US Navy destroyer collision

[UAEguy]

CNN and Fox are showing a computer simulation of the collision in which the ACX is overtaking from behind and collision is glancing with buld ripping open 3 underwater compartments.

The MSM of course makes it sound as if the ACX made a "sudden" 180 turn when we all know in fact from AIS track info that this took at least 30 minutes prior to collision.

I can't find the computer simulation on the web yet.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by UAEguy

CNN and Fox are showing a computer simulation of the collision in which the ACX is overtaking from behind and collision is glancing with buld ripping open 3 underwater compartments.

The MSM of course makes it sound as if the ACX made a "sudden" 180 turn when we all know in fact from AIS track info that this took at least 30 minutes prior to collision.

I can't find the computer simulation on the web yet.

The ais based model also shows that the cs had made several course changes prior to the collision that would lead me to believe that the vessels were aware of each other. That knoweledge would lead to the assumption that the cs after the course reversal would once again change course to avoid the destroyer. Leading to a false sense of security on the part of both crews. We need much more information to recreate the actions of both vessels in the moments prior to the collision.

[Delancey]

Originally Posted by UAEguy

CNN and Fox are showing a computer simulation of the collision in which the ACX is overtaking from behind and collision is glancing with buld ripping open 3 underwater compartments.

The MSM of course makes it sound as if the ACX made a "sudden" 180 turn when we all know in fact from AIS track info that this took at least 30 minutes prior to collision.

I can't find the computer simulation on the web yet.

Certainly possible, I wasn't there and can't say with any certainty.

That said, if the ACX was overtaking wouldn't the abrasions visible on the hawse pipe be on the forward, more prominate, side rather than the aft?

[UAEguy]

Yeah, I thought the same thing when looking at the prior course changes.

Like I said before based on my own experience on many occasions in Asia and Indian Ocean, these large tankers and cargo ships seem to be focused entirely on AIS and only use radar as back-up. Even while broadcasting my AIS position, I have had to contact the large ships to tell them that they are bearing down on me. In every case they would respond with "I can't see you...standby...oh there you are!". My conclusion was that my AIS was only broadcasting out to 5 miles yet I could receive their signal at 15+ miles. When these ships are moving along at 20 knots, 5 miles closes uncomfortably fast.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Delancey

Certainly possible, I wasn't there and can't say with any certainty.

That said, if the ACX was overtaking wouldn't the abrasions visible on the hawse pipe be on the forward, more prominate, side rather than the aft?

Actually no however the damage to the hawser would be simmilar reguardless of contact direction the top aft portion is further out from the vessels centerline so would come into contact before any other part of the pipe.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

My understanding is that the collision happened at the red X (that is where it's speed dropped off suddenly), and that the ship made its 180 turn 18nm before the collision. I dont know what the commercial ship was doing, perhaps just killing time for a dock in schedule, but in any case they seem to have given the Navy quite sufficient time to move.

Attachment 150045

Even if that is somehow not the case - these Navy vessels HAVE to be prepared to evade another USS Cole - they can't simply let any target, much less a 700' one, slam into them no matter what sort of turns are made.

My gut tells me I didn't happen at the red X but just below at the 90° starboard turn. Who placed that red X?

[Randy]

Originally Posted by UAEguy

CNN and Fox are showing a computer simulation of the collision in which the ACX is overtaking from behind and collision is glancing with buld ripping open 3 underwater compartments.

The MSM of course makes it sound as if the ACX made a "sudden" 180 turn when we all know in fact from AIS track info that this took at least 30 minutes prior to collision.

I can't find the computer simulation on the web yet.

What are they basing the simulation on other than the ACX AIS track? They have a need to fill the airwaves so build it with speculation is my guess. It will take time for VDRs to be analyzed and both crews thoroughly interviewed. Other posts have speculated that we are already in the midst of a cover-up which is baseless.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

This only suggests the relative movement between the vessels at impact - it does not give insight into what last ditch manoeuvring either vessel might have taken, nor into the interaction which brought them into close quarters.

An ocean-going containership is fairly limited in what it can do in last-ditch manoevring . Relatively speaking.

[Randy]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Navy captain in his cabin, probably (but not confirmed) in his bunk. His first command. Only 3 weeks on the job. Makes it less probable (not impossible but less likely) they were runnng some sort of computer off simulated drill (or similar).

