US Navy destroyer collision

[estarzinger]

^^
Agreed
Decades ago navy had a serious 'problem' with nuclear subs . . . . It got really bad and they instituted a rigorous program called subsafe, which stopped the incidents dead in their tracks. Navy nucs are now one of the highest quality operations anywhere.
So they do have at least one institutional example of owning up and truely fixing this sort of problem.
But they may not yet be ready to admit they have a problem, beyond the easy wrong answer of "a few bad apples".

[Tx J]

Originally Posted by softdown

Mostly just theories to offer until a comprehensive analysis is available. My present theory is the advanced military electronics of the destroyer may have accidentally interfered with the cargo ship electronics.

Our government will not cover up the hard truth. We all know that.

Yours and hordes of others. Enough of this one. Let's put this nasty little techno-bull deflection away, shall we?
And "Our government will not cover up the hard truth. We all know that." is pure ironic satire-snark, right?

1. Does the USS Fitzgerald have "advanced military electronics" capable of disrupting external electronics devices at distances of, say, out to 10 miles?
Perhaps, to some degree:
A. The ship's AEGIS SPY1/2(x) phased array RADAR sensors are quite powerful (probably more so than any other mobile units), in the S Band. It could possibly influence nearby devices. But it is extremely unlikely that the Aegis was active ATT, in a shipping lane environment.
B. Would the Fitz's electronic counter measures suite (ECM) be active ATT? (used as a defense weapon against primarily missiles) Again, highly unlikely in that nearshore environment.
C. Those are Fitz's most powerful directed emitters, would the many lesser RF emitting devices aboard have any major disruptive effects at distance (sensors, comms, etc.) on other vessels? Not much more so than commercial radars.
D. Other than intended designed emissions, all electrics and electronics aboard virtually all warships are thoroughly shielded six ways from Zulu to prevent interference with any both onboard and external electrical devices. For obvious reasons.

2. Does the Fitz have an EMP weapon capable of blanking or destroying external devices? Wellll? No, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse ...

3. Would the USS Fitzgerald even have been using any potentially disruptive "advanced military electronics" in the vicinity of a TSS fairway (in peace time)? Extremely unlikely.

Put this wild "advanced military electronics" woowoo 'conspiracy theory' away for good, y'all.

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by Tx J

Yours and hordes of others. Enough of this one. Let's put this nasty little techno-bull deflection away, shall we?
And "Our government will not cover up the hard truth. We all know that." is pure ironic satire-snark, right?

1. Does the USS Fitzgerald have "advanced military electronics" capable of disrupting external electronics devices at distances of, say, out to 10 miles?
Perhaps, to some degree:
A. The ship's AEGIS SPY1/2(x) phased array RADAR sensors are quite powerful (probably more so than any other mobile units), in the S Band. It could possibly influence nearby devices. But it is extremely unlikely that the Aegis was active ATT, in a shipping lane environment.
B. Would the Fitz's electronic counter measures suite (ECM) be active ATT? (used as a defense weapon against primarily missiles) Again, highly unlikely in that nearshore environment.
C. Those are Fitz's most powerful directed emitters, would the many lesser RF emitting devices aboard have any major disruptive effects at distance (sensors, comms, etc.) on other vessels? Not much more so than commercial radars.
D. Other than intended designed emissions, all electrics and electronics aboard virtually all warships are thoroughly shielded six ways from Zulu to prevent interference with any both onboard and external electrical devices. For obvious reasons.

2. Does the Fitz have an EMP weapon capable of blanking or destroying external devices? Wellll? No, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse ...

3. Would the USS Fitzgerald even have been using any potentially disruptive "advanced military electronics" in the vicinity of a TSS fairway (in peace time)? Extremely unlikely.

Put this wild "advanced military electronics" woowoo 'conspiracy theory' away for good, y'all.

Save your breath, friend. You cannot unconvince a conspiracy theorist.

[estarzinger]

incompetence (including bad process, systems, culture) is always the more likely explanation than conspiracy.

Not to say conspiracies never happen - they do occasionally - but incompetence out-swamps them by many orders of magnitude.

[Tx J]

Originally Posted by nigel1

You can find a brief but accurate account on VDR and S-VDR here
Voyage Data Recorder on a Ship Explained

Hopefully, soon after the collision, someone on the Crystal remembered to press the record button on the VDR. Most VDR's have 4 hard drives. Pressing the record button stores all the data on one of the hard drives, and it is protected from being over written. If the record button is not activated, data more than 12 hours old will start to be overwritten.

I would imagine that a string of Filipino expletives might pin point the time of the collision.

Originally Posted by estarzinger

^^ agreed


I doubt the Crystal captain would lie about items that (he knows) could be immediately proven false with the Crystal VDR data.

