USS Fitzgerald Collision - Possible Alternate Theory

a reply to: auroraaus

EXACTLY!!

I can think of a lot of reasons why it would be undesirable to let the location of something like a submarine be known.

a reply to: DupontDeux

I disagree on the notion of the Fitzgerald colliding with the ACX Crystal (as opposed to the other way around). The Fitzgerald was hit amidships on the starboard side and the Crystal impacted with her bow. There's not really a scenario where one could make this into the Fitzgerald colliding with the Crystal. The Crystal clearly hit the Fitzgerald.

Regarding the ACX Crystal being unlikely to change directions, the course plots of the ship would seem to indicate it did exactly this, several times in fact, but the question seems to surround when it did this (i.e. before, or after, the collision). The question about the time of the collision is critical in answering this question. If the collision happened at 0130L as some claim, then these maneuvers would have taken place after the collision. However, if the collision occurred at 0230L, as reported by the US Navy, then the maneuvers by the Crystal took place prior to the collision.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Time will tell but making the change of direction and other turns makes no sense before the collision.

As for as too early for port arrival, etc, cargo ships don't sail around killing time, they anchor and wait.

The track makes much more sense after a collision then before. There has been speculation that the Crystal had no light on, which if true would on a dark night make sighting difficult.

I would think that the Captain of the Crystal will have some splainin to do........
All of the damage to the Crystal is on the port bow.
That means the Crystal had to overtake the Fitzgerald from the starboard rear to impact in that manner.

3kbo302xo3lg2i1rj8450xje.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com...

Good theory, but there are a few holes in it.

First, Subs don't typically talk to anybody. If they were disabled, the Fitz could have contacted the Crystal and told them that they have something in the water (boats, divers, training devices, etc) and implored them to adjust course.

The Navy, especially in cases of loss of life, tries to keep a tight lid on rumors both as a sign of respect for the dead and to keep the investigation as neutral as possible.

Will be interesting to see what went down when they publish the investigation results. In 2 years.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk


The track makes much more sense after a collision then before. There has been speculation that the Crystal had no light on, which if true would on a dark night make sighting difficult.

I would agree with that thought.

ETA...Regarding the 'no light' scenario; I would think Navy personnel are trained in spotting unlighted vessels as a general rule. I wouldn't think an adversary would have lights on. So this would seem like a logical training subject. I mean, it's not like we're talking about a small speedboat here, the Crystal was a big honking container ship which would block out a large section of the horizon when it was still miles off.

a reply to: cosmania

Agreed, but they wouldn't have needed to talk to the Fitzgerald directly. Someone else may have advised the Fitzgerald and gave location information.

I also have no doubt the Fitzgerald attempted to contact the Crystal, probably numerous times. The Crystal just didn't respond, for whatever reason (i.e. Crystal wasn't monitoring proper channels, radio off, not present or sleeping, etc.).

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

No disagreement there. Surely that not something new to training.

IF the Fitzgerald was doing something unusual the captain would have been on the bridge and in direct command.

Because the ship was steaming on a set coarse and under command of a OOD leads me to believe that condition's were usual night time steaming.

This would have had the OOD. and a JOOD plus 8 to 10 enlisted.

but why did the lookout not see the cargo ship

One the cargo ship had a black painted hull.

The lookouts likely had just 10x 50 binoculars no night vision equipment.

Also its unlikely the lookout could talk to the radar operators in CIC directly.

This means that if the radar operator saw something he could not talk to the lookout to ask what he could see.

He had to talk to the bridge and they had to tell the lookouts.

On many navy ships there are two lookout one port and one starboard.

they each watch there own side of the ship.

Depending on the way the ship is built there may be limits on what they can see.

Also the navy ship has both radar and AIS data to spot ships in there area.

But the cargo ship only has radar to spot the navy ship because the navy ship seldom turns on there AIS transmitter outside US waters for security reasons.

Lastly both ship captains are at fault under COLREGS.
Every modern admiralty court trial of ships colliding has found fault with both ships, even if one is securely anchored!

Great post!

originally posted by: ANNED
IF the Fitzgerald was doing something unusual the captain would have been on the bridge and in direct command.

Because the ship was steaming on a set coarse and under command of a OOD leads me to believe that condition's were usual night time steaming.

How do you know the CO was, in fact, not on the bridge in command? His injuries would certainly suggest he was very close to the bridge at the time of impact, if not 'on' the bridge.

ETA...In fact, I thought I saw one report which stated he actually fell from the bridge balcony during the collision to the deck below and sustained a head injury as a result.

but why did the lookout not see the cargo ship

One the cargo ship had a black painted hull.

The hull itself may have been painted black, but the hull wouldn't have been as prominent (due to loading) as the cargo containers on the deck, which would have been all different colors and much more visible.

The lookouts likely had just 10x 50 binoculars no night vision equipment.

10x50 nocs are more than adequate to see something the size of a 700 foot container ship inside several miles away.

Also its unlikely the lookout could talk to the radar operators in CIC directly.

This means that if the radar operator saw something he could not talk to the lookout to ask what he could see.

He had to talk to the bridge and they had to tell the lookouts.

So, by this, you are suggesting the Fitzgerald had a complete breakdown in the command and control protocols aboard the ship? Just asking.