Vessel, and bridge, reported as fully manned; with no significant equipment failures noted.

Give the crew and XO praise for executing emergency procedure well. Sounds like they could have lost the vessel otherwise.

I think it is pretty clear that navy vessel was give way, but that is almost irrelevant, because a navy destroyer should never let itself get hit. That is not about colregs and seamanship, but about basic defensive posture. After the Cole you simply do not allow unknown vessels to get close, ever, period.

Regarding the damage . . . My sense now is that most of the initial impact was below the water line, and the superstructure damage we see is confused because some happened as the vessels separated (with both vessels moving, and rotating) rather than on the impact.

I'm still puzzled how it happened. But I am guessing we will never get the full straight story.

Navy Capt just transferred from a minesweeper command.
It would be incredibly extraordinary to be running drills through the night but very likely that they had been running extensive drills the prior day. If that were the case fatigue in the onwatch bridge and CIC teams would be major factor.

[Randy]

Originally Posted by taxwizz

I wonder why they would have been in Stealth mode in peacetime, but apparently they likely were.
If they are sailing around at night, and are invisible, the onus is on the destroyer to be UBER alert.

Stealth mode? This is an Arleigh Burke destroyer, if by "stealth mode" you mean not transmitting AIS, yes probably not. Steaming without correct navigation lights - no.
Their radar signature is diminished and more difficult for commercial radar ARPA to hold as a target.
They don't have a "stealth mode" another design Zumwalt does.

[Three Sisters]

More conflicting reports. The people from the ACX Crystal maintain the CS "reversed course after the collision", which happened "around 1:30 am".

From the Wall Street Journal

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

You've never been in the navy. . . . .

True, but I live in Navy town here. And you sort of missed my point, which was not that a new skipper would not run drills (of course he would), but the academy folks I have talked to suggest it would be unusual for a brand new skipper to go to sleep during a major such failure scenario. Part of the point of such a scenario would be to get a feel for the ship.

[powsmias]

All Mia's accounted for... helluva father's day for some folks.

[Steadman Uhlich]

For some clarity and background on the commanding officer of the USS Fitzgerald:

1. He recently took command (May 2017) of the Fitzgerald. But, he was not unfamiliar with the boat or crew, as he had served as its Executive Officer (XO) since 2015. So, he knows the boat and crew.

Here is a clip with some more background on the captain:

"CDR Benson’s initial sea tours were on the pre-commissioned ship USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG 81) and USS Kauffman (FFG 59) “where he deployed to the 5th Fleet in support of Operation Enduring Freedom,” the Navy says.

“In 2006, he was assigned as the Weapons Officer on USS FORREST SHERMAN (DDG 98) and participated in the maiden deployment to the 6th Fleet Area of Operations. In 2007, CDR Benson screened for the early command program and subsequently served as the Executive Officer then as Commanding Officer of USS GUARDIAN (MCM 5), forward deployed from Sasebo Japan, 2008-2010,” according to the Navy.

Ashore, reported the Navy, Benson was selected for the Navy’s Washington D.C. Internship Program “where he earned a Master’s degree in Organizational Management from The George Washington University and served internships on the Navy Staff, Joint Staff, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. In 2010, CDR Benson was assigned to the Navy Personnel Command, Surface Warfare Distribution (PERS 41) as the Placement Coordinator for Amphibious and Mine Warfare Forces. In 2013, he reported to the U.S. Pacific Command where he served as the Executive Assistant to the Director for Operations (J3) and as an Integrated Air and Missile Defense Staff Officer (J36).”

In November 2015, Benson “reported as the Executive Officer of USS FITZGERALD (DDG 62) forward deployed from Yokosuka, Japan as part of the Surface Navy’s Command Fleet Up program,” the Navy said."

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

the academy folks I have talked to suggest it would be unusual for a brand new skipper to go to sleep during a major such failure scenario. Part of the point of such a scenario would be to get a feel for the ship.

Engineering drills, and some warfare drills are routine - there would be no reason for the captain (new or otherwise) to be up for them. It is also not so uncommon for the captain to hand off the watch (so to speak) to his XO. But this is all conjecture. Time may or may not tell.