Japanese tanker collides with US destroyer.

[Justin_NSA]

The missing sailors bodies were found in flooded compartment. Sad news. Pray for the families.
USS Fitzgerald: missing sailors found dead in flooded area of ship
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/16/us-navy-destroyer-collides-ship-japan

 

[Ron20324]

The morning paper says the tanker, in a charted channel, made a 180 before hitting the destroyer. Lacking further explanation, it sounds like a terror attack to me by someone unhappy with the U.S..

Edit to add the above info was shown on a marine tracking system.

 

[Chief RA]

Great sadness with regard to the loss of our sailors. My heart goes out to their families.
CW3 Cash, USS Kidd, DD661, 1958

 

[Brian D]

This raises the question: How can a US Navy War Vessel allow a cargo vessel that close without some kind of realization that they will collide? I am in no way faulting anyone, yet. But when I was departing San Diego Bay in '08 I was hailed by a US Navy war vessel asking my intent. I could hardly see the vessel it was so far out. I posted about that incident in '08. I was really impressed.

Anyway, I am still perplexed that a war vessel will allow a cargo vessel to approach on a collision course. And the speed it hit. Something is not right. I would like to read the report if not classified.

 

[Justin_NSA]

We deployed regularly with the 7th fleet on the USS Midway out of Yokosuka about a hundred years ago. Knew the area well. We lost a pilot on a cold cat shot. It's always sad even if you didn't know them.

I have the same question as you Brian !!

 

[Gunni]

The morning paper says the tanker, in a charted channel, made a 180 before hitting the destroyer. Lacking further explanation, it sounds like a terror attack to me by someone unhappy with the U.S..

Oh for the love of Pete. That ship has the capability to monitor every vessel in the western Pacific and out maneuver any container ship. People weren't doing their job. These guys paid the tab. Injured their skipper.

• Gunner’s Mate Seaman Dakota Kyle Rigsby, 19, from Palmyra, Va.
• Yeoman 3rd Class Shingo Alexander Douglass, 25, from San Diego
• Sonar Technician 3rd Class Ngoc T Truong Huynh, 25, from Oakville, Conn.
• Gunner’s Mate 2nd Class Noe Hernandez, 26, from Weslaco, Texas
• Fire Controlman 2nd Class Carlos victor Ganzon Sibayan, 23, from Chula Vista, Calif.
• Personnel Specialist 1st Class Xavier Alec Martin, 24, from Halethorpe, Md.
• Fire Controlman 1st Class Gary Leo Rehm Jr., 37, from Elyria, Ohio

 

[Chief RA]

Gunni is right; even without all the electronic monitoring and alarm systems there are at least 2 flying bridge lookouts that should have been monitoring that vessels every move. I have stood those watches in 50' seas. Chief

 

[Brian D]

I wouldn't believe a news paper account of anything. They speculate and exaggerate just for readership and bragging right of "first to know". That's just BS. And always "an anonymous source that are not authorized to speak to the press".

 

[Gunni]

Well there are multiple accounts based on public AIS info that the commercial ship swung a turn. They might not have known the Fitz was proximate, but the Fitz sure should have.

 

[Chief RA]

I attended the commissioning by US Navy invitation of the USS Kidd DDG 100 about 10 years ago in Galveston. These are not the destroyers of old, they are 610' long compared to about 350' long for a Fletcher class DD. Impressive vessel! Chief

 

[Skipper]

I was offshore between Catalina and Dana Point some years ago. Encountered the destroyer Decatur out of San Diego.
I genuinely believe that they decided to use me as a training obstacle, for they veered and headed straight at me at high speed, then made evasive maneuvers. Never came very close, maybe half a mile, but obviously maneuvering around me.
I was amazed at what that thing could do. Made turns and speed changes like a cigarette boat. Zipped around with ease and power.
I find it difficult to believe that a lumbering cargo ship could even get close to a Navy vessel of that type. Especially considering the stunning navigational and sensory technology available for use on that destroyer.
I'm wondering if there was an engine or equipment failure on the destroyer.
I also wonder how both the Navy ship and the cargo ship could have failed in detecting a collision. The cargo ship would have some reasonably impressive nav gear as well.
Not second guessing. Just wondering aloud.

