It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Breaking: US Navy destroyer takes on water after collision off Japanese coast

page: 4
57
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

You're pretty well right with your summary.

Some pics







kind regards,

bally




posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: SBMcG
Several members have already keyed on this, but the first thing I thought when I read the OP was that it was an intentional ramming.

For the ACX Crystal to be able to ram an Arleigh Burke would mean gross negligence on the crew of the destroyer.

One of these is a sports car in comparison to the other.

Does anybody know the heading of the ACX prior to impact?

Maybe the USS Fitzgerald just saved a port a massive disaster?


There was an indication on the first page that the container ship was "not under control".

And it makes a certain sense to me that the crew of the naval vessel would risk themselves in an effort to stop, or at least attempt to deflect a larger uncontrolled ship,even at the risk of their own ship, and lives, if they thought they could help to avert a disaster.

But, why have we not heard from the container vessel yet?

They must know that there was a collision.

Is there anyone alive aboard that ship?



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Or incompetence from the US ship.

Some 10 years ago, here in Portugal, an US ship decided that they knew well enough the area and decided to enter the Tagus without a pilot, and the result was a collision with a Portuguese ship. If the Portuguese ship wasn't in the way then the US ship would have hit the shore, as it was going perpendicular to the shore.

The incident didn't reach the news in its full extent (several Portuguese sailors injured, one seriously), I only know about it because at the time I knew a guy that was in the Portuguese navy and that told the whole story. Officially it was only a minor collision.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 07:53 PM
link   
In a crossing situation where there is risk of collision in international waters, the vessel to the right is the stand-on vessel. The give-way vessel is REQUIRED (SHALL, not should) to give way by reducing speed, coming right or both and avoid crossing ahead of that vessel. Rule 15
If the Fitz was overtaking the cargo vessel up their port side and the Fitz cut down and across into the cargo vessel the same type of damage could happen. Rule 13

Either way the Fitz is the give-way vessel (rule 16). Rule 2 safe operations was the first to fall.

The Fitz damage is midships starboard side, while the cargo ship damage is port bow consistent with probable crossing situation where the Fitz is the give way vessel.

The USS PORTER did the same thing in the Straits of Hormuz a couple years ago. Many careers ended with that one.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: khnum
The ACX chrystal is a whopping great container ship you'd see 30 miles away,something is seriously wrong here.
As far as container ships go this isn't that big, @13 hatches from bow to stern (222.6m long) and 12 containers wide. Kind of small actually Source

It's a little big larger than the destroyer though @505 feet long, as per the op source. Compare this to some Maersk ships. I'm guessing they are around 24 hatches long with maybe 18 containers wide, 18,000 TEU is a lot of container space.

It's not a matter of sight distance but radar. Someone wasn't paying attention, oopps!
edit on 6/16/2017 by Devino because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 07:58 PM
link   


There was an indication on the first page that the container ship was "not under control".


If the vessel site is correct, maybe due to the collision, not before.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: tkwasny
In a crossing situation where there is risk of collision in international waters, the vessel to the right is the stand-on vessel. The give-way vessel is REQUIRED (SHALL, not should) to give way by reducing speed, coming right or both and avoid crossing ahead of that vessel. Rule 15
If the Fitz was overtaking the cargo vessel up their port side and the Fitz cut down and across into the cargo vessel the same type of damage could happen. Rule 13

Either way the Fitz is the give-way vessel (rule 16). Rule 2 safe operations was the first to fall.

The Fitz damage is midships starboard side, while the cargo ship damage is port bow consistent with probable crossing situation where the Fitz is the give way vessel.

The USS PORTER did the same thing in the Straits of Hormuz a couple years ago. Many careers ended with that one.


Exactly - rule 15 (Colregs) stipulates the following........


edit on 16-6-2017 by Sublimecraft because: clarification



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Believe it or not, the Burke class ships have a radar signature the size of a fishing boat. They have a number of features to reduce their radar signature, including the antenna being angled, and if you look at the poles that support the cables that keep you from going overboard (don't remember what they're called off hand), they're diamond shaped, with a point angled out. That limits the amount of radar energy that gets returned from them.

It's entirely possible that the container ship saw them on radar and thought they were a smaller vessel. And with it being at 2am, that's about when everyone on watch is most sluggish, so that will add to mistakes being made.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Since the Fitzgerald was hit on the starboard side, I think it's the fault of the Fitzgerald with out additional info. The law of the sea is clear, you must give way to the vessel to starboard unless you are confined by draft.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Believe it or not, the Burke class ships have a radar signature the size of a fishing boat. They have a number of features to reduce their radar signature, including the antenna being angled, and if you look at the poles that support the cables that keep you from going overboard (don't remember what they're called off hand), they're diamond shaped, with a point angled out. That limits the amount of radar energy that gets returned from them.

It's entirely possible that the container ship saw them on radar and thought they were a smaller vessel. And with it being at 2am, that's about when everyone on watch is most sluggish, so that will add to mistakes being made.