This would include the starboard turn before collision. It would (probably) not include direct indication of the collision signals he claims - but could include bridge voice recordings if such signals were discussed on the bridge.

I would not be surprised if there were translation errors in the reporting.

VDR captures:
...

FYI: I read that the Japanese authorities went aboard the ACX Crystal within two hours of receiving the Crystal's emergency broadcast. We can be pretty sure that they quickly secured the VDR shortly after boarding, before even making port.
Whether it is all made public, and when, we will have to see.
Remember that the Japanese government and corporate responses to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant tsunami and nuclear reactor meltdowns were far from transparent, and downright deceptive in many aspects.
The Japanese also have a tight SOFA (status of forces agreement) with their much favored allies, the US; and both are wrassling with that little DPRK problem.

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

I happen to know.....the unspoken reason the watchkeeper was distracted was..... Ahem!!!

Did you know that the distraction was just as qualified as the distractee, and was trying to point out that the vessel was not headed in a safe direction, while in the meantime, the helmsman was trying to remember how to get it out of autopilot? I have been on a ship with that steering stand and it's operation certainly isn't intuitive, but still ...

Truth is stranger than fiction, which may be the case on the USS Fitzgerald.

[Tx J]

Originally Posted by TwoBlocked

Save your breath, friend. You cannot unconvince a conspiracy theorist.

Originally Posted by estarzinger

incompetence (including bad process, systems, culture) is always the more likely explanation than conspiracy.

Not to say conspiracies never happen - they do occasionally - but incompetence out-swamps them by many orders of magnitude.

I know that guys, but I find it therapeutic to bang my head on my desk or deck at least once a week. It rationalizes the soothing stiff rum Painkiller drink that follows... There sure are a lot of them out there in the ozone though.

[Three Sisters]

Originally Posted by Tx J

FYI: I read that the Japanese authorities went aboard the ACX Crystal within two hours of receiving the Crystal's emergency broadcast. We can be pretty sure that they quickly secured the VDR shortly after boarding, before even making port.
Whether it is all made public, and when, we will have to see.
Remember that the Japanese government and corporate responses to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant tsunami and nuclear reactor meltdowns were far from transparent, and downright deceptive in many aspects.
The Japanese also have a tight SOFA (status of forces agreement) with their much favored allies, the US; and both are wrassling with that little DPRK problem.

I would guess the navy knew within hours what went on with the fitzgerald, also. You know, all chiefs and no indians.

Here it is over a week and the navy is still doing autopsies on the sailor's bodies. This character, Aucoin, what's his face, could have walked through the red tape to see to it that the families and friends of the deceased were allowed to begin closure and healing in a timely manner.

For me this is the ultimate disrespect.

And we'll no doubt have a years-long congressional investigation to boot.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by dan swift

I heard that they were passing and the Philippine vessel did a 90 degree turn in too them.
I think at the end of the day it will be found to be an intentional act by the Philippine boat

The 90 degree turn was to starboard, as you can see from the track. The damage on the container ship is on the port side, as you can see from the photos. The damage to the destroyer was on the starboard side.

It is true that the available data is scanty and allows for some pretty wild speculation, but please, people. We at least know this.

[JPA Cate]

Originally Posted by Three Sisters

I would guess the navy knew within hours what went on with the fitzgerald, also. You know, all chiefs and no indians.

Here it is over a week and the navy is still doing autopsies on the sailor's bodies. This character, Aucoin, what's his face, could have walked through the red tape to see to it that the families and friends of the deceased were allowed to begin closure and healing in a timely manner.

For me this is the ultimate disrespect.

And we'll no doubt have a years-long congressional investigation to boot.

I found this an interesting statement. I agree that speedier autopsies would have possibly made the grieving process smoother (they could bury their dead sooner). But there is doubt, at least for me, that there is any disrespect involved. When your child joins the armed forces, you know they may come home in a casket.

On the contrary, the Navy might want the same staff to handle all the autopsies. Each one seems to take one day to do thoroughly, and doing it thoroughly is a mark of respect, and could yield information of heroism, for instance, that might help the families as time passes.

It may take a long time, but I think the Navy has motivation to be very thorough. They know about the recent issues of collisions, they have their own history to re-examine. They know they're going to be in the spotlight.

Finally, I would think that if the Navy investigation's results are plausible, Congress won't bother with an investigation. They have many fish to fry.

A.

[hpeer]

Over at Vessel of Interest they are taking exception to the Captains statement noting the AIS track does not show a hard starboard turn 10 minutes before the impact.

