Something is fishy about USS Fitzgerald story we are getting from the media

[rangerrebew]

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

[DB]

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.

[driftdiver]

Even if the cargo ship wanted to ram through navy ship there is no way it could have.  Unless the navy crew was asleep.

[Drago]

Discussion by maritime type people here:  http://forum.gcaptain.com/t/uss-fitzgerald-collides-with-acx-crystal-off-coast-of-japan/45129

[EC]

Thank you Drago - interesting read.

[thackney]

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.



AIS Track of the ACX Crystal during the time of collision with the USS Fitzgerald Image via MarineTraffic.com.

[rodamala]

But the real question is did the USN have a full complement of homos and trannies on board?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

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.



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

[Rivergirl]

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.

[driftdiver]

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.

[INVAR]

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.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

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.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

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.

[driftdiver]

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.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

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.

[driftdiver]

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.

[Rivergirl]

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.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

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.

[ABX]

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.



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.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

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.

[ABX]

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

[thackney]

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....

[truth_seeker]

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

[Maj. Bill Martin]

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.

[truth_seeker]

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.