Agreed and radar is a secondary means of navigation - the primary being your eyes and intelligence. The Naval vessel would show navigation lights if underway so that would also be taken into consideration as any target acquired requires a visual verification.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler Its the new Navy "party as she go"s You cannot be serious a container ship hits a destroyer? What a joke a new low for our once proud Navy.Add this incident to Iran's capture of the patrol boat where the sailors cried and gave up everything on the boat, didn't even fight for their ship,pitiful.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
Believe it or not, yes, even in this day an age, collisions on the water can happen, even with military vessels.

The only thing we know for sure right now is:

It happened very early in the morning local time (some time after 2 am, so it was dark).
The cargo ship hit the naval vessel amid ships (crossing the T so to speak).
The names of the ships.

How could this of happened?

Several reasons:

1) Bridge crew assumed that the cargo ship was in the proper lane and would not hit them....when they realized their mistake (or the cargo ship's mistake), there could have been several reasons for not getting out of the way.

The shipping separation lanes (rule 10) does not alleviate or supersede the international water rules of the road where in a crossing situation (rule 15) the vessel to the right has the right of way.

2) We don't know the weather. We know it was dark, could have been foggy. There could have been a problem with the naval vessels nav radar....and as bad luck would have it, the same with the cargo vessel.....so literally neither ship saw each other until it was too late. That cargo ship will not turn very fast.

If WX was a factor for visibility then rule 19 is in place and the safe speed component and the early and substantial action clause was violated.

3) Even if they saw the cargo ship coming, there could of been several reasons the US Naval vessel didn't move. Even with gas turbine engines, it can take a bit to get them going, and for all we know they were having an issue that was being worked on. You don't just turn the keys, start the engine, put it in gear an go. It's a ship, not a car....nor a speed boat.

The DDG has 4 main turbine engines and can get from all stop to flank in NHRA eye-ball plastering to the back of your skull time. If there was a maneuvering limitation due to equipment they should have flown the Not Under Command or the Restricted In the Ability to maneuver flags and lights. The cargo ship would be in the fault if the Fitz was flying either of those.

4) Could be that the US ship was anchored outside the normal shipping lane, and the cargo ship was well outside the lane.

US naval warships don't anchor hardly ever as they become frozen targets for easy pickin's. Especially in busy or foreign waters.

5) Could be that the US ship's crew screwed up and parked the ship inside the shipping lane, thinking that they were not.

This geography is so busy, if you even slow down, you're done for. It's like a mother duck with all the ducklings equally spaced right behind her. All the ships in and out are about 1/2 mile apart, all bookin'.

So yeah....even with today's advanced tech, on either ship, it's quite possible to still get a collision.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

They both should have tried for a visual identification. The fault is going to be with the Fitzgerald, but they're going to find a series of errors with both crews.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nickn3
Since the Fitzgerald was hit on the starboard side, I think it's the fault of the Fitzgerald with out additional info. The law of the sea is clear, you must give way to the vessel to starboard unless you are confined by draft.


Yup. It's not looking good for the Fitz so far. Yeah, I know we have to wait to see if there were extenuating circumstances, but.....we'll know soon enough.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: tkwasny
In a crossing situation where there is risk of collision in international waters, the vessel to the right is the stand-on vessel. The give-way vessel is REQUIRED (SHALL, not should) to give way by reducing speed, coming right or both and avoid crossing ahead of that vessel. Rule 15
If the Fitz was overtaking the cargo vessel up their port side and the Fitz cut down and across into the cargo vessel the same type of damage could happen. Rule 13

Either way the Fitz is the give-way vessel (rule 16). Rule 2 safe operations was the first to fall.

The Fitz damage is midships starboard side, while the cargo ship damage is port bow consistent with probable crossing situation where the Fitz is the give way vessel.
I think you're right, nice catch. From the damages it looks like the Fitzgerald tried to pass the cargo ship and then cut across in front.



Pictures from bally001



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 08:15 PM
link   
It's folks like you that make this website a great place. a reply to: eriktheawful



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Sublimecraft

They both should have tried for a visual identification. The fault is going to be with the Fitzgerald, but they're going to find a series of errors with both crews.


I guarantee the use of radio will be the cause.

As archaic as it sounds, the Colregs are almost perfect in their wisdom as they were designed before radio - which has been proven to be, time and time again, the primary cause of collusions.

Sounds insane, I know, but you're a pilot so you know exactly what I'm taking about - everyone obeys the rules and there is no need for communication - simple.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

I agree. The radio has caused all kinds of problems for as useful as it is. People get so stuck on talking on the radio they forget to fly their aircraft, or in this case, drive their ship. And you end up with a lovely crunch.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Sublimecraft

I agree. The radio has caused all kinds of problems for as useful as it is. People get so stuck on talking on the radio they forget to fly their aircraft, or in this case, drive their ship. And you end up with a lovely crunch.


Not to mention language barriers and consequential comprehension issues.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Oh god yes. The stories I could tell about that issue.




top topics



 
57
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join