Loosely the same as the plot from Tomorrow Never Dies (James Bond). Circa 1997.


.

From th3e NYTimes, so fake news, but here is the path of the ship that struck the Fitzgerald
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/18/world/asia/path-ship-hit-uss-fitzgerald.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&cl ickSource=g-artboard%20g-artboard-v3&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

According to reports, the crew did an outstanding job in damage control and keeping the Fitzgerald underway. The ship took a severe hit.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1497882498.jpg

Here is a link to the sailors that perished. Navy identifies USS Fitzgerald sailors found dead after crash | Fox News

Fair Winds, Gentlemen.

Like running a truck into a group of people, no doubt, other entities are looking at this wondering if all they need is an old container ship to disable a destroyer...

So, it looks like the container ship was maintaining a straight course until impact and did all its strange maneuvering and turns after the collision.

Yes, according to the article citing the Japanese coast guard.^^

If correct, this changes some things. It eliminates the course changes of the cargo ship as something nefarious or something to be watched by the Fitzgerald. The collision seems to have happened when both ships were on relatively straight, predictable paths. The strange course of the cargo ship could be explained as an effort to check on the destroyer and affect a rescue, if necessary. Still, it doesn't explain the nearly 30 minute time and travel lapse before the ship reported the incident and returned to the scene.

Just saw reporting that there may have been nearly a 1 hour delay between the time of the collision and the reporting/distress call to the Japanese Coast Guard. That seems strange.

Japan investigates delay in reporting USS Fitzgerald collision | New York Post

Similar reporting by CNN^^.

However, there is a key discrepancy between what the Japanese coast guard is reporting and what the U.S. Navy is reporting. The Japanese, after interviews with the ACX crew, revised their estimated time of the collision to 1:30 am. This would put the ship at the location well before the odd, 180* maneuvers that put the ship back at the scene. The U.S. Navy still insists the collision happened at 2:20 am, as first reported, after the ACX made it's strange course changes. Two clearly important differences. Japan is looking to find some electronic recording device that could confirm which version is correct.

It will be interesting to know which version of the collision time is accurate. On the surface, the 1:30 version is more logical as there is an indication the ACX made a sharp right turn at that time which would be consistent with attempting to avoid a collision. A 2:20 time means the ACX made the unusual course change, headed toward the destroyer, and by the course track, collided with it. However, if that happened, the destroyer should have been hit on the port side instead of starboard, if we are to believe the tracking map of the Japanese coast guard. Reports, to date, have the destroyer heading in a southerly direction at collision time. A 2:20 collision time would have the ACX heading in a southwesterly direction, putting it on the port side of the destroyer. A 1:30 collision time, according to the radar map of the Japanese, has the ACX heading in a northeasterly direction, placing it on the starboard side of the destroyer where the damage was rendered.

We allow them to steer a ship when they can't even read a clock? :rolleyes: :cool:

I wonder if some of the time confusion is due to time zone discrepancies. When you're out in the middle of nowhere, it's not always easy to know what local authority owns the water, and what time said authority thinks it is. Given my choice, I'd suspect the Navy ship of knowing what UTC was, given that there are literally dozens of clocks all over the ship logging that, and dozens of sailors simultaneously taking logs in whatever the appropriate time zone is. It'd be tough to screw that up. Meanwhile, on the civvie ship, there's probably one computer doing logs, and nobody watching it.

Re: nefarious foul play, and the confusion about the freighter maneuvering oddly ... my instinct is that it was on autopilot, and it took the crew a long time to come to the bridge. The ship made a bad choice in regards to avoiding a collision, hit the Navy ship, and the auto-pilot didn't know better than to keep on it's way. The 180* course change happened when the crew realized they'd hit something and came to the bridge.

By that theory, then, the collision could well have happened because the Fitz was attempting to communicate via radio with a ship that was entirely on autopilot, with nobody on the Conn, and got confused about how to get out of the way. The OOD thought he had things under control (for whatever reason), so he didn't call the Captain to the Conn. These things sometimes develop quite quickly, going from complete boredom to disaster in the span of a few instants.

That's obviously just one theory, and admittedly a theory based on little more than my own experience driving boats around in the great sea, rather than on available fact. I stand by to be immediately proven wrong.

Dan

Dan, agree with all of your post. The only odd thing to me is the Captain not being on the bridge.

When I was an OOD the last thing I wanted to do was wake the Captain up...in fact on the La Salle the two CO's I had during that tour were both Aviators headed for their carrier tour - the La Salle was their deep draft before the carrier.

I am still friends with one, an A-6 BN. He would write the night orders and then, before I assumed the watch, call me into his at sea cabin.

"I need some sleep Airboss...maneuver as you see fit. Make sure Bird agrees."

Bird was Warrant Officer Bird, former Brown Water Sailor in Vietnam, highly decorated and for some unknown reason, stayed my JOOD. He was the Boatswain's Mate of the Ship. I loved me some Bird.

In our 8 months together as a watch team, WO Bird gave me the look twice. "Wake the Captain up, Rotorhead."

Interesting theory.

