US Navy destroyer collides with merchant vessel

Forums › Off topic › US Navy destroyer collides with merchant vessel

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

9782 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2975

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1802946 18-Jun-2017 13:03

I seem to recall that those US ships can accelerate remarkably fast for their size and to a speed over 30 knots.

USN sailors are usually pretty competent folk, it seems, so I am surprised that they would get hit if they could avoid doing so. Why they could not avoid doing so remains to be seen I suppose.

Geektastic

9782 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2975

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1803033 18-Jun-2017 17:44

From the Telegraph (note - I suspect they meant "have been found on board..." but they fired their sub editors ages ago and it shows.)

Bodies of seven sailors reported missing after the USS Fitzgerald collided with a container ship have been on board the destroyer, the US Navy said.

The bodies were discovered after U.S. and Japanese vessels and aircraft spent Saturday searching for the American sailors.

They were feared lost after their Navy destroyer collided before dawn with a container ship four times its size off the coast of Japan.

The Navy says in a statement that searchers had gained access to the spaces that were damaged during the collision.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
58919 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10292

Administrator

Trusted

Geekzone

Subscriber

Reply # 1803045 18-Jun-2017 18:19

From NBC: Bodies of 7 missing US sailors found in destroyer damaged by collision. This confirms the above, with more details.

Geekzone broadband switch | Amazon (Geekzone aff) | MightyApe (Geekzone aff) | Backblaze cloud backup (personal and business) | My technology disclosure

Seakiwi

144 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 32
Inactive user

Reply # 1803336 19-Jun-2017 11:47

lets be clear in a collision at sea the maritime rules say both vessels are at fault as the very first rule is that you must take avoiding action to avert any colision !

However looking at the immedate damage photos it appears the container ship has damage to its port bows and the the warship has damage midships on the starboard side so .......the warship would appear to have been the giveway vessel here at first glance.

edited for spelling and sense

Jase2985

6901 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2193

Subscriber

Reply # 1803517 19-Jun-2017 15:51

unless they were being over taken and the container ship veered into the destroyer

tripper1000

338 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 211

Reply # 1803520 19-Jun-2017 15:57

How do container ships run over charted reef's outside Tauranga?

Looks like some erratic driving in a high traffic area leading up to it. I would love to know the reason for that.

War Ship won't have been at action stations (as evident by "most of the crew being in bed") so their lights would/should have been on and their fancy radars off.

They tend not to have their Military style Electronic Surveillance running in friendly foreign waters, closed to land for several reasons:

1) It can been seen as quite offensive to the friendly host nation to be in battle mode/intelligence gathering mode.

2) You un-necessarily give other people the opportunity to gather electronic information on the ship and establish electronic signatures etc.

3) When the ship is emitting lots of radio signals it effectively announces the presence of the ship & makes it easier for the baddies to track the ship via satellite etc.

4) When close to land and in/near a foreign country the radars & countermeasures systems can interfere with or jam lawful radio/cellular/radars (due to thehost/guest countries conflicting/differing rules on frequency allocations, and the very nature of the warships equipment) which is also an unfriendly and un-necessary thing to do.

Edit: Spelling, and I probably still didn't fix it all.

Torque

289 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 5

Reply # 1803584 19-Jun-2017 18:33

Seakiwi:
lets be clear in a collision at sea the maritime rules say both vessels are at fault as the very first rule is that you must take avoiding action to avert any colision !

No, that's rule 2. Rule 1 IRPCS is the basic application of the rules.

Edit: The poster above has summed it up well!

Geektastic

9782 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2975

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1803721 19-Jun-2017 23:04

Certainly confusing.

I'd think USN watchkeeping was to a high enough standard that they'd not fail to notice a vast commercial vessel approaching....!

MikeAqua

3040 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1114

Reply # 1803875 20-Jun-2017 10:29

Did the merchant ship have a pilot* on board?

The U turns could be explained as turning the ship around so the local pilot can board from the sheltered side.

* pilot in this context is a mariner employed by a port to navigate ships in and out of the port.

Mike

Bung

2213 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 219

Reply # 1803911 20-Jun-2017 11:10

"The US Navy said the collision happened at about 2.30am local time, while the Japanese Coast Guard said it was 1.30am local time."

I think there's a New York Times report showing the collision occurring before the freighter changed course turning back then resuming.

Geektastic

9782 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2975

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1803923 20-Jun-2017 11:24

MikeAqua:

Did the merchant ship have a pilot* on board?

The U turns could be explained as turning the ship around so the local pilot can board from the sheltered side.

* pilot in this context is a mariner employed by a port to navigate ships in and out of the port.

Wouldn't there be a lee side regardless (more or less) of the direction of travel with only a small course correction rather than a complete U turn?

Geektastic

9782 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2975

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1803924 20-Jun-2017 11:25

Bung:

"The US Navy said the collision happened at about 2.30am local time, while the Japanese Coast Guard said it was 1.30am local time."

I think there's a New York Times report showing the collision occurring before the freighter changed course turning back then resuming.

Does the freighter course change resemble one enacted for MOB recovery?

Seakiwi

144 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 32
Inactive user

Reply # 1803953 20-Jun-2017 12:20

It is now pretty clear that the collision happened at the first course change to starboard by the commercial vessel and the course reversal was them returning to the point of collision to render assistance.

Strangely, neither vessel seems to have reported the collision to the local Japanese authorities for 55 minutes.

Still pretty hard to see how it wasn't the warship primarily at fault here given the photos of the damage on the port bow and starboard midships.

Bung

2213 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 219

Reply # 1803960 20-Jun-2017 12:33

The MOB would have to be able to swim. The freighter turned right (South) briefly before continuing East for about 30 mins before turning back to the collision point then another u turn back onto its original course about 4.30am. The Japanese Coastguard say the original time was reported as 2.20am because the Crystal reported at 2.25am.

Something seems screwy if the US Navy didn't immediately correct the time or confirm the earlier report.

frankv

2026 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 969

Reply # 1803969 20-Jun-2017 12:51

Looking at the original Google Map posted here, I see the container ship initially following a blue dashed line, presumably a standard shipping lane or such-like? Then it turns left and collides with the warship.

I'm thinking/speculating that (a) someone on the container ship dozed off, then belatedly realised they should have turned left several minutes ago to stay in the shipping lane, and (b) on the warship, people are comfortably dozing along, in the knowledge that they are well clear of the shipping lane.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6