USS Fitzgerald struck by Phillipine freighter

[T.O.M.]

http://www.c7f.navy.mil/Media/News/Display/Article/1217674/uss-fitzgerald-collision-update/

The Fitzgerald was struck on the side by the freighter.  One injured sailor was airlifted off by the Japanese Coast Guard.  Seven sailors are "missing."  There's some flooding, but the ship is sailing for port under her own power.  Praying that the missing are okay, and it makes port fine,

[Jim147]

Where is freak?

[PEfarmer]

Sad reason to introduce myself, though I've been lurking for years. I was on the Fitz for about 4 years in the early 2000s. The 2 berthing spaces flooded hold 75 (mine) and around 40. Given the time of day that this happened, it's amazing more aren't missing. Some watchstanders are likely to hang.(metaphorically) For this to happen takes a long chain of f ups.

[Hawkmoon]

Looks like she was rammed just forward of midships on the starboard side. No mention of the condition of the freighter -- did the freighter run straight ahead into the side of the Fitz?

Also, so far no mention of which ship might have been at fault. No matter who was technically at fault, though, it's generally not recommended practice to play chicken on the high seas, so there may be a few careers curtailed on both ships.

[freakazoid]

Wasn't me!

Keep hearing about seven sailors are missing, but it also says that there is no official word from the Navy. Probably picked it up from a Facebook post or something. Hopefully that's not the case. 
Will be curious to know who rammed who.

[just Warren]

This may be provincialism talking but I'm going to assume our Navy sailors are a hell of a lot better than who was on the other ship and that our guys did everything they could but found themselves rammed anyway.

Like when you're trying to avoid that horrible other driver but she still manages to wipe out your door, quarter panel, side mirror and turn lights.

[Scout26]

Saw video (USAToday), looks like she took a glancing blow, as opposed to getting T-Boned.  It also reported that the CO was MEDEVAC'd.  No conformation as to # of missing.

PEFarmer.  A belated welcome.  Wish you would stuck you head in under better circumstances, but we do hope you throw your $.02 more often.

[Jim147]

Glad you are ok freak haven't been on much and last I knew you were over there.

[freakazoid]

Glad you are ok freak haven't been on much and last I knew you were over there.

Thanks. I'm on shore command, not stationed on a ship but a building on base.

[Scout26]

I thought you had been on the USS Dewey 

[KD5NRH]

This may be provincialism talking but I'm going to assume our Navy sailors are a hell of a lot better than who was on the other ship and that our guys did everything they could but found themselves rammed anyway.

OTOH, a warship might have been running without lights, and thus full responsibility to avoid anything else on the water.  Not as likely for a cargo transport.

Either way, hard to imagine how nobody noticed the bigass ship out there on radar or visually unless they were all napping on watch.

[PEfarmer]

Saw video (USAToday), looks like she took a glancing blow, as opposed to getting T-Boned.  It also reported that the CO was MEDEVAC'd.  No conformation as to # of missing.

PEFarmer.  A belated welcome.  Wish you would stuck you head in under better circumstances, but we do hope you throw your $.02 more often.

Thanks for the welcome.  I seem to have quite a bit in common with several of the folks hear and will hopefully participate more.

[dogmush]

OTOH, a warship might have been running without lights, and thus full responsibility to avoid anything else on the water.  Not as likely for a cargo transport.

US Military Vessels don't routinely run without nav lights.  Some CG cutters do for a couple hours on interdiction missions, but it's pretty rare for just this reason.  We run nav lights in actual conflict zones, I'd be pretty shocked if they turned them off in the Philippine Sea.

I have a couple suspicions, but I'm going to wait until some more info comes out.

I will say, that under the International Collision Regulations, both vessels are at fault.  Yes, one was supposed to give way, and the other was supposed to hold course and speed, but the rules specifically say that if a collision is going to occur both vessel have the responsibility to avoid it.  That is: even if you have the "right of way" you cant just auger in to another ship. You have to avoid the collision.

[KD5NRH]

US Military Vessels don't routinely run without nav lights.  Some CG cutters do for a couple hours on interdiction missions, but it's pretty rare for just this reason.  We run nav lights in actual conflict zones, I'd be pretty shocked if they turned them off in the Philippine Sea.

I thought I'd seen something about an exercise in one of the articles.  Figured they might have been both in an unusual configuration and expecting another ship nearby, but still, between radar, sonar and visual observation, not noticing a frickin' container ship about to knock a hole in your boat is particularly bad seamanship.