I have a related question, just to enlighten me on my complete ignorance of all things maritime. If your theory is essentially correct, would the fact that the ACX made a right turn just before the impact (theoretically by auto pilot or an override by a crewman) have caused the collision? Meaning, if the course had remained unchanged and the Fitzgerald plotted it's course and speed to pass in front based on that unaltered course, would or could the right turn have actually been the move that ensured a hit?

Secondary question for Paul, would the Fitzgerald even consider a course to pass in front of the ACX or would that be just too close to consider?

"Rotorhead"...I luv it!

It would for civilian but I quite sure that the US Navy work like the other Navies and use Zulu time.

Yield to the vessel to starboard? Seems that did not happen. As for the time, ZULU time will tell the story. Me thinks some serious sheet crapping by both vessels...

Cheers

Strange stuff. A container ship that large should be unable to hit a navy destroyer, ever. It accelerates slowly, stops slowly and turns slooowly. It would be like a turtle ramming a cat. It just isn't very likely. Only thing that makes sense is that the navy ship messed up, got hit and the container ship running on autopilot took some time to actually determine that they did hit something, stop, and come around to check the situation out. It would also explain why it took time to report it. Sad story either way,

It will be very interesting to hear the Navy findings after their investigation. I suspect some OOD made a grave error and compromised the safety of his ship, getting a bunch of sailors killed. He will be washing cars in the motor pool and scraping barnacles off hulls for the rest of his term if not sent straight to the brig.

True enough, Paul. I called the CDO or the CO a number of times, even in my relatively little time driving surfaced.

But then, the Collisions and Groundings trainings are full of tales of incredibly smart guys falling into one version of complacency or another. I mean, in the submarine world, we often see these reports and say, "Oh, those guys were dumb, that won't be us, because we're smarter." But those guys were us, another bunch of random dudes out driving a warship somewhere, the cream of the crop. Once, in DH school, the instructor set our class up with a scenario that had once resulted in a submarine collision -- same geometry, same data ... and we made the same decisions that had gotten the other guys in trouble.

Heck, an OOD on my boat got run over by a merchant that we had tracked in from 40 miles away in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Had we been running a bit more shallow, it would have been a serious disaster. That particular OOD was somewhere between genius and savant, and he had a well-seasoned team of sonar and fire control guys tracking targets. There was only one contact on the screen, so it wasn't a clutter issue. They just all collectively missed it, somehow.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1498085768.jpg

Japan Coast Guard says collision between U.S. warship and freighter wasn't reported for 55 minutes | The Japan Times

I doubt it but maybe it's different in the US Navy, but on our ships the CO has 2 cabins.

The "luxury one" for day to day activity while in harbour (slightly above water level line) and one when we are at sea which is about 20' from the bridge.

I witness on many occasion when the Officer Of the Watch lost the bubble but was bright enough to ask the Boatswain's mate to get the CO, he would be on the bridge in pj's before the phone was back in the cradle.

This look like the Officer in charge (whatever he is call) lost the bubble but did not called the CO. Never the less, the buck stop at the CO and he will be the one blamed.

That was a good read, thanks for posting.

Interesting legal read:

The Philippine container ship that crashed into a US guided-missile destroyer may be liable for almost $2 billion - Business Insider

Bonne Chance with that.

Bull**** article, there is no way in hell the container ship gets the blame for that one.

New article from yesterday addressing the fact that the Fitzgerald CO has been relieved of his command - medical reasons.

Injured Fitzgerald Commander Is Relieved | Military.com

Medical reasons; needs an ass transplant because his OEM one has been chewed completely off.

Temporarily... it says. Until he recovers.

Not surprising at all.. About time us media realized it.

In the open ocean it is not possible to get hit on the starboard side
and it not be your fault. The most basic rule. Starboard boat has rights !
Game over.

How could it happen?
I was standing QMOW watch on a 205' Coast Guard ship in the 70's.
Broad daylight, flat ocean . I had 2 lookouts on flying bridge. OD on the
bridge. My normal routine was scan with binocs, check radar, step in
chart room check position, rinse and repeat.
stepped out on bridgewing looked aft and less than 1/2 mile
behind us a ship was crossing our wake!!! Nobody saw it.
EVERYBODY missed it!! DO DO happens

THIS IS HOW IT HAPPENS
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/08/17/commander-stricken-destroyer-fitzgerald-relieved-after-navy-report-cites-failures/577805001/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_ campaign=usatoday-newstopstories#

No big surprise here... USS Fitzgerald's leadership to be removed from their duties over June collision - CNNPolitics

You have to respect how the military handles these kind of issues.
Unlike our elected leaders who would by reflex first lie, then blame
someone else then spin to deflect blame.

I suspect the two on the bridge, the QMOW and the OD, could face
the UCMJ version of manslaughter charges. The Capt. will be guilty
of not properly training his bridge crew.

Their will be medals for the heroic sailors who fought to save their ship
and the lives of their shipmates after being let down by the bridge crew.

