Jump to content


Photo

Uss Fitzgerald Collision


  • Please log in to reply
174 replies to this topic

#41 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,025 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 21 June 2017 - 1127 AM

Quite.



#42 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,074 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 21 June 2017 - 1203 PM

Not sure about a destroyer been more manoeuvrable than any merchantmen. A lot of merchant vessels have bow and.or podded thrusters. I don't think destroyers typically have these.



#43 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,561 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, New York City

Posted 21 June 2017 - 1214 PM

Not sure about a destroyer been more manoeuvrable than any merchantmen. A lot of merchant vessels have bow and.or podded thrusters. I don't think destroyers typically have these.


Those are generally only effective at extremely low speeds in port, not at cruise speed, and generally are only on ships that have to routinely maneuver during a normal day - like ferries and landing craft (tugs?). I don't think any bulk frieghter, tanker, or container ship would have them and I don't think they'd have any effect at 18 knots.

#44 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,161 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 21 June 2017 - 1231 PM

Not sure about a destroyer been more manoeuvrable than any merchantmen. A lot of merchant vessels have bow and.or podded thrusters. I don't think destroyers typically have these.


For a given tonnage, naval vessels usually have lots more power than civilian vessels in order to achieve the 30 knots needed for formation keeping with carriers, etc. Hydrodynamic resistance scales with the cube of the speed, so that 30 knots+ requires easily double or even triple the power than for a cargo ship that only needs to reach 20 knots.

Naval vessels have bigger rudders that, coupled with the bigger propellers and more power, gives them quite good maneuverability.

 

Most of current cargo ships only have one screw. With exceptions like the O. H. Perry-class FFGs, and some OPVs, naval vessels have twin screws (big carriers, and the like, 4), and twin rudders. That allows to steer with the engines even if the rudders are damaged.



#45 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,273 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Madrid, Spain
  • Interests:Military history in general

Posted 21 June 2017 - 1329 PM

 

Looks like a COLREG assisted collision to me, one of the many that happen year on year. One ship interpretation differs from the other ship, add poor watchkeeping (a classic is to turn the alarms off because, at night, they annoy the bridge crew) and you get a collision.

 

I can't say anything for the causes of other collisions on the yearly basis, but, it seems to me that the destroyer violated rule 15 in here on page 27 of 74. The container ship was in the right to keep cruising as it was. The destroyer should have changed course ahead of time.

crossing.jpg

 

 

Could have been an overtaking situation, though



#46 Marek Tucan

Marek Tucan

    Powerpoint Ranger, Chairborne

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,592 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Versailles, France

Posted 25 June 2017 - 1238 PM

Timeline wise it seems the cargo ship reported the collision some 50 minutes after it happened and may have even taken some time to realise something happened. The collision also seems to have damaged comms on the Fitzgerald.

 

http://edition.cnn.c...date/index.html

 

 

Washington (CNN)Five of the seven Navy sailors who died aboard the guided-missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald when it collided with a cargo ship off the east coast of Japan may have been almost instantly "incapacitated" and died quickly, according to a preliminary Navy analysis, a defense official told CNN.

 
That assessment is based on an examination of the point of impact and the berths in which the sailors were likely sleeping.
The two ships collided on the Fitzgerald's starboard side directly next to the berthing area, where sailors sleep. The impact ripped the Fitzgerald open and caused water to pour in.
The official also noted the Navy is trying to corroborate accounts which suggest that the two sailors who weren't almost instantly "incapacitated" attempted to help the other five escape the incoming water.
"But at some point the ship somehow lost communication," with the two sailors and they also perished, according to the official. All seven were found dead in the flooded area.
 
Seven missing sailors from the USS Fitzgerald were found dead in flooded berthing compartments following the warship's collision with a merchant vessel, a US military official said.The Navy's 7th Fleet said searchers found the bodies Sunday morning, Japan time, after the guided-missile destroyer returned to its base in Japan.<br />Gunner's Mate Seaman Dakota Kyle Rigsby, 19, from Palmyra, Virginia.
Photos: The seven sailors who died in USS Fitzgerald collision
Seven missing sailors from the USS Fitzgerald were found dead in flooded berthing compartments following the warship's collision with a merchant vessel, a US military official said.The Navy's 7th Fleet said searchers found the bodies Sunday morning, Japan time, after the guided-missile destroyer returned to its base in Japan.
 
