. You are just waiting for the right time to start doing what you do.
There is no Cargo vessel that can ram a Destroyer. No. There is something else that we do not know
-
@Maj. Bill Martin
Are you a Navy guy or something? I went to the Naval Academy, and spent a few months on board Navy ships during some summers, so I was never a line officer in the Navy. But what you're describing doesn't make sense.
I agree. You are just repeating what I said. Look man, anytime a ship is in a strait, or on a mission, the Captain is on-deck. They will sleep up there if they have to.
I do not believe the facts that are being presented. I understand that you think maybe this was an accident. I get that.
You would never hit a ship I was ever on. If you ever tried, we would go down shooting. Fire control would be locked on, and the magazines would be loading.
It is not true that all ships go to general quarters, sometimes you just do what you do. If you are aboard a Naval vessel, at sea, then all of it is general quarters in a way. You are just waiting for the right time to start doing what you do.
There is no Cargo vessel that can ram a Destroyer. No. There is something else that we do not know
What if..... it was really a NK ship that rammed our destroyer..... and the PTBs are lying about it.
-
@Maj. Bill Martin
Are you a Navy guy or something? I went to the Naval Academy, and spent a few months on board Navy ships during some summers, so I was never a line officer in the Navy. But what you're describing doesn't make sense.
I agree. You are just repeating what I said. Look man, anytime a ship is in a strait, or on a mission, the Captain is on-deck. They will sleep up there if they have to.
I do not believe the facts that are being presented. I understand that you think maybe this was an accident. I get that.
You would never hit a ship I was ever on. If you ever tried, we would go down shooting. Fire control would be locked on, and the magazines would be loading.
It is not true that all ships go to general quarters, sometimes you just do what you do. If you are aboard a Naval vessel, at sea, then all of it is general quarters in a way. You are just waiting for the right time to start doing what you do.
There is no Cargo vessel that can ram a Destroyer. No. There is something else that we do not know
Note that the collision location is not in the strait, or in the direct approach to port.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/19/20/418F602300000578-4617742-image-a-8_1497899943733.jpg)
-
What if..... it was really a NK ship that rammed our destroyer..... and the PTBs are lying about it.
There really is no question which ship hit the destroyer.
(https://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/16F14/production/_96527939_23cad44f-1c61-459d-bbc6-90044ffeb570.jpg)
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/International/ap-acx-crystal-bow-above-ps-170619_4x3_992.jpg)
-
Alright. Ok, I guess.
So...a random cargo ship. Ran into a U.S. warship Navy Destroyer by accident. Really guys?
Forgive me. Please. But if that is actually what happened. That would have to be the worst run Naval Ship in history.
Not only would the entire Chain of Command on that ship have to be asleep, they would all have to be blackout drunk on top of that.
I do not know. I'm only saying that I do not believe what they are telling us. I simply don't believe it.
-
There really is no question which ship hit the destroyer.
(https://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/16F14/production/_96527939_23cad44f-1c61-459d-bbc6-90044ffeb570.jpg)
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/International/ap-acx-crystal-bow-above-ps-170619_4x3_992.jpg)
Ok, thanks. It just doesn't make any sense the way it went down. :shrug:
-
Alright. Ok, I guess.
So...a random cargo ship. Ran into a U.S. warship Navy Destroyer by accident. Really guys?
Forgive me. Please. But if that is actually what happened. That would have to be the worst run Naval Ship in history.
Not only would the entire Chain of Command on that ship have to be asleep, they would all have to be blackout drunk on top of that.
I do not know. I'm only saying that I do not believe what they are telling us. I simply don't believe it.
May 9, 2017: A 60- to 70-foot South Korean fishing boat collided with the U.S.S. Lake Champlain, a guided-missile cruiser, on its port side while the cruiser was conducting routine operations in international waters.
Aug. 19, 2016: The U.S.S. Louisiana, a nuclear ballistic-missile submarine, and the U.S.N.S. Eagleview, a Military Sealift Command support vessel, collided while conducting routine operations in the Strait of Juan de Fuca off the coast of Washington State.
Nov. 20, 2014: U.S.N.S. Amelia Earhart and the U.S.N.S. Walter S. Diehl collided during an exchange of goods in the Gulf of Aden. Both ships resupply Navy warships for the United States Fifth Fleet, which is based in Manama, Bahrain.
July 22, 2004: The U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, an aircraft carrier, and a dhow, a small traditional Arab sailing boat, collided in the Persian Gulf.
The Kennedy was involved in an earlier deadly accident, in Nov. 22, 1975, when a cruiser, the U.S.S. Belknap, collided with the carrier in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Sicily, destroying the cruiser.
The following year, on Sept. 14, the U.S.S. Bordelon, a destroyer that was one of the ships that had come to the rescue in the Belknap collision, collided with the Kennedy while refueling alongside the cruiser.
July 13, 2000: U.S.S. Denver, an amphibious transport dock, and the U.S.N.S. Yukon, a replenishment oiler, collided during a refueling exercise west of Hawaii.
June 14, 1989: U.S.S. Houston, an attack submarine, which appeared in the 1990 film “The Hunt for Red October,” snagged a tow cable of the commercial tugboat Barcona during filming off the coast of Southern California.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/us/navy-ship-collisions-history.html
-
Of course ships collide when refueling
Of course ships collide when they are in close quarters.
With every rebuttal all you do is to further my only question.
How could this happen? Was the Destroyer refueling with the cargo ship?
Were they engaged in some mutual consort of some kind? What were they doing that close together?
That is, what we do not know.
-
This is funny....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6filPCtrt0c&feature=youtu.be
-
Of course ships collide when refueling
Of course ships collide when they are in close quarters.
You are skipping over some of the other provided examples.
I included the less concerning items of ships that were already working together, so I could list all the examples at the link.
-
You are skipping over some of the other provided examples.
I included the less concerning items of ships that were already working together, so I could list all the examples at the link.
I am "discussing" this incident with a lady I work with. She is sure this was intentional. I had no idea she was a conspiracy theorist.
Myself...I think I'll wait o see what the multiple investigations come up with and then make a decision. As you have posted...it has happened before.
-
Reading this morning that they decided to seal of the mangled area before they knew if the trapped sailors were alive.
G-d bless the families of the lost sailors and pray for the families of those ordered to seal the area.