U.S. Navy destroyer, Philippines merchant vessel collide off Japan

[55Jay]

6 minutes ago, manarak said:

update about the erratic manoeuvers: they could have been the consequence of "restricted navigation" rules, such as if a ship loses its channel, it must make a U-turn and get back in line where it left the channel.

 

also, the collision appears to have been more or less a glancing blow, if the Fitzgerald had been T-bones, it would probably have sunk, the container ship being about 4 times heavier.

 

from the damages, it appears that the Fitzgerald was stopped or nearly stopped at time of the collision. or, if it was not stopped, it was going at a similar speed as the freighter.

 

 

Good call.  Noticed that in the damage from the photos of the cruiser and ACX Crystal.  The latter's forward ballast sure would of punched a hole below the water line of the cruiser.  While the incident is bad, fact she made it back to Yoko is testament to the training of the Flying Squad and DC teams on board. 

[JHolmesJr]

11 hours ago, 55Jay said:

 

 

You should see the other guy…hehe

 

How the %^$ do you collide with something this big? (no titanic references, please)

[manarak]

8 minutes ago, pegman said:

The account I read on the BBC stated the U-turn occurred 25 minutes prior to the collision.

where would the collision be on the recorded course?

 

another theory would be that after turning back into the channel, the ACX Crystal was accelerating and the Fitzgerald somehow missed that fact and thought to pass in front of the ACX Crystal.

[JHolmesJr]

3 hours ago, Gulfsailor said:

 After the collision the PH vessel turned again back on its original course heading northnortheast.

 

don't they stop to exchange insurance information?

 

 

 

 

[55Jay]

Just now, JHolmesJr said:

You should see the other guy…hehe

 

How the %^$ do you collide with something this big? (no titanic references, please)

My first ship in the US Navy, an aircraft carrier, was T-boned by a commercial ship.  It happens, and more often than you think but it obviously makes news when the US Navy is involved. 

http://www.navysite.de/cvn/cv41.htm

 

That link ^, the June 03, 1987 entry, re: AIM 9  missile falling off the F18 and rocketing off the flight deck.... I was there, just forward and to the right in the photo, on fueling station #6 when that happened.  I looked right then WOOSH, there it went right off the angle deck. 

 

Witnessed the next entry below that one as well.  It was the last bird to shoot, and I was standing up there watching it, smoke, flash, poof, the pilot ejected.  We were blanketed in JP5 fumes as we advanced under the cloud, and the pilot floated down our starboard side, waving his arms and yelling. 

 

The more you know.  LOL.

[manarak]

19 minutes ago, pegman said:

The account I read on the BBC stated the U-turn occurred 25 minutes prior to the collision.

here is a vid of the course.

 

if the collision is 25 minutes after the U-turn, it occurs approximatively in the middle of the part where the ship is heading west.

[anon4546543]

The Crystal plowed into the Fitzgerald which was crossing its bows.

[manarak]

2 minutes ago, spiderorchid said:

The Crystal plowed into the Fitzgerald which was crossing its bows.

aaaah, case closed then, thanks sherlock !

[anon4546543]

Just now, manarak said:

aaaah, case closed then, thanks sherlock !

Yeah, the US navy budget needs to be adjusted to pay off the damage to a commercial ship and all the potential US sailor lives lost.

Of course we know from precedence that this cost to deaths will be minimal as per US military settlements in the past. RIP the sailors.

 

[55Jay]

13 hours ago, quadperfect said:

Yes but since the cole there is a minimum distance any vessel big or small is allowed to approach a war ship.If you enter this space you get fired upon.So this ship should have been fired on, not ramed.

Its really pathetic. Unless there is some kind of story behind the story.

Like the navy ship running dark and manuvering near this ship. They do usually run dark no ais no lights etc.

Somone really screwed up.

 

Someone, or more than one, did screw up. Obviously.  But equating this with the USS Cole, or pier side force protection measures and Condition 3 or 4 Steaming, is apples and oranges. 