Seven missing sailors from the USS Fitzgerald were found dead in flooded berthing compartments following the warship's collision with a merchant vessel, a US military official said.The Navy's 7th Fleet said searchers found the bodies Sunday morning, Japan time, after the guided-missile destroyer returned to its base in Japan.<br />Gunner's Mate Seaman Dakota Kyle Rigsby, 19, from Palmyra, Virginia.
Photos: The seven sailors who died in USS Fitzgerald collision
Seven missing sailors from the USS Fitzgerald were found dead in flooded berthing compartments following the warship's collision with a merchant vessel, a US military official said.The Navy's 7th Fleet said searchers found the bodies Sunday morning, Japan time, after the guided-missile destroyer returned to its base in Japan.
 
It also appears that the collision caused part of the berthing compartment to collapse inward, making it difficult for survivors to get out.
The official said It may never be known if the order to close the watertight hatch to the berthing area came while the two men were still alive.
The formal investigation will determine who gave that order, but the initial sense is the decision was necessary because water had not only flooded the berthing area but was flowing into other locations including a deck below.
The official emphasized that the Navy will wait for all the investigations to be completed before coming to any conclusions about the actions of the crew and decisions over citations for heroism or potential disciplinary action.
The official also strongly emphasized that no judgments are being made about the timing of the decision to shut the watertight hatch. It is also not clear if those on the bridge called the commanding officer as the crisis unfolded.
 
The collision occurred very close to the cabin of Cmdr. Bryce Benson, and he was briefly unable to get out. The crew helped him to the bridge, but he was so badly injured that he had to be medevaced off the ship and the second in command took over.
The US Navy, the US Coast Guard, and Japanese naval and maritime authorities are all conducting investigations.
An early assessment suggests the container ship might have been on some type of autopilot system at the time of the collision, the official said.
However, that does not explain how and why the crew of the Fitzgerald did not see the other ship coming, or why they were unable to maneuver away from it, the official said.
Initial reports suggest that the collision occurred at 1:30 a.m., but the container ship crew did not automatically realize it had happened. The container ship turned back, and it appears the collision was then formally reported around 2:20 a.m.
 
To help determine what happened, investigators will download radar data from the ship's Aegis weapons system, which records routine details on position, course, speed and any nearby ships or aircraft. Navigation and radar data will also be gathered from the cargo ship.
Another factor being examined is the impact of the destruction of the Fitzgerald's communications gear on the ability of the crew to call back to shore to inform commanders they needed help.
Preliminary analysis indicates the collision occurred where the ship's communication nodes are housed and the official said the crew had to resort to using satellite based cell phones to communicate both on board and back to shore.


#47 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Welcome to the new world disorder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,756 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Elephants from the wrong end

Posted 26 June 2017 - 0310 AM

Apologies if this has already been posted.

http://freebeacon.co...t-us-destroyer/

The deadly collision between a U.S. destroyer and a container ship June 17 took place while the freighter was on autopilot, according to Navy officials.

The Philippines-flagged cargo ship ACX Crystal was under control of a computerized navigation system that was steering and guiding the container vessel, according to officials familiar with preliminary results of an ongoing Navy investigation.

Investigators so far found no evidence the collision was deliberate.

Nevertheless, an accident during computerized navigation raises the possibility the container ship's computer system could have been hacked and the ship deliberately steered into the USS Fitzgerald, an Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer.

A more likely explanation is that collision was the result of an autopilot malfunction, or the autopilot's warning signals, used to notify the ship's operators, were missed.

The destroyer was severely damaged when the protruding undersea bow of the cargo ship struck Fitzgerald on the right side. Seven sailors died as a result and the captain and two others were injured. It was the Navy's worst accident at sea.

The two ships hit about 64 miles off the coast of Japan.