 

[njlarry]

Given that both ships had full time radar and that the Navy vessel had top of the line systems manned by full time dedicated specialists and extremely well qualified personal on the bridge, I think there is a lesson here....don't count on any technology to keep a part time recreational boater out of trouble, or a commercial craft either.
IMHO, I read too many posts that implie AIS or RADAR is the answer or a panacea. Stay safe and alert. Prayers for their families and shipmates.

 

[The Shadow Knows]

I just posted this in the Collision at sea thread but, here is my post.......

I don't get it.
The container ship does a 180???
What's that all about?

I hate to say this but, with present day radar & alarms incl. a full bridge staff,
This doesn't make any sense.

So, not wanting to create any conspiracy theories but, as strange as it unfolded, I wonder
if this will ultimately be considered a terrorist act.

This is just my take on the 180 turn-a-round.

 

[CloudDiver]

I was an Officer aboard USS Russell (DDG 59) and USS Milius (DDG 69), qualified Conning Officer on both ships, but stood most of my bridge watches on USS Russell. I was a Department Head on Milius so I stood very few watches on that ship, but was usually on the bridge for most major evolutions like Replenishment at Sea (UNREP), training exercises (maneuvering, navigation, war games, etc) as well as Sea & Anchor details.
I am intimately familiar with just about every major system on that class of ship, especially its sensors and navigation information capabilities. I am also intimately familiar with what are typical Standing Orders from the Captain for the Bridge Team, but obviously there can be variation from C.O. to C.O. With that said, I will reserve any statement of opinion on the course of events that led to this disaster until there is official reporting of facts.
Right now I am just floored and heartbroken for the seven sailors who were lost. They were in berthing because that's what you do at 0200 when not on watch. Any Sailor knows the risk we take when we raise out right hand, but I'm fairly confident that we would rather die with our boots on at Battle Stations. They didn't expect this and probably weren't dressed... its just horrible.

 

[Twidget]

I was an Officer aboard USS Russell (DDG 59) and USS Milius (DDG 69), qualified Conning Officer on both ships, but stood most of my bridge watches on USS Russell. I was a Department Head on Milius so I stood very few watches on that ship, but was usually on the bridge for most major evolutions like Replenishment at Sea (UNREP), training exercises (maneuvering, navigation, war games, etc) as well as Sea & Anchor details.
I am intimately familiar with just about every major system on that class of ship, especially its sensors and navigation information capabilities. I am also intimately familiar with what are typical Standing Orders from the Captain for the Bridge Team, but obviously there can be variation from C.O. to C.O. With that said, I will reserve any statement of opinion on the course of events that led to this disaster until there is official reporting of facts.
Right now I am just floored and heartbroken for the seven sailors who were lost. They were in berthing because that's what you do at 0200 when not on watch. Any Sailor knows the risk we take when we raise out right hand, but I'm fairly confident that we would rather die with our boots on at Battle Stations. They didn't expect this and probably weren't dressed... its just horrible.

Well put sir.
I too will wait until the investigation is complete.
ETC(SW) USN RET,
USS Paul Hamilton DDG-60

 

[Gunni]

"The difference between a good officer and a poor one is about ten seconds."
CAPT Arleigh Burke

 

[BrianRobin]

The morning paper says the tanker, in a charted channel, made a 180 before hitting the destroyer. Lacking further explanation, it sounds like a terror attack to me by someone unhappy with the U.S..

Edit to add the above info was shown on a marine tracking system.

"sounds like a terror attack", a typical quick response by a paranoid person(s)

 

[CloudDiver]

"sounds like a terror attack", a typical quick response by a paranoid person(s)

Something similar was mentioned in another thread and also equally dismissed as possibly 'conspiracy theory'. Trust me when I say this as a former Naval Officer having served on two DDG class warships, over 100,000 nautical miles underway, a ground tour in Baghdad in 2006, and an equally concentrated stream of anti-terrorism/force protection training... NOTHING is out of the realm of possibility so it should not be dismissed as paranoia. It would not be the first case of intentional grounding and/or collision by the hand on the helm. The intent may not be the politically charged nature of a terrorist action, but is completely plausible the 180 degree turn was done maliciously.
The 10th man rule applies.

 

[Jackdaw]

Can't understand how this can happen?? Have you ever been in a shipping lane leading into a large port at night? Even with the TSS and all the tech, its dangerous.

And the US Navy has no lock on avoiding this type of mishap, indeed other Arleigh Burke-class (USS Porter) clanged into a tanker in the Straight of Hormuz in 2012.

 

[svchickadee]

Commercial ship made the 180 degree turns after the collision.