On many navy ships there are two lookout one port and one starboard.

they each watch there own side of the ship.

Depending on the way the ship is built there may be limits on what they can see.

I could be wrong here, but I would think visual lookouts would be posted at virtually every potential blind-spot of a vessel. Otherwise, they would be of significantly diminished value at all.

Also the navy ship has both radar and AIS data to spot ships in there area.

But the cargo ship only has radar to spot the navy ship because the navy ship seldom turns on there AIS transmitter outside US waters for security reasons.

Well, there are two basic 'flavors' of AIS. One is a transceiver and the other is receive only. I can understand a warship not wanting to reveal her position, but I would be very surprised if they didn't have a receiver on monitoring other traffic, even if they weren't transmitting their own AIS data for others.

Lastly both ship captains are at fault under COLREGS.
Every modern admiralty court trial of ships colliding has found fault with both ships, even if one is securely anchored!

This makes sense, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is ultimately the conclusion. Still doesn't explain the reasoning behind the collision though.

Wouldn't there radar that simply show an object. It would be obvious that a moving object is at some position and moving on some bearing.

I like to grab apparently unrelated facts and slam them together so here goes:

1) In 2014 there was a bit of ruckus when a russian flyby of an AEGIS cruiser shut down all the elctronic systems of the cruiser. Independant newspaper uk

2) Fitzgerald completely blind to a massive ship seemingly doing a 180 and ramming it. Was the first pass a near miss to see if they were undetected?

3) That wierd EM engine using microwaves shows that we CAN direct an EMP so it isnt omnidirectional

If the EWAR system fits on a plane - it fits on a massive ship. Maybe what they used wasnt something mega technically complicated and is easily reproducable.

June 26, 2017

""In the first detailed account from one of those directly involved, the cargo ship's captain said the ACX Crystal had signaled with flashing lights after the Fitzgerald "suddenly" steamed on to a course to cross its path.

The container ship steered hard to starboard (right) to avoid the warship, but hit the Fitzgerald 10 minutes later at 1:30 a.m., according to a copy of Captain Ronald Advincula's report to Japanese ship owner Dainichi Investment Corporation that was seen by Reuters.""

www.reuters.com...

Perhaps it was a Russian sub...or maybe even NK. Maybe it wasn't a 'sacrifice' at all, but rather a pursuit of a submerged foe...and the Fitzgerald was paying more attention to the more elusive vessel and missed the obvious one on the surface, thinking they'd easily miss it.

This whole incident is just strange enough to leave it wide open to "something else" happening.

Aren't Destroyers meant for chasing after subs (among other things)??

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Yes, this entire incident is VERY strange. There are so many red flags all over this story. Basic common sense and logic defies how a US destroyer could ever allow itself to be t-boned by another ship as slow and sluggish as a cargo ship.

Regardless, the cargo ship intentionally hit our destroyer. Why is THIS not the main topic of discussion? The cargo ship passed by the destroyer and then did a full 180 only to return and attempt to split the destroyer in half.

Why is this not considered an act of war? Yes...VERY strange indeed.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Jim stone has a theory on this. he says the raming of the militarty boat may have been deliberate and the captains of both vessels may have been unaware they had been set up. Some motives may have been:

a simple unwanted event and nothing more.
A major or minor power wanted that other people to know they have tricks up their sleave.
computer virises can work both ways
because the militarty boat was in a place where it should not have been despite what was reported.

Link

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: roadgravel

No, not necessarily a "sub-killer" per se, but rather maybe just happened to be headed on a collision course with something like a submarine which ACX Crystal would have had no idea was there.

A sub would dive so not sure what you mean. If I had to guess there is rules to be followed in shipping lanes. Like which side to pass on etc. I have a feeling these rules were broken leading to the collision. Be like a car going down the wrong way on a highway. You may avoid a couple of cars but eventually there will be a head on collision.

The thing that really makes no sense to me is that people were asleep on the side that got hit.

Even with explanations like somebody hacking BOTH ships, you'd still wake those people up and get them out of there, and it shouldn't take that long to do that. Don't they have 'battle stations' type alarms for that, and aren't they supposed to be able to respond in just a minute or so or something like that? If you had even just 60 seconds warning before the hit, you'd still hit the alarm and try to get everybody out of there.

I know it was night time, but how do they not have anybody who had an eye on the container ship, given how close it was? And if it was just a minute or two from hitting, shouldn't it have been obvious it was probably going to hit, and therefore somebody was supposed to have hit the alarm to wake everyone up?

Is somebody eventually just going to have admit that 'gosh, we didn't want to wake everybody up for nothing' or something dumb like that? I mean people who live in dorms and apartment buildings have to deal with that all the time, and this is serious business.

We are being given fair warning !

...The 'incident & damage" was by the Russian electronic warfare device called Khibiny...



a fictional cargo ship is just a cover story


see: reference to the earlier Black Sea encounter that made a missile destroyer, top-of-the-line USA model, made that weapons platform a sitting duck for up to 11 or so hours !

www.voltairenet.org...

originally posted by: UKTruth
These destroyers use the Aegis defence system. I believe. They would have known well in advance of a possible collision but they decided not to get out of the way. We will not ever find out why.

Maybe it wasn't so much they decided not to get out of the way, maybe
they were unable to get out of the way.

Rebel 5