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.