I Don't Mean to Sound Uncharitable, But...

[zeehag]

all this discussion is all well and good. what i want to know is why did the cargo ship, in both instances, turn directly into the navy ship. it is obvious turn and into the usn ship. easy to see. in this case they were running parallel when the cargo ship turned left into the navy ship. clear to see. i only had to watch one time to see it clearly. to ram fitz, the cargo ship had a wonky course at the end before colliding into navy ship. as if it had to get the correct angle and position for the damage sought. this one was a simple left turn. bam.
it looks to be deliberately done. merchant ship as a weapon or tool of destruction. but what is the mechanism used to do this. is it located on a chinese man made island or in the cargo ship or in another separate ship or in the air.....SOMETHING interfered with normal operations. what was it.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by zeehag

all this discussion is all well and good. what i want to know is why did the cargo ship, in both instances, turn directly into the navy ship. it is obvious turn and into the usn ship. easy to see. in this case they were running parallel when the cargo ship turned left into the navy ship. clear to see. i only had to watch one time to see it clearly. to ram fitz, the cargo ship had a wonky course at the end before colliding into navy ship. as if it had to get the correct angle and position for the damage sought. this one was a simple left turn. bam.
it looks to be deliberately done. merchant ship as a weapon or tool of destruction. but what is the mechanism used to do this. is it located on a chinese man made island or in the cargo ship or in another separate ship or in the air.....SOMETHING interfered with normal operations. what was it.

That seems foolish. A cargo ship can not turn on a dime.

[zeehag]

Originally Posted by Cadence

That seems foolish. A cargo ship can not turn on a dime.

exactly which makes this even more suspicious as the left turn occurred immediately before collision and in a manner unrepresentative of cargo ships.
reminiscent of radio controlled items played with by friends long ago.
when we stop saying it is impossible we will see more openly what happened. what caused cargo ship to make a nearly 90 degree left turn at that time.
is not random. the cargo ship was slow and fairly steady until navy appeared then headed for it as if drawn by a magnet or controlled by an external force

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by zeehag

exactly which makes this even more suspicious as the left turn occurred immediately before collision and in a manner unrepresentative of cargo ships...

Not sure what film you've seen of the collision (perhaps you can share) but when I go hard astern, the stern goes hard to starboard, forcing a sharp left turn whatever I do with my rudder. Maybe this is what you are seeing - a ship desperately trying to avoid collision by going hard astern??? No?

[zeehag]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

Not sure what film you've seen of the collision (perhaps you can share) but when I go hard astern, the stern goes hard to starboard, forcing a sharp left turn whatever I do with my rudder. Maybe this is what you are seeing - a ship desperately trying to avoid collision by going hard astern??? No?

the tracks were parallel \UNTIL the hard left turn. then collision. maybe should watch some more., only took me 2 times watching closely to see the last minuet sharp left turn BEFORE collision. their original tracks were parallel. no reason for collision whatsoever except one ship veered out of position to hit the other. look again. last minuet left turn by cargo ship. with fitz, also there was a wonky track by cargo ship . is visible. is important.
navy didnot do the hitting they were hit. both times in same place like that is a coincidence hahahahaha not when sleeping and communications areas are the ground zero.

[JPA Cate]

If anyone here is interested, there is some factual discussion occurring on the other two US Navy Destroyer threads.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

If anyone here is interested, there is some factual discussion occurring on the other two US Navy Destroyer threads.

But are people wearing tin foil hats allowed to participate??

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by zeehag

the tracks were parallel \UNTIL the hard left turn. then collision... navy didnot do the hitting they were hit...

If I were seriously interested I could search the other threads or try harder to find video of actual collision, but just to clarify for this thread:
1. "Tracks were parallel" - I take this to mean both ships steaming in same direction (I'm assuming they were not parallel but in opposite directions?);
2. DDG damage is on port side aft of midships - if ships were steaming in same direction then this implies DDG was to stbd of tanker up until collision;
3. "Tanker did hard left turn" - to port, so DDG would have had to be on port side of tanker for tanker to ram her.
2 and 3 are incompatible (unless 1 is wrong), so what really happened, in simple words I can understand?

[zeehag]

tracks parallel different directions. as if in shipping lanes with protocols. one of thexmany threadschere andxsailnet has the animated graphic of tracks.

