USS Fitzgerald

[painter777]

I'm sure time will tell with the investigations.
I hope it isn't some B.S. that this vessel had to operate under that may have led to the deaths of these sailors.

CH-P777

[CINDERS]

All the posturing in the world with 3rd guesses will not bring those poor souls back hopefully it was mercifully quick, we may never know the true facts but feel there will be B/S like chasing a spy fishing boat from North Korea.
Its more for the families to have closure for the ones lost.
And yes one thinks the OOTW in charge of the destroyer and the bridge crew are going to be put over a very intense flame which may end their careers.....we will wait and see sorta jogs the memory of the Voyager - ACC Melbourne collision all those years ago which was awful and saw the destroyer sunk with a heavy loss of life.

[painter777]

AP,

The container ship made a sudden turn shortly before the collision

The route of the container ship ACX Crystal, provided by vessel-tracking service MarineTraffic, shows that the ship made a sudden turn around 1:30 a.m., as if possible trying to avoid something, before continuing eastward.

PHOTO: A screenshot provided by vessel-tracking service MarineTraffic shows the route of the container ship ACX Crystal that collided with the U.S.Fitzgerald in the waters southwest of Tokyo, June 16, 2017, killing seven U.S. sailors. (MarineTraffic via AP)



What the Hell......................

Trying to avoid........ or trying to hit ??

[Eaglelord17]

The fact that the Captain was seriously injured in his rack, and those sailors were killed in there bunks tells me that they never brought the ship to emergency stations before the crash. That also indicates it was likely incompetence on the OODs part than some terrorist action (as they easily could just bring the ship up to speed and avoid it in the worst case). Whoever was in charge froze when they needed to act, and unfortunately some paid the ultimate price.

[Bruce_in_Oz]

With every man and his sea-dog being able to afford a basic radar for their fishing boats and pleasure cruisers these days, something was seriously amiss, if nobody on a a vessel of that class spotted, electronically, a thing the size of that commercial ship. Even were it swanning about erratically and being VERY illegal and running without lights, unlike the Fitzgerald.

The RAN has the dubious honour of more post-WW2 sinkings BY an aircraft carrier than any other navy.

HMAS Melbourne collided with and sank, the RAN Daring Class destroyer, HMAS Voyager in 1964, with the loss of 14 officers, including the commanding officer, 67 sailors and one civilian dockyard employee. This happened whilst on an exercise about 20 NM from Jervis Bay.

After repairs, Melbourne went to sea without much happening until 3 June 1969. Melbourne struck the USS Frank E. Evans as she crossed her bows in the the South China Sea. The destroyer was cut in two, with the bow section sinking rapidly. 74 sailors and officers were lost.

[CINDERS]

I also think Bruce that when the Melbourne was being towed to be cut up for scrap she broke her tow and was a rather difficult thing to capture again to continue the journey to the gas axes some ships are just cursed maybe they changed her name should never do that along with bananas on boats!!!!!

[Bruce_in_Oz]

Regarding ship names, there is an old adage that dates back to the days of sail, : "Change the name, change the luck". Apparently, it cuts, so to speak, both ways.

From "that" site:

"The ship was laid down for the Royal Navy as the lead ship of the Majestic class in April 1943, and was launched as HMS Majestic (R77) in February 1945. At the end of World War II, work on the ship was suspended until she was purchased by the RAN in 1947. At the time of purchase, it was decided to incorporate new aircraft carrier technologies into the design, making Melbourne the third ship to be constructed with an angled flight deck. Delays in construction and integrating the enhancements meant that the carrier was not commissioned until 1955."

[Sarge1998]

This seems to be drifting off topic.

[CINDERS]

Nope we will just fill in time until more information comes to light on exactly what they were doing and who was in the wrong, obviously something terribly wrong has occurred but which ship and who's fault we will wait to hear.
So I would not expect to hear much for a good while yet and as we do not have any facts about it apart from the erroneous activities of the container ship we are just as blind as those who were in charge of the vessels at that time........

[Aragorn243]

There is a major discrepancy in time. The container ship reported the collision occured around 2:20. They later changed the time to 1:30 which is the time of the "swerve". 2:25 is around the time the ship had come back. Japan changed the time from 2:20 to 1:30 based on the container ship's change in time but the US Navy is insisting the collision occurred at 1:30.

The route of the container ship looks plausible with hitting the destroyer, swerving and then returning to see what happened. But then again it also looks plausible for seeing the destroyer swerving, and then coming back to hit it intentionally. I don't really see the second happening but the Navy is sticking with their timeline.