#48 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,134 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 June 2017 - 0332 AM

Apologies if this has already been posted.
http://freebeacon.co...t-us-destroyer/
The deadly collision between a U.S. destroyer and a container ship June 17 took place while the freighter was on autopilot, according to Navy officials.
The Philippines-flagged cargo ship ACX Crystal was under control of a computerized navigation system that was steering and guiding the container vessel, according to officials familiar with preliminary results of an ongoing Navy investigation.
Investigators so far found no evidence the collision was deliberate.
Nevertheless, an accident during computerized navigation raises the possibility the container ship's computer system could have been hacked and the ship deliberately steered into the USS Fitzgerald, an Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer.
A more likely explanation is that collision was the result of an autopilot malfunction, or the autopilot's warning signals, used to notify the ship's operators, were missed.
The destroyer was severely damaged when the protruding undersea bow of the cargo ship struck Fitzgerald on the right side. Seven sailors died as a result and the captain and two others were injured. It was the Navy's worst accident at sea.
The two ships hit about 64 miles off the coast of Japan.

Wow. Russian hackers again?

#49 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Welcome to the new world disorder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,756 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Elephants from the wrong end

Posted 26 June 2017 - 0338 AM

You know, I knew exactly what you were going to post Gargean before I read the thread. It was funny the first half dozen times, but....

 

 

If hacking is an option, I would suggest North Korea first. Its just the kind of dumb fuck think they would think about doing.



#50 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,675 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 June 2017 - 0443 AM

I don't want to be the one to say it, I have total respect for the USN, especially those that serve on this side of the pond, and I immediately recognized this destroyer's name because it has been part of the many joint trainings that occurred in the past couple of months. http://www.tank-net....33#entry1303849

But if the destroyer was paying attention, it should have been able to dodge a container ship, even if the container ship was hacked and deliberately trying to hit it. A mistake with no forgiveness. Also I still think it violated rule 15. Of course, is not may final judgement as there is of course more information to gather, and what I'm thinking likely to be the case may be wrong. Could it be hacking, I guess it's possible, but I find it highly unlikely. Is it worth throwing in the idea, sure it is, but of course, it's going to cause the knee jerk reaction against the idea.

#51 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,025 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 26 June 2017 - 0737 AM

The collision was caused by the last ship having the chance to avoid. Therefore it cannot yet be known. The inquiries will be fierce.

 

Seven sailors died as a result and the captain and two others were injured. It was the Navy's worst accident at sea.

 

 

Does not make sense.

 

The modern USN has suffered worse 'worst at sea' accidents:

 

CVL HMAS Melbourne rammed DD USS Frank E. Evans on 3Jun69, cutting the Evans'  in half. 74 Evans sailors died.

 

USS Wasp (CV-18) did the same to DD USS Hobson on 26Apr52; 176 died, ship sank.

 

Even the CG Belknap collision with CVA Kennedy on 22Nov75 had one KIA more. 

 

Evan's remaining afloat section was sunk in 1969 by gunnery practice. This pic is the day after the collision:

1024px-USS_Frank_E._Evans_%28DD-754%29_p

 

 

For numbers of ships lost by the USN, the Honda Point disaster of 1923 is tops:

 

300px-NH_66721_Honda_Point.gif

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-------------------

Does nobody do research anymore?

 

This is the masthead of that 'news' source:

 

The Washington Free Beacon is a privately owned, for-profit online newspaper that began publication on February 7, 2012. Dedicated to uncovering the stories that the powers that be hope will never see the light of day, the Free Beacon produces in-depth investigative reporting on a wide range of issues, including public policy, government affairs, international security, and media. Whether it’s exposing cronyism, finding out just who is shaping our domestic and foreign policy and why, or highlighting the threats to American security and peace in a dangerous world, the Free Beacon is committed to serving the public interest by reporting news and information that is not being fully covered by other news organizations.


Edited by Ken Estes, 26 June 2017 - 0738 AM.


#52 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Welcome to the new world disorder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,756 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Elephants from the wrong end

Posted 26 June 2017 - 0745 AM

Just as a matter of interest, any idea how the KIA on the Kennedy happened? You kind of think being on a carrier of that size you are fairly secure against collision with anything smaller.

 

One more for the list, im not sure if it counts if these were civilian sailors or not, but clearly horrific. Reminds me of the Bombay explosion of 1944.

https://en.wikipedia...nt_Hood_(AE-11)



#53 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,675 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 June 2017 - 0748 AM

I could have guessed it wasn't really the worse, but I guess it depends on how far one wants to consider valid.