[NevisDog]

Got it - tracks parallel, opposite directions - now that makes sense. DDG is not visible on the radar plot I just watched but the tanker course shows it correctly navigating the shipping lane, then sharp turn to port, where it suddenly stops ON ITS OWN SIDE OF TRAFFIC SEPARATION LANE, so any collision at that point means the DDG was navigating on THE WRONG SIDE OF THE TRAFFIC SEPARATION LANE. Why would they do that? Playing chicken on the WRONG SIDE OF THE TRAFFIC SEPARATION LANE means you're gonna get hurt. Simple mechanics means two ships passing that close at speed will interact. Collision seemed inevitable.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

Got it - tracks parallel, opposite directions - now that makes sense. DDG is not visible on the radar plot I just watched but the tanker course shows it correctly navigating the shipping lane, then sharp turn to port, where it suddenly stops ON ITS OWN SIDE OF TRAFFIC SEPARATION LANE, so any collision at that point means the DDG was navigating on THE WRONG SIDE OF THE TRAFFIC SEPARATION LANE. Why would they do that? Playing chicken on the WRONG SIDE OF THE TRAFFIC SEPARATION LANE means you're gonna get hurt. Simple mechanics means two ships passing that close at speed will interact. Collision seemed inevitable.

Sigh...........
Lookee here at #202 or even go to the start of the thread... McCain was going to Singapore... not coming from Singapore and she was not crossing the lane... check the chart on Opencpn or wherever and take a look at the shoals NNW of the lane at that point..

US Navy Destroyer Collision Again!!! - Page 14 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Sigh........... .....

I've read the last two (of 14) pages of the other thread - thanks for the steer.
Information overload, but still I can't see the warship anywhere on those AIS charts. Sooo... now we have both ships travelling west, and... McCain overtaking???

Okay, then this is an even bigger stuff-up! Why would anyone think 'hacking' or 'foreign interference' when we can see (almost see, even though one ship is invisible) such dangerous close-quarters manoeuvres?

[justwaiting]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

I've read the last two (of 14) pages of the other thread - thanks for the steer.
Information overload, but still I can't see the warship anywhere on those AIS charts. Sooo... now we have both ships travelling west, and... McCain overtaking???

Okay, then this is an even bigger stuff-up! Why would anyone think 'hacking' or 'foreign interference' when we can see (almost see, even though one ship is invisible) such dangerous close-quarters manoeuvres?

You can not see McCain on AIS because US Navy ship do not transmit even in such passages. Both ships were heading towards the TSS from the general direction of the SCS. There were also a total of 5 ships in the 1 nm range. Reports of an already constricted seaway due to a wreck. Tanker would have an unloading slot already agreed to in advance so there would be little point in "rushing).

McCain had just completed a "freedom of navigation" exercise in waters that China claims as theirs - tensions would have been high and the crew would have had even less sleep than normal. Both the Captain and XO of the McCain have had relatively little bridge time between land based postings and sea time working in systems related areas. McCain reports loss of steering 3 mins prior to the collision. That loss of steering could have being cased by very close proximity of mechanical failure (poor maintenance?)

Out comes a collision, 2 damaged ships and worst of all the tragic loss of probably 10 lives.

Some one asked an Admiral if there could have been a cyber attack - he replied that the navy was not prepared to rule it out at this time but that there was not indications that it had happened.

Some thing like that anyway.

[zeehag]

i love how a cargo ship can hard right into a navy ship and it is navy fault. awesome rationalizing.
4 times is a definite pattern.
cargo ships, the new offensive tool for long term take down. destroy destroyers one at a time. not as obvious as taking out an entire harbor such as pearl harbor.....
is ok, usa will blame navy for it. meanwhile the tool is perfected and more incidents without reason occur. 4 is not enough to awaken anyone to the apparent issue..
i think it deserves nay demands an investigation and reassessment.
or just fire all the navy brass. that should do it.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by zeehag

i love how a cargo ship can hard right into a navy ship and it is navy fault. awesome rationalizing.
4 times is a definite pattern.
cargo ships, the new offensive tool for long term take down. destroy destroyers one at a time. not as obvious as taking out an entire harbor such as pearl harbor.....
is ok, usa will blame navy for it. meanwhile the tool is perfected and more incidents without reason occur. 4 is not enough to awaken anyone to the apparent issue..
i think it deserves nay demands an investigation and reassessment.
or just fire all the navy brass. that should do it.

I may have missed the sarcasm tag, or other clues that you are actually kidding.

Or are you seriously saying that smaller, faster, better equipped USN vessels cannot keep out of the way of bigger, slower, less manoeverable cargo ships, even in the unproven instance that such ships were deliberately aimed at the navy vessels?

I can't think of a peacetime circumstance where I'd want my navy vessels at sea within one nm of any other ship period, let alone on a collision course, except as part of a planned interdiction, rescue, etc.