Something really STINKS here.

I'll be really SICK to my stomach if this is the fault of the US NAVY.

Quote from: Hoofer on June 26, 2017, 05:19:06 PM
Something really STINKS here.

I'll be really SICK to my stomach if this is the fault of the US NAVY.

It's not, but that's the narrative they're setting up.

Quote from: Hoofer on June 26, 2017, 05:19:06 PM
Something really STINKS here.

I'll be really SICK to my stomach if this is the fault of the US NAVY.

I am a former naval officer and I just scratch my head on this whole thing. Even if it was a deliberate ramming (which I do not believe), any ship as quick and nimble as the Fitzgerald should have been able to easily avoid the freighter. Were the other ship's navigation lights out? If so, the Fitzgerald's surface radars (plural) would have easily picked up the freighter. If also the Fitzgerald's surface radars were not working, the captain would have been on the bridge in such busy waters. In fact, barring dire emergency, they probably would have repaired the radars before leaving port.  My ship was homeported in Yokosuka, so I have been through that very area any number of times.

One thing I have not read is the destination of the Fitzgerald. That might give us an idea of the Fitzgerald's course. I assume they departed Yokosuka the previous day/evening. I can not wait to see the paths of the two ships in the five minutes before the collision.

Quote from: Wyatt5 on July 01, 2017, 05:25:22 PM
I am a former naval officer and I just scratch my head on this whole thing. Even if it was a deliberate ramming (which I do not believe), any ship as quick and nimble as the Fitzgerald should have been able to easily avoid the freighter. Were the other ship's navigation lights out? If so, the Fitzgerald's surface radars (plural) would have easily picked up the freighter. If also the Fitzgerald's surface radars were not working, the captain would have been on the bridge in such busy waters. In fact, barring dire emergency, they probably would have repaired the radars before leaving port.  My ship was homeported in Yokosuka, so I have been through that very area any number of times.

One thing I have not read is the destination of the Fitzgerald. That might give us an idea of the Fitzgerald's course. I assume they departed Yokosuka the previous day/evening. I can not wait to see the paths of the two ships in the five minutes before the collision.

Just taking a shot in the dark here, but what reason would the Fitzgerald have for getting that close to the ACX in the first place?
Could have the ACX been sitting dead in the water? With the floodlights on the Navy ship and spotters on deck, it would only make sense to pull along side circling the bow, when suddenly the ACX lurches forward locking the starboard side and pulling it down underwater.

Granted it's only speculation, but I can't imagine any other reason the Fitz would drop it's guard, allowing it to be hit.

Quote from: Solar on July 01, 2017, 06:02:19 PM
Just taking a shot in the dark here, but what reason would the Fitzgerald have for getting that close to the ACX in the first place?
Could have the ACX been sitting dead in the water? With the floodlights on the Navy ship and spotters on deck, it would only make sense to pull along side circling the bow, when suddenly the ACX lurches forward locking the starboard side and pulling it down underwater.

Granted it's only speculation, but I can't imagine any other reason the Fitz would drop it's guard, allowing it to be hit.

There is absolutely no reason the Fitzgerald should have been that close. If they were going to come within a certain distance of the freighter, the captain would have been awakened, though he probably would have stayed in bed. He might have instructed the Officer of the Deck to maneuver to increase the closest approach between the vessels. If the freighter had called for help, the captain would have been awakened. If help was to be rendered, most of the ship would have been awakened. Even at that, they would never have crossed the bow of the other ship. They also probably wait until daylight and send a small boat over to investigate.

The Navy is made up of human beings, who sometimes make mistakes. I have seen the rocks the Leahy hit; it was inexcusable.

http://www.ussleahy.com/Rocks.html
Also google Melbourne-Evans Incident.

Quote from: Wyatt5 on July 02, 2017, 03:51:56 AM
There is absolutely no reason the Fitzgerald should have been that close. If they were going to come within a certain distance of the freighter, the captain would have been awakened, though he probably would have stayed in bed. He might have instructed the Officer of the Deck to maneuver to increase the closest approach between the vessels. If the freighter had called for help, the captain would have been awakened. If help was to be rendered, most of the ship would have been awakened. Even at that, they would never have crossed the bow of the other ship. They also probably wait until daylight and send a small boat over to investigate.

The Navy is made up of human beings, who sometimes make mistakes. I have seen the rocks the Leahy hit; it was inexcusable.

http://www.ussleahy.com/Rocks.html
Also google Melbourne-Evans Incident.

That's the point, the Fitz had no reason to suspect anything was amiss, so crossing, or possibly circling the bow for a closeup inspection isn't out of the realm of possibility, after all, it's only an unarmed cargo container ship in friendly yet busy waters.
The ACX was said to be doing 2 knots at the time of collision, meaning it had been at nearly full stop when it hit Fitz, again, meaning someone had to give the order "Full speed", and overtaking an unsuspecting Fitz on a routine inspection, or under orders from higher up.
I agree, this was not normal procedure which is why I believe the Fitz was lulled into believing there was no reason to suspect anything was amiss, or again, under orders from upper command to move in closer.

Though I suspect we will never know the truth, this whole incident has taken on the smell of something rotten on both ends of the Navy and ACX carcass.

QuoteThe captain of the ACX Crystal said the container ship flashed lights toward the USS Fitzgerald after it "suddenly" began heading on a collision course near Tokyo Bay on June 17, Reuters reported, citing a copy of Ronald Advincula's account to Dainichi Investment Corporation, the ship's owner.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/06/26/uss-fitzgerald-collision-ship-failed-to-react-to-warning-signals-captain-says.html

Interesting... not much news on this, no followup articles.

Quote from: Hoofer on July 03, 2017, 03:32:03 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/06/26/uss-fitzgerald-collision-ship-failed-to-react-to-warning-signals-captain-says.html

Interesting... not much news on this, no follow up articles.

I hate these kinds of articles, they have more but refuse to release the information.
Check out the bias.

"The U.S. Navy destroyer that slammed into a cargo ship in Japanese waters in mid-June"

Only to be followed by:

"Advincula said in the account that his ship steered hard right to avoid the Fitzgerald but hit it 10 minutes later, around 1:30am local time."

Bias or simply poor reporting?

Quote from: Solar on July 03, 2017, 04:35:00 PM
I hate these kinds of articles, they have more but refuse to release the information.
Check out the bias.

"The U.S. Navy destroyer that slammed into a cargo ship in Japanese waters in mid-June"

Only to be followed by:

"Advincula said in the account that his ship steered hard right to avoid the Fitzgerald but hit it 10 minutes later, around 1:30am local time."

Bias or simply poor reporting?

Hmm... I my book poor reporting is BIAS.