I mean, it's a destroyer; look at the amount of crap nailed onto it specifically for the purpose of detecting stuff it might want to destroy.

[Blakenzy]

I mean, it's a destroyer; look at the amount of crap nailed onto it specifically for the purpose of detecting stuff it might want to destroy.

Yes. Getting hit by a random container ship does not speak highly of its survivability.

[RevDisk]

I was Army, so literally have near zero knowledge of Naval operations... But don't ships have lidar, radar, sonar or guys with binocs to watch for ships trying to ram or sink said ship? Army wise, there's always guards, fire watch, CQ, or whatnot. Even if they're a speed bump, their job is to pick up the phone and notify someone something bad is happening

[HankB]

If they can't avoid colliding with a big, slow, civilian container ship out in the ocean . . . how the bleep are they going to deal with a hostile COMBAT ship of ANY type in a shooting war? 

Sounds like an epic fail of leadership, training, and discipline.

[BobR]

Underway at night normally you would have a OOD (Officer of the Deck) plus several others on the bridge. In Combat Control you would have several people on watch.

Then again, if running dark and under EMCON (Emissions Control) the boat would be nearly invisible, depending on the moon. It get really dark out on the ocean. A container ship would have maybe 2 people on the bridge and no real lookouts as they would be relying on radar and autopilot. That is where CIC (Combat Information Center) would be listening passively for other radar, etc.

As far as lookouts, once a contact is reported to CIC they tend to ignore other reports of same contact because they are tracking it.

Yea, heads will roll for this one. But it isn't the first time this had happened and it probably won't be the last. The USS Belknap was run over by the USS Kennedy in the 70's and during Viet Nam the USS Frank E. Evans was run over by the HMAS Melbourne and was cut in half. Those, while Navy vs Navy shows how crowded it can sometimes get out there. I can't recall other merchant vs Navy collisions but I know there have been some.

bob

[Hawkmoon]

I can't recall other merchant vs Navy collisions but I know there have been some.

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=19914

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/01/08/japan.us.ship/index.html

On 13 November 2002, the USS Oklahoma City collided with the Leif Hoegh liquefied natural gas tanker Norman Lady, east of the Strait of Gibraltar. No one on either vessel was hurt, and there were no leaks of oil from fuel tanks and no threat to the environment, but the submarine sustained damage to her periscope and sail area, and put into La Maddalena, Sardinia, for repairs. Her commanding officer, Commander Richard Voter, was relieved of his command on 30 November. One other officer and two enlisted crew members also were disciplined for dereliction of duty.

On January 8, 2007, USS Newport News was transiting submerged in the Straits of Hormuz when it hit the Japanese tanker Mogamigawa.[10] It had been operating as part of Carrier Strike Group 8 (CSG-8), organized around the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower[11] and dispatched to the Indian Ocean to help support operations in Somalia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Hartford_and_USS_New_Orleans_collision

USS Montpelier and the Aegis cruiser USS San Jacinto collided off the coast of north-eastern Florida on 13 October 2012 during an exercise while the submarine was submerged at periscope depth. There were no injuries aboard either ship. The initial assessment of damage was that there was a complete de-pressurization of the sonar dome aboard San Jacinto. The investigation revealed that the principal cause of the collision was human error, poor teamwork by Montpelier watch team, and the commanding officer's failure to follow established procedures for submarines operating at periscope depth. Additionally, the investigation revealed contributing factors threaded among the various command and control headquarters that provide training and operational oversight within Fleet Forces Command.

On January 10, 2013 the USS Jacksonville struck an unidentified vessel in the Persian Gulf and lost one of its periscopes.[27] The ship's commanding and executive officers were relieved for cause following the incident.

[RevDisk]

Underway at night normally you would have a OOD (Officer of the Deck) plus several others on the bridge. In Combat Control you would have several people on watch.

Then again, if running dark and under EMCON (Emissions Control) the boat would be nearly invisible, depending on the moon. It get really dark out on the ocean. A container ship would have maybe 2 people on the bridge and no real lookouts as they would be relying on radar and autopilot. That is where CIC (Combat Information Center) would be listening passively for other radar, etc.

As far as lookouts, once a contact is reported to CIC they tend to ignore other reports of same contact because they are tracking it.