[Prbkk]

Reminds me a little of the Frank E Evans, US destroyer sunk in a collision with HMAS Melbourne, Australian Aircraft Carrier, in the South China Sea or Gulf of Tonkin back in the late 60s. 70 or 80 died in that and it had been preceded by a similar collision with an Australian destroyer, The Voyager, in which more than 80 died.

[anon4546543]

36 minutes ago, Prbkk said:

Reminds me a little of the Frank E Evans, US destroyer sunk in a collision with HMAS Melbourne, Australian Aircraft Carrier, in the South China Sea or Gulf of Tonkin back in the late 60s. 70 or 80 died in that and it had been preceded by a similar collision with an Australian destroyer, The Voyager, in which more than 80 died.

True, but those incidents were live training exercises with only military craft involved. This incident happened in a major sea lane with commercial cargo vessels.

BTW, HMAS Melbourne was never credited with sinking a naval vessel in wartime. But it has 2 vessels on its hit list even though it never fired a shot in anger. 

BTW, the collision with Franklin occurred near Singapore when Franklin cut across its bows, much the same as in this unfortunate instance.

BTW, many Voyager survivors and killed never received  much compensation if any. This is true of all military "incidents" in Australian history. Check out the eighteen SAS soldiers killed in a helicopter incident prior to the Sydney Olympics. Soldiers and sailors are expendable cannon fodder. Always have been, always will be.

[anon4546543]

Sorry Prbkk. I quoted Franklin when it was obviously the Evans. But thanks anyway

[pegman]

3 hours ago, manarak said:

where would the collision be on the recorded course?

 

another theory would be that after turning back into the channel, the ACX Crystal was accelerating and the Fitzgerald somehow missed that fact and thought to pass in front of the ACX Crystal.

[Stargeezr]

This is the new USA Navy and the big cheese is Pres. Trump, do you really think all that serious stuff will happen to the commander?  It is the 21 century,  Things change!  555

Geezer

[funandsuninbangkok]

19 hours ago, ToS2014 said:

I agree with most of your thoughts; however, the USS Cole was stationary in a port being resupplied.  Much more to come but I would be concerned about my future career if I were the CO. 

CO has no more concerns. Professionally. 

[rooster59]

Search goes on for seven U.S. sailors after collision off Japan

 

The sun sets after the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald (not pictured), damaged by colliding with a Philippine-flagged merchant vessel, has been towed into the U.S. naval base, as the Japanese Maritime Self-Defence Force (JMSDF) naval escort vessel Yamagiri is seen in front, in Yokosuka, south of Tokyo, Japan June 17, 2017. REUTERS/Toru Hanai

 

TOKYO (Reuters) - Rescue crews searched into the early hours on Sunday for seven American sailors missing after a U.S. destroyer collided with a container ship in the pre-dawn hours off the coast of Japan.

 

U.S. 7th Fleet Vice Admiral Joseph P. Aucoin said the search was continuing in a statement released nearly 24 hours after the USS Fitzgerald, an Aegis guided missile destroyer, collided with the much larger Philippine-flagged merchant vessel 56 nautical miles southwest of Yokosuka.

 

"It's been a tough day for our Navy family. It's hard to imagine what this crew has had to endure, the challenges they've had to overcome," Aucoin said.

 

U.S. and Japanese aircraft and surface vessels continued the search after the Fitzgerald sailed into the port of Yokosuka south of Tokyo. Three aboard the destroyer were treated at the U.S. Naval Hospital, including ship Commander Bryce Benson.

 

It was not clear what caused the collision, which the U.S. Navy said occurred at about 2:30 a.m. local time (1730 GMT).

 

"Thoughts and prayers with the sailors of USS Fitzgerald and their families. Thank you to our Japanese allies for their assistance," U.S. President Donald Trump said in a Twitter post on Saturday.

 

The Fitzgerald suffered damage on her starboard side above and below the waterline, the Navy said.

 

Japan's Nippon Yusen KK, which charters the container ship, ASX Crystal, said in a statement it would "cooperate fully" with the Coast Guard's investigation of the incident. At around 29,000 tons displacement, the ship dwarfs the 8,315-ton U.S. warship, and was carrying 1,080 containers from the port of Nagoya to Tokyo.

