Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Folks, please reserve your castigations about the skipper of the Fitzgerald until the full story is out....
Marine traffic records show the Crystal made a series of sharp turns about 25 minutes before the collision, which in crowded seas might conceivably have caused a cascade of maneuvers by other vessels as they tried to avoid one another.
Whatever the ultimate findings, Admiral Stavridis said, “My heart is really with the captain. He’s got a rough passage ahead, to put it in nautical terms.”
Thanks for posting that. I have only seen that mentioned on one newscast.ALmost looks intentional the way that one had a chart showing it safely past the navy ship and made a uturn into it.
Thanks for posting that. I have only seen that mentioned on one newscast.ALmost looks intentional the way that one had a chart showing it safely past the navy ship and made a uturn into it.
Having only one source in this age of publish first then verify should cause us to pause. If you accept the Japanese Coast Guard's and not the US Navy's time of occurrence, in a situation where all the surviving US sailors are in shock and fear of the loss of their career in a zero tolerance of defect force , then it looks like that tracking on the freighter was a large ship turning around to offer assistance after the collision.
Folks, please reserve your castigations about the skipper of the Fitzgerald until the full story is out....
I really don't care about the full story. In this case I'm going to be completely unaccepting of any excuse whatsoever for a military naval vessel not being 100% aware of their surroundings at all times. A captain may sleep, a crew member may sleep, the ship never sleeps. It is their job to be on watch and fully prepared every second of every minute of every day while deployed.
It has been reported that the cargo ship was stuck on autopilot at the time of the collision, and that they broke international maritime law by not reporting the collision until 50 minutes after it had occurred. Per the crew of the cargo ship, they did not have any control of the ship, it was traveling a full speed and the U-turn was carried out by the auto pilot, for reasons they don't know. They reported that once they fully regained control of the ship, it was at that point that they reported the collision.
I had posted this on another thread, but it got deleted. I was onboard the USS Enterprise in the Persian Gulf, when a large container ship decided to play "chicken" with the Enterprise. The Enterprise corrected course to avoid the ship, who then matched the correction, to keep heading straight for us. At about 2,000 yards away, it finally turned, and passed about 300 yards from our port side. I could clearly see the crew on the ship. I don't know if anything happened to that captain, but they could have easily turned into our ship as we were passing and struck the Enterprise.
There were many times, especially when entering and exiting the Suez Canal, that we were very close to other ships. I know people who have never been aboard a U.S. Navy vessel thinks that other ships can't get close, but unless being directly attacked, Navy ships have very little they can do except change course. Iranian vessels routinely harass Navy ships.
If this turns out to be an intentional act, I don't think the Commanding Officer will loose his job.
I would think that if the Fitzgerald's crew were on top of things, unless that cargo ship had no lights on it, that the cargo ship would just not be able to out-maneuver them. I mean if the cargo ship was trying to ram them, that destroyer should have enough power and maneuverability to get out of the way, like a matador dodging a bull. In open water of course.
Probably there will be plenty of blame to spread around. I do think the Captain is not much at fault, he was asleep when this happened, although, he's ultimately responsible for whatever the ship does or fails to do - seems to me the people who were on watch were not really doing their jobs.
It has been reported that the cargo ship was stuck on autopilot at the time of the collision, and that they broke international maritime law by not reporting the collision until 50 minutes after it had occurred. Per the crew of the cargo ship, they did not have any control of the ship, it was traveling a full speed and the U-turn was carried out by the auto pilot, for reasons they don't know. They reported that once they fully regained control of the ship, it was at that point that they reported the collision.
I had posted this on another thread, but it got deleted. I was onboard the USS Enterprise in the Persian Gulf, when a large container ship decided to play "chicken" with the Enterprise. The Enterprise corrected course to avoid the ship, who then matched the correction, to keep heading straight for us. At about 2,000 yards away, it finally turned, and passed about 300 yards from our port side. I could clearly see the crew on the ship. I don't know if anything happened to that captain, but they could have easily turned into our ship as we were passing and struck the Enterprise.
There were many times, especially when entering and exiting the Suez Canal, that we were very close to other ships. I know people who have never been aboard a U.S. Navy vessel thinks that other ships can't get close, but unless being directly attacked, Navy ships have very little they can do except change course. Iranian vessels routinely harass Navy ships.