Yea, heads will roll for this one. But it isn't the first time this had happened and it probably won't be the last. The USS Belknap was run over by the USS Kennedy in the 70's and during Viet Nam the USS Frank E. Evans was run over by the HMAS Melbourne and was cut in half. Those, while Navy vs Navy shows how crowded it can sometimes get out there. I can't recall other merchant vs Navy collisions but I know there have been some.

bob

Ah. Assumed it was a communication issue. I worked in an artillery unit and frequently worked the radio. Mistakes happen and sometimes you need to explain the situation in calm, clear, professional language.

Example: "Redleg 6, if you continue dropping rounds danger short, I will order full battery counter fire on your position. All division counter batteries, traverse all tubes 90 degrees left, prepare fire mission. Recommend M795 loadout." or "WE ARE ABOUT TO BE RAMMED. TURN THE SHIP OR I WILL BEAT YOU TO DEATH WITH THE WRECKAGE OF THIS SHIP"

Definitely a training problem. Sack the CO, XO, officer of the day, equivalent NCOs. Recert everyone else.

[Fly320s]

The CO always gets blamed in these cases.  Why?  What if the CO was asleep?

[BobR]

The CO always gets blamed in these cases.  Why?  What if the CO was asleep?

Still his fault. He is in Command whether awake of asleep.

He won't be fired specifically for the collision but he will be fired "For a loss of confidence in his ability to command".

bob

[RevDisk]

The CO always gets blamed in these cases.  Why?  What if the CO was asleep?

Commanding officer is and should be responsible for the actions of anyone under his command unless there are HUGE mitigating circumstances. Theory being, he is responsible for making sure all training is accomplished (not pencil whipped), the people are competent and disciplined and that there are no organizational problems. That is his real job, not just telling the ship where to go. The E4 with his hands on the wheel does that. Or the divorced, alcoholic E7 with joint problems that leads said E4.

Reality is, not sure about the Navy but the other branches make it hard as hell to throw out scumbags, lazy types and crazy people. The upper brass, bureaucracy and politicians have been tying the hands of commanders in all services for a long time now.

[Hawkmoon]

Ah. Assumed it was a communication issue. I worked in an artillery unit and frequently worked the radio. Mistakes happen and sometimes you need to explain the situation in calm, clear, professional language.

Example: "Redleg 6, if you continue dropping rounds danger short, I will order full battery counter fire on your position. All division counter batteries, traverse all tubes 90 degrees left, prepare fire mission. Recommend M795 loadout." or "WE ARE ABOUT TO BE RAMMED. TURN THE SHIP OR I WILL BEAT YOU TO DEATH WITH THE WRECKAGE OF THIS SHIP"

Or ...

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=174

[dogmush]

So I'm going to post two pictures.  Both are the AIS (Automatic Identification System) shots of the area in question.  Both have the past track of the ACX Crystal (The ship they hit) on them, but every other little colored arrow on those pics is a vessel of some kind transiting in or out of Tokyo Bay.  Scales are on the lower left. AIS is basically a commercial transponder system for ships. Also remember that there are little fishing and pleasure boats out there not running AIS.  And most of them don't speak English as a first language when you get them on the radio.

Given the traffic I'd be shocked if they were running dark or EMCON.  The Fitzgerald was transiting  a shipping lane south outbound for sea.  The main route southwest from Tokyo Bay is between Oshima and Shimoda, so it's likely their course was in there somewhere and generally southwest. If that's the case it was a crossing situation and the Fitzgerald was obligated to give way to the Crystal. 

The AIS track looks like the Crystal did a sharp turn to starboard about 0133 local and slowed down.  She then continued on roughly her previous course for 10-ish miles, turned around, returned to the site of the sharp turn and loitered there for a while, then proceeded to Tokyo.  If I had to guess the first turn was the collision, then she straightened out and slowed down while she did Damage control, and accounted for all her crew, then when it was safe she returned to Fitzgerald see if she could render aid, and after that headed for port.  Obviously I'm interpreting from only one data source, but that fits the known data.

US Navy ships don't run AIS, for obvious reasons, but that's what the Crystal's track looks like.

AIS normally integrates with your RADAR and Electronic charts and puts a little triangle on it for you.  Folks get too dependent on that and forget that while triangle on the screen means there IS a boat, no triangle doesn't mean there ISN'T.  I suspect we'll find that the Fitzgerald was on their RADAR, but they didn't think it was a real target, because AIS wasn't tagging it, and that confusion led to the Crystal not taking action until too late.  Fitzgerald, however knew damn good and well she didn't have AIS on, was the give way vessel, and had better sensors then the Crystal.  There's no real excuse for her not leaving quite a bit of room.

For perspective we (US Military vessels) normally go for CPA's measured in miles, or at least thousands of yards.