 

None of the 20 crew members aboard the container ship, all Filipino, were injured, and the ship was not leaking oil, Nippon Yusen said. The ship arrived at Tokyo Bay later in the day.

 

The waterways approaching Tokyo Bay are busy with commercial vessels sailing to and from Japan’s two biggest container ports in Tokyo and Yokohama.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-06-18

[Stargeezr]

Yes I am glad that there will be a full investigation on this matter. The crew in the destroyer should all be held accountable for letting a slow moving freighter get this close without doing an avoidance move to avoid this collision. Sleeping on the job?

Geezer

[whaleboneman]

15 hours ago, nasanews said:

Could people be more stupid than collide at sea!

You can safely blame the brakes. They don't work well in water.

[melvinmelvin]

I see from the news cut above and from some entries further up that the freighter is referred to as a 29 000 tonner,

it isn't.

 

According to the owner of the freighter and the data recorded by Marine Traffic the DW (dead weight) of the freighter is about 40 000 tons. (LS (light ship weight) was not given and is not particularly relevant as the freighter was not in light ship condition.)

 

The 29 000 figure refers to the freighter's gross tonnage.

Gross tonnage is a measure of volume, not weight or force, and is mainly used for calculating kind and size of crew to run the ship safely, calculation of harbour fees, price of nipping through the Suez canal and the like.

Not particularly relevant here.

 

29 000 or 40 000, they both hurt if smacked in your face

 

I read some other place that some of the missing sailors have been recovered from the rooms behind the damaged hull of the destroyer. It wasn't stated but I'd assume not alive. Terrible way to go.

 

[Tug]

A vessel approaching your right(starboard side) is the stand on vessel he has the rite of way also due to his size he would be (ram)(restricted ability to maneuver)vessel I think the navel vessel will be found at fault rip to the lost sailors and condolences to the masters for their ruined careers 

[alanrchase]

Unfortunately the 7 sailors have been found dead in flooded compartments on the ship.

[Ulic]

On 6/17/2017 at 10:22 AM, ToS2014 said:

I agree with most of your thoughts; however, the USS Cole was stationary in a port being resupplied.  Much more to come but I would be concerned about my future career if I were the CO. 

No need for the CO to worry about his career, it is over. For the life of me I can't understand how this happened.  With AIS (set to receive only) the most advanced radar in the world, a highly trained professional crew the Navy  vessel should have had no trouble identifying and avoiding the freighter. As for the Philippine registered freighter

I also understand why they bare no responsibility. Nothing on the AIS screen,  shitty radar, probably nothing to see with the US Navy ship probably running dark. RIP to those who died.  

[MaxYakov]

This is very bad news. The only good thing is that Yokosuka has (had, anyway when my sub was in dry dock for an overhaul) excellent repair facilities and personnel. R.I.P. the deceased and condolences to friends an family.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎6‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 9:36 AM, melvinmelvin said:

The man of war having damages to the starboard side might indicate that it did not give way to a vessel

showing red lights.

Note, I said might. (could be a host of other reasons)

 

 

According to the latest reports the Phillipine vessel turned in to the destroyer when it should have been on a constant course so it could be avoided, as it was on the right hand side of the destroyer.

Be interesting to see the reason it did so.

 

RIP to the dead sailors.

[manarak]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

According to the latest reports the Phillipine vessel turned in to the destroyer when it should have been on a constant course so it could be avoided, as it was on the right hand side of the destroyer.

Be interesting to see the reason it did so.

 

RIP to the dead sailors.

maybe it simply wasn't aware there was a destroyer there.

 

AFAIK, Aegis class destroyers are furtive and minimize their radar echo, and usually navigate lights off.

 

in any case, the destroyer was much too close to the freighter.

 

can Navy men here say if warships usually try playing a hiding game near other, bigger ships, same as subs do?

 

 

Edited June 18, 2017 by manarak

[thaibeachlovers]

7 hours ago, Tug said:

A vessel approaching your right(starboard side) is the stand on vessel he has the rite of way also due to his size he would be (ram)(restricted ability to maneuver)vessel I think the navel vessel will be found at fault rip to the lost sailors and condolences to the masters for their ruined careers 

Don't speak too soon. Apparently the freighter did not maintain a constant course as it was required to do.