I'd be interested in Seahawks opinion on this as a retired Naval officer.
As a chopper pilot, he more than most understands how confusing it
can be with other ships about and all you see is lights. They were in
one of the busier seaways in the world.

If you go back and reread this thread you will notice a lot of instant bias
that the other guy had to somehow be at fault. when all you had to do
was look at where our ship was struck to know who was at fault.

I agree with everything you have written.

I did all my cruises and flew off of Frigates and Destroyers and was the Airboss on AGF-3, The USS La Salle, during the first PG War.

I stood bridge watches and qualified as OOD Underway...something I am oddly proud of: I was a part time "ship driver" responsible for the safe operations of the ship while underway!

Here is how it works on the ships I served on:

The CO will write and brief his "night orders" (NO) to the bridge watch team before he goes to his or her at sea cabin (which is usually steps off the bridge itself) to get some sleep. The Combat Information Center (CIC) Tactical Action Officer will generally attend the night orders discussion as well.

Night orders generally cover known threats and responses, navigation requirements (whether we are Mod Locked - staying a a specific part of the ocean - or where we need to be along our route), and, most importantly, when and under what specific circumstances wake the CO and either inform him or her of the situation or call the CO directly to the bridge.

The most important of these written orders are what are known as "Closet Point of Approach" (CPA) of other vessels in the area to your ship. The CPA is expressed in yards. The NO's also specify the leeway the OOD has to maneuver the ship in order avoid close CPA's. My CO's generally gave me a 5 thousand yard CPA and unrestricted maneuvering DEPENDING on where we were - open ocean, mod-locked or transiting crowded shipping lanes, etc.

Here is the general composite of bridge and CIC watch section:

Bridge:

OOD - a Warrant Officer (WO) or a Commissioned Officer
JOOD - on the ships I served on usually a senior enlisted, WO or Officer
Navigator - Senior enlist (Quarter Master) or officer depending on the at sea conditions (General Quarters, flight quarters, sea and anchor detail, etc.)
Helmsman/Lee Helmsman - Enlisted
Board plotter - Don't know if they still have these. More on them in a second.

Those are just the qualified positions. There is always a JOOD in training, etc. getting the requisite experience to qualify for the next higher watch standing position.

CIC:

TAO - Officer
ATAO - Senior Enlisted
Radar operators - Senior and junior enlisted often a bunch of them
Various other CIC watch standers - Acoustic operators, electronic warfare folks, etc.

So, there are at least 7 folks involved at any one time responsible for the safe transit of a USN vessel. Those numbers do not include fore and aft lookouts in radio comms with the bridge and others. A bunch of folks.

Equipment. The bridge has a number of radar repeaters displaying active ships radar plots. The way I ran my watch section is that the JOOD and Nav would check the radar plot continuously and work with CIC to identify other ship and plot their CPA.
Each target is assigned a "skunk" identification: Skunck A, Skunk B, etc. The status of each skunk (remember, I haven't been an OOD for 26 years - the La Salle was a steam ship!) was written an a clear board by the board plotter.

I have been told there is new EO/IR equipment being installed to help.

One last thing: USN ships operate in various Electronic Emissions Control (EMCOM) regimes, which mean we often operate underway without radar.

As was written before by rumlyne I also had a habit of going from bridge wing to bridge wing, inside to the scope heads, check board status, rinse and repeat.

Sorry for the long post, but that is how it all worked when I was an OOD.

Compare that with merchant ships: They are often on auto pilot, sailing exact routes. I have personally radioed merchants that did not respond for five minutes.

So, the USS Fitz crew knows all this, is in a busy part of the ocean and the watch standing crew clearly lost situational awareness. Things can go from all buttoned up to chaos on the bridge in minutes. In those waters I would have been resonating like a tuning fork as the OOD.

Why the leadership of the ship, CO/XO and Master Chief, are all asleep in those waters is interesting to me.

What where the NO's, what was the CPA, EMCOM status, etc.? Why wasn't the CO called to the bridge?

The Navy is at fault. There may be more experienced mariners here that disagree, but that is how I see it.

BTW, my prayers for all the sailors, many who performed heroically in the finest tradition of Naval Service:

The completed investigation will likely find evidence of extraordinary heroism as well as error: Multiple outlets report that one of the sailors who perished in the collision, Fire Controlman First Class Gary Rehm Jr., was trapped below decks when bulkheads were closed to save the ship after having dived to save fellow sailors. Rehm may have saved up to 20 of his fellow crew by his actions, according to reports unconfirmed by the Navy

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/07/21/investigation-faults-navy-fitzgerald-collision-report.html

Fair winds, Shipmates.

Thanks Paul, and thank you for your service to the county.

If the investigation does show Mr. Rehem died while saving his crew-mates he should receive a Medal of honor. That is the definition of a hero, pure and simple.

Unfortunately, not the appropriate award for his actions in this particular situation. But a hero nonetheless.

Why, because it was not combat related? I guess that makes sense.

Actually, it looks like there are almost 200 Naval MOH awards in peacetime.

Even things like rescuing victims from boiler explosions, etc.

And, by act of congress, they can be awarded for other things... Lindbergh got one...