US Navy destroyer collision

[estarzinger]

Two questions for those with direct experience:

Likely Navy manning: 4 on bridge, 4 in CiC, 2 watch keepers on wings?

Automatic alerts/alarms when small cpa - ais and multiple bands of radar?

[UAEguy]

Originally Posted by admiralslater

my interpretation of the collision is that both ships where headed in the same basic direction
Terrible and unnecessary

I agree with this in general, but I assumed a loitering condition for the Navy vessel since that would explain why they did not react.

I'd imagine early morning crew drinking coffee wondering what that beeping sound is coming from.

At the same time, Cargo vessels these days seem to rely 100% on AIS and hardly ever look at the radar unless a 50ft sail boat calls out to them that they are running up their ass and they are under sail in big seas...not that this has ever happened to anyone.

[estarzinger]

Crude look at angle of impact.

looking at the navy vessel . . . . I would guess from this the commercial vessel was coming from forward of the beam. 50 degrees off reciprocal/40 degrees off T bone. I think it is pretty clearly not a hit from behind the beam - both lining up the damage, and looking at the withdrawal tear away area.

collision.JPG Views: 366 Size: 392.2 KB ID: 150052" style="margin: 2px" />

But I am not sure how that is consistent with the apparent commercial vessel damage more on the port side of their bow. . . . which seems like more of an aft approach.

[admiralslater]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Crude look at angle of impact.

I would guess from this the commercial vessel was coming from forward of the beam. 50 degrees off reciprocal/40 degrees off T bone. I think it is pretty clearly not a hit from behind the beam - both lining up the damage, and looking at the withdrawal tear away area.


Attachment 150052

I agree with forward of the beam . But I think it was aft of a t bone other wise how do you explain the portside damage on the container ship

[estarzinger]

Yea, the ASX Crystal sure shows a hit with it's port side bow, which would indicate a track from behind the beam.

I cannot square the two photos.

It is possible that the Crystal photos have been (accidentally) flipped left/right - I'v seen that happen in the media. Short of that, I am puzzled.

The Fitzgerald photo is correct (I believe) because it is consistent with video of the vessel.

[Cheechako]

Unfortunately this doesn't surprise me. Obviously the Navy is "not under command" based on recent collisions, running right onto marked reefs etc. With that damage to their stbd side they were very likely at fault.
Wait... that can't happen! everyone has AIS right? har har har. :>)

[UAEguy]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

It is possible that the Crystal photos have been (accidentally) flipped left/right - I'v seen that happen in the media.


Attachment 150053

What????? Port side is port side if you know top and front of the vessel...especially with writing in the photo.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by UAEguy

Although it looks like a tremendous amount of damage, considering the size of both vessels, it would appear they were both moving very slowly. So much so that one might have been at anchor or loitering.

My guess is that the Navy vessel was loitering, likely at rest, and the Cargo ship was maneuvering slowly. The cargo ship ran into the Navy vessel.

AIS track of the merchant ship shows her doing 18 knots at the time of the collision... if the navy ship was overtaking at, say, 25 knots and just laid herself under the flare it would be a gentle impact with the sort of slight damage shown in the pics... and yes that is 'slight' damage.

[Lepke]

I was on the destroyer side in the Melbourne collision. A lot of casualties are from being thrown by the collision. People asleep just go flying. We had people thrown 35', but that was a direct t-bone. Ship rolled 90°. Some people were probably unconscious when their compartment flooded. Others may have stayed too long helping their buddy. We had some that did.

[Paul Elliott]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

I cannot square the two photos.

I think the angle of the superstructure damage on the navy ship is due to the shape of the Crystal's bow. The portside damage on the bow is where it slid into and past the Fitzgerald superstructure. There wasn't much on the Fitzgerald forward deck to scrape the Crystals starboard bow.

I'm not claiming it had to be a dead-on 90-degree t-bone, but I think the visible damage to both ships is consistent.

[UAEguy]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

AIS track of the merchant ship shows her doing 18 knots at the time of the collision... if the navy ship was overtaking at, say, 25 knots and just laid herself under the flare it would be a gentle impact with the sort of slight damage shown in the pics... and yes that is 'slight' damage.

If that is the case, then the Navy vessel was likely doing the same speed and nearly same heading.

Amazing how a 700 ft ship can sneak-up on a state-of-the-art Navy Ship like that. Just goes to show the human is always the weakest link in every system.

[El Pinguino]

This is what the front of your ship looks like after you have t-boned someone

http://www.ssmaritime.com/Stockholm-damaged-bow-2.jpg

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

AIS track of the merchant ship shows her doing 18 knots at the time of the collision... if the navy ship was overtaking at, say, 25 knots and just laid herself under the flare it would be a gentle impact with the sort of slight damage shown in the pics... and yes that is 'slight' damage.

That is my best guess as well

[Uplander]

Do US warships use AIS? My guess is that they would receive but not transmit.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

This is what the front of your ship looks like after you have t-boned someone

http://www.ssmaritime.com/Stockholm-damaged-bow-2.jpg

Aww, that'll buff right out, Frank! Absolute wonder that she was still afloat.

Jim