I think they are being a bit too literal about the Captains comment. I take it more to mean We saw him, tried to get his attention, and tried to maneuver." He may have meant he first became aware of the Fitz 10 mins (give or take) before impact. Or maybe something else or maybe that's what he said.

In any case I haven't seen a transcript of his statement, just this "leaked" statement. Hell it may be just "fake news."

Does anyone here have a better source?

[Tx J]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Over at Vessel of Interest they are taking exception to the Captains statement noting the AIS track does not show a hard starboard turn 10 minutes before the impact.

I think they are being a bit too literal about the Captains comment. I take it more to mean We saw him, tried to get his attention, and tried to maneuver." He may have meant he first became aware of the Fitz 10 mins (give or take) before impact. Or maybe something else or maybe that's what he said.

In any case I haven't seen a transcript of his statement, just this "leaked" statement. Hell it may be just "fake news."

Does anyone here have a better source?

hpeer,
I can assure you that the website you referenced is FOS (FullOfSh--). If you'll look at my previous comments on p.25 here on CF (#366,#368).
I was debunking some of this specious stuff, one site in particular (WashFreeBeacon, a site with it's own massive cred problems) was using erroneous, baseless speculation sourced from that 'vessel of interest' site. I even gave the link to that WFB page, I even have a 'blue-penciled' rough draft of it pointing out the very numerous errors, assumptions, and outright distortions in that article. I thought of posting the final draft here, but it is mighty lengthy; it's hard to refute the good old "Gish Gallop" BS in1K words or less :grin: .
I also mentioned the operator of that VoI site.
The guy is a fraud, he has no verifiable credentials to be calling himself "a private naval analyst", he's a 'guy on the friggin internet', no more; and I suspect he could even be a Russian 'tool' spreading disinformation, for whatever reasons. I and others are in the process of proving that, if possible with limited resources (compared to others). I am also in the process of exposing his* defacing Wikipedia with the same crap on the Wikipedia Fitz-Crystal- related pages using an 'anonymous' IP address' (which is sketchy in itself),
Wikipedia is meticulous in protecting it's veracity as a reference source and as a verifiable, cross-checked, peer-reviewed, constantly audited knowledge standard.

(* The VoI operator, S. W., I used his initials in my previous comment ref'ed above; there is a lot of acquired info available so far. Hesitate to present name and extensive evidence amassed yet, if you want, I could CF PM some to you.
gCaptain on the other hand is an impeccable source of maritime information, as is the USNI, etc. VoI is certainly not.)

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Why do you think the Navy is flouting Japanese law, or Philippine law, or International law? What intimidation?

When the law requires the release of information, it always gives you a bit of time to get the information organized. There is a mass of other information besides just the track, which needs to be released, and I think it is entirely understandable that the Navy wants a bit of time to understand what happened and get all this organized, before releasing it all in an organized fashion.

I have heard absolutely zero to indicate that the Navy is not cooperating appropriately with the Japanese and Philippine authorities. Satisfying our burning curiosity, right now, is not mandated by any law I know of. All in good time!

Hi Dockhead
To answer your questions

In every major transport accident, the media/public has obtained all available tracks of the physical condition within hours/days
....In this case the US has not cooperated

Agreed that the mass of other information will provide insight into the culpability, but not the mechanics of the collision... That is not my complaint and in the case of the Fitz and USN, that is appropriately internal.


Quoted from Japanese media

"Japanese authorities were looking into the possibility of “endangerment of traffic caused by professional negligence,” Japanese media reported, but it was not clear whether that might apply to either or both of the vessels."

Happened in their waters legally in their jurisdiction

Further quotes to demonstrate why this Inquest has turned political;

"Although the collision occurred in Japanese waters, under a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that defines the scope of the U.S. military’s authority in Japan, the U.S. Navy could claim it has the authority to lead the investigations."

Japanese chief cabinet secretary Yoshihide Suga said the government was investigating with the cooperation of the U.S. side and every effort would be made to maintain regional deterrence in the face of North Korea, which has recently conducted a series of missile tests.

“It is extremely important to maintain U.S. deterrence in the light of an increasingly severe regional security situation,” he told a news conference.


“We will maintain close contact with international society, including the United States and South Korea, to maintain vigilance and protect the safety of our people.”

To me this is spin meant to frighten the public where all we need to see is the Track of the Fitz and all the speculation will mostly disappear

[Pelagic]

Getting away from the way the information is being managed, one damage control aspect has me wondering?

In Marine Coledge we were taught that if ever you were involved in a below waterline penetrating collision with another ship,.....

.... recommended procedure was to keep pushing slowly against holed casualty to plug the hole and slow down ingress of water.

Just wondering if that would have been possible in this case and could have saved lives?

[hpeer]

TxJ,
I'll keep your comments in mind.