If this turns out to be an intentional act, I don't think the Commanding Officer will loose his job.
Reminds me of the Straits of Messina at dawn where ferries are crossing "right and left" ......or the Straits of Gibraltar at night where the contact list is easily in double letters.
It has been reported that the cargo ship was stuck on autopilot at the time of the collision, and that they broke international maritime law by not reporting the collision until 50 minutes after it had occurred. Per the crew of the cargo ship, they did not have any control of the ship, it was traveling a full speed and the U-turn was carried out by the auto pilot, for reasons they don't know. They reported that once they fully regained control of the ship, it was at that point that they reported the collision.
I had posted this on another thread, but it got deleted. I was onboard the USS Enterprise in the Persian Gulf, when a large container ship decided to play "chicken" with the Enterprise. The Enterprise corrected course to avoid the ship, who then matched the correction, to keep heading straight for us. At about 2,000 yards away, it finally turned, and passed about 300 yards from our port side. I could clearly see the crew on the ship. I don't know if anything happened to that captain, but they could have easily turned into our ship as we were passing and struck the Enterprise.
There were many times, especially when entering and exiting the Suez Canal, that we were very close to other ships. I know people who have never been aboard a U.S. Navy vessel thinks that other ships can't get close, but unless being directly attacked, Navy ships have very little they can do except change course. Iranian vessels routinely harass Navy ships.
If this turns out to be an intentional act, I don't think the Commanding Officer will loose his job.
It does not matter what that cargo ship was doing, the DD was either overtaking or crossing, which it had to give way. Even if the cargo turned, the DD should have more than enough distance to counter. The DD is like a sports car relative to the cargo ship. Fact that no alarm was sounded shows that either the DD was surprised by the collision, or it was just that much incompetence involved. Hell, the minute that cargo was closing in under what, 5000 yards? The CO should have been informed and collisions avoidance actions taken.
In your Enterprise example, the difference is that the Enterprise at least saw the cargo ship, and made a series of corrections. The Gulf is restricted as it is for maneuvering, and the Enterprise is no DD on its agility. And if anything even remotely similar happened in this incident, then the CO should have been notified and actions taken, hell, the DD can just come to a full stop and reverse at a few thousand yards out and that cargo would have drifted right by.
It does not matter what that cargo ship was doing, the DD was either overtaking or crossing, which it had to give way. Even if the cargo turned, the DD should have more than enough distance to counter. The DD is like a sports car relative to the cargo ship. Fact that no alarm was sounded shows that either the DD was surprised by the collision, or it was just that much incompetence involved. Hell, the minute that cargo was closing in under what, 5000 yards? The CO should have been informed and collisions avoidance actions taken.
In your Enterprise example, the difference is that the Enterprise at least saw the cargo ship, and made a series of corrections. The Gulf is restricted as it is for maneuvering, and the Enterprise is no DD on its agility. And if anything even remotely similar happened in this incident, then the CO should have been notified and actions taken, hell, the DD can just come to a full stop and reverse at a few thousand yards out and that cargo would have drifted right by.
It's a small point but the warship in question is a DDG, not a DD.
At a glance, it does not appear that the USN has had a DD since 2005 when the Spruance class, USS Cushing, was decommissioned.
As far as these DDGs and DDs (Spruance) coming to a full stop and reverse QUICKLY, with gas turbines and controllable pitch props, sure, no problem. Older ones with boilers, astern turbines, and continuous pitch props, however, that would be slightly more difficult.
It's a small point but the warship in question is a DDG, not a DD.
At a glance, it does not appear that the USN has had a DD since 2005 when the Spruance class, USS Cushing, was decommissioned.
As far as these DDGs and DDs (Spruance) coming to a full stop and reverse QUICKLY, with gas turbines and controllable pitch props, sure, no problem. Older ones with boilers, astern turbines, and continuous pitch props, however, that would be slightly more difficult.
I was just using DD out of laziness. Did not want to type out destroyer, did not intend to use hull designation. During my 12 years in the Navy, 5 on a submarine, we playes a few games with the Arleigh Burke class.
If this turns out to be an intentional act, I don't think the Commanding Officer will loose his job.
If he can't defend against a slow moving cargo ship how could he ever defend against a military attack? If that was the cause he should definitely lose his job.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