Whatever, all will be revealed at the inquiry.

[melvinmelvin]

6 hours ago, Ulic said:

No need for the CO to worry about his career, it is over. For the life of me I can't understand how this happened.

With AIS (set to receive only) the most advanced radar in the world, a highly trained professional crew the Navy

vessel should have had no trouble identifying and avoiding the freighter. As for the Philippine registered freighter

I also understand why they bare no responsibility. Nothing on the AIS screen,  shitty radar, probably nothing to see

with the US Navy ship probably running dark. RIP to those who died.  

 

Navy ships running without steaming lights in busy commercial shipping lanes is just plain stupid and a recipee for problems. If that is what US navy vessels are doing they need more training and better understanding of ship handling.

 

PI freighter, I'd guess one man on the bridge. Maybe, maybe 2, no helmsman but maybe a lookout.

Rece

[melvinmelvin]

edin

7 hours ago, Ulic said:

No need for the CO to worry about his career, it is over. For the life of me I can't understand how this happened.

With AIS (set to receive only) the most advanced radar in the world, a highly trained professional crew the Navy

vessel should have had no trouble identifying and avoiding the freighter. As for the Philippine registered freighter

I also understand why they bare no responsibility. Nothing on the AIS screen,  shitty radar, probably nothing to see

with the US Navy ship probably running dark. RIP to those who died.  

 

Navy ships running without steaming lights in busy commercial shipping lanes is just plain stupid and a recipee for problems. If that is what US navy vessels are doing they need more training and better understanding of safe ship operation.

 

PI freighter, I'd guess one man on the bridge. Maybe, maybe 2, no helmsman but maybe a lookout.

Recently finished loading and recently having left previous port, navigator probably pretty tired due to lack of sleep.

 

How can such accidents happen? Lack of situation awareness and gross misjudgements. Unhealthy working environments.

Happens often in various situations. Also in navies.

 

Haven't we all seen or experienced the following;

Where are my glasses, they were here on the table a minute ago, the guy looking around the desk, lifting the papers, looking under the desk for the glasses looking in the chair in which he was sitting, cant find the <deleted>' glasses. Wife; they are on your nose. And there they are. This happens not rarely - lack of situation awareness.

Where is my bleedin' pen? Left it here 3 minutes ago, I am sure. Not here, not under the table, not in the chair. Christ what happened. Wife; there it is, smack in the middle of the desk, right in front of you. Situation loss. Brain not registering what the eye observe.

Happens all the time, also in navies.

 

Navy vessels have relatively small bridges  compared to commercial vessels. The bridge on navy vessels are more often than not packed with people. Especially when getting close to harbour. Not a good working environment for the navigator. He can hardly move freely around and will have difficulties looking out of the windows, radar and high tech is fine but eyes and ears are still very very good navigational aids.

If the navigator was a young junior officer. Would he ask for help/advice if he started to feel that the situation might get out of control? I would suggest that the navy working environment doesn't encourage and invite that, he would probably try and sort it out himself.

If the navigator was an old salt and experienced senior officer. Who would qestion his doings before its too late? I'd suggest that navy working environment does not invite such questioning.

This old/young right/wrong problem is an area where airlines are struggling, but airlines are doing better than navies, 'cause airlines is a newer business than several hundred years old navies.

'

I have no problem "seeing" how such an accident could happen.

 

As to training and professionalism. In many navies around the world the navigators are well educated but have little experience. The cost of running naval vessels results in the vessels spending long periods of time in harbour/home base in order to save money.

Often navy officers are not very good navigators and not good ship handlers, they never get the necessary experience.

Sometimes it can be just heartbreaking looking at a naval vessel berthing, they can be totally inept at that.

 

[elliss]

On 6/17/2017 at 9:55 AM, car720 said:

In such an area I would say that everything would be manned.  Not just radar.  I wonder if this was some sort of practice manoeuvre gone wrong.

   Thank God , it was  only practice. 

   If it was a serious operational movement ,

the  fatalities would have been far higher .

     God bless America , World leaders , and peace keepers .

Edited June 18, 2017 by elliss