#54 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,025 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 26 June 2017 - 0841 AM

Just as a matter of interest, any idea how the KIA on the Kennedy happened? You kind of think being on a carrier of that size you are fairly secure against collision with anything smaller.

 

One more for the list, im not sure if it counts if these were civilian sailors or not, but clearly horrific. Reminds me of the Bombay explosion of 1944.

https://en.wikipedia...nt_Hood_(AE-11)

 

I was not going to count wartime operations, otherwise Halsey's sailing into the Typhoon in 1945 caused ~800 dead 

 

 

Belknap's mast was snapped off by the carrier's flight deck overhanging, falling on the carrier, severed a Kennedy fuel line spilling fuel onto Belknap. So no place was particularly safe.

 

Damage to Kennedy:

 

uss_jfk_damaged_deck_after_collision_wit

 

Investigation report:

http://www.jag.navy....NAP 75 PT 1.pdf

 

Indicates [p. 728] the Kennedy KIA was a yeoman who exited the Fighter Squadron 14 personnel office in search of a safer place. His body was located not far from that office, asphyxiated due to smoke inhalation.  


Edited by Ken Estes, 26 June 2017 - 0842 AM.


#55 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Welcome to the new world disorder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,756 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Elephants from the wrong end

Posted 26 June 2017 - 0908 AM

 

Just as a matter of interest, any idea how the KIA on the Kennedy happened? You kind of think being on a carrier of that size you are fairly secure against collision with anything smaller.

 

One more for the list, im not sure if it counts if these were civilian sailors or not, but clearly horrific. Reminds me of the Bombay explosion of 1944.

https://en.wikipedia...nt_Hood_(AE-11)

 

I was not going to count wartime operations, otherwise Halsey's sailing into the Typhoon in 1945 caused ~800 dead 

 

 

Belknap's mast was snapped off by the carrier's flight deck overhanging, falling on the carrier, severed a Kennedy fuel line spilling fuel onto Belknap. So no place was particularly safe.

 

Damage to Kennedy:

 

uss_jfk_damaged_deck_after_collision_wit

 

Investigation report:

http://www.jag.navy....NAP 75 PT 1.pdf

 

Indicates [p. 728] the Kennedy KIA was a yeoman who exited the Fighter Squadron 14 personnel office in search of a safer place. His body was located not far from that office, asphyxiated due to smoke inhalation.  

 

Ok, fair enough.

 

Thanks very much for that, thats very interesting.



#56 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 26 June 2017 - 1443 PM

Belknap, the next day

220px-USS_Belknap_collision_damage.jpg

Before collision

300px-USS_Belknap_%28CG-26%29.jpg


Edited by shep854, 26 June 2017 - 1443 PM.


#57 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,959 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 26 June 2017 - 1517 PM

04012656.jpgv

 

 

04012621.jpg


Edited by rmgill, 26 June 2017 - 1517 PM.


#58 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,025 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 26 June 2017 - 2340 PM

Belknap, the next day

220px-USS_Belknap_collision_damage.jpg

Before collision

300px-USS_Belknap_%28CG-26%29.jpg

That's why the Burke class and later have steel superstructures. It is truly an Exhibit A.



#59 Manic Moran

Manic Moran

    Mad Irish Tanking Ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,454 posts
  • Interests:Blowing things up, scale modelling, wargaming.

Posted 27 June 2017 - 0016 AM

Karuna had a counterpart, looks like she T-boned a container ship.

 

article-1223392-06FB6ACF000005DC-669_964

 

a-js-kurama-ddh-144-920-0.jpg



#60 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,675 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 June 2017 - 0104 AM

Didn't know about that one.

From what I gather, it happened on October 27th 2009. JS Kurama was about 20 to 30 meters behind an ROK container ship while going through the Kanmon Strait that goes between the main islands of Kyushu and Honshu. JS Kurama collided with the rear of the container ship. Initially, the Japan Coast Guard and traffic control took responsibility but it was later reported that the Korean crew gave false information and that they intentionally slowed down their container ship to rear end the destroyer. The destroyer made a quick turn to the left but collided with the container ship. Six crew members on the destroyer were injured. No injuries on the container ship :)

Edited by JasonJ, 27 June 2017 - 0106 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users