Check out the TB2K CHATROOM, open 24/7               Configuring Your Preferences for OPTIMAL Viewing
  To access our Email server, CLICK HERE

  If you are unfamiliar with the Guidelines for Posting on TB2K please read them.      ** LINKS PAGE **



*** Help Support TB2K ***
via mail, at TB2K Fund, P.O. Box 71, Coupland, TX, 78615
or


WTF?!? Analysis of the USS Fitzgerald and ACX Crystal Collision
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Old Virginia
    Posts
    7,307

    4 Analysis of the USS Fitzgerald and ACX Crystal Collision

    https://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2017...d-and-acx.html

    MONDAY, JUNE 19, 2017
    Analysis of the USS Fitzgerald and ACX Crystal Collision

    As another Lame Cherry exclusive in matter anti matter.

    In monitoring the media and online posting of the collusion(sic) between the USS Fitzgerald and the cargo ship, ACX Crystal, there have been some very interesting comments which are all point to blaming the Americans and looking to lynch them for this event, based upon the law of the sea in starboard or right side ships are to defer to other ships, and as the Crystal was damaged port or left side, it was therefore the American's liability.

    (The Fitzgerald was hit on her starboard (right) side. As such, under "nav rules" she was the "burdened" vessel. JP)

    In forensic examination of the evidence though something is amiss, as the American ship has active radars that nothing in the air, on the ocean surface or under the sea, can not be active in it's radar sphere without that Aegis defense system being aware of it. This ship was designed to protect aircraft carriers in being the carrier's defense. It is impossible for the Aegis system to not keep track of hundreds of objects and yet a container ship struck the Fitzgerald.

    (I believe that Aegis is primarily for airborne threats. In any event, both Fitzgerald and the container ships had, or should have had, surface radar to warn them if another vessel is within 20 miles. JP)

    Speed of the two vessels were 18 knots or 20 mph for the Crystal and it will be assumed in this heavy traffic area the Fitzgerald would have been moving at like speeds, and not maximum speed of 25 knots or 28 mph.

    (I would guess that Fitzgerald was moving at 18 - 20 knots also. Her "maximum speed" is classified, but well above 30 knots. JP)

    It is the photographs which reveal the story of this collision. If one examines the Fitzgerald and Crystal, two distinct impacts are revealed.

    To understand the ships, the Crystal had a protruding bow under the water, in the Civil War this would have been termed a ramming prod. In modern seacraft the bow assists in moving through the seas and to roll water off the ship to make progression easier.

    In examining the Fitzgerald, it is conclusive this ship was struck, starboard side or not, this ship was broadsided in the crew's quarters, by the protruding bow, exactly as a torpedo would be deployed.

    In examination of the Crystal, it is conclusive proof the ship was involved in a shearing event or a sideswipe. Meaning, the Fitzgerald was struck at an angle as if targeted and the Fitzgerald was either beginning evasive action in being surprised, which it could not have been, or the Fitzgerald was steady on course, and it was the Crystal which was tracking the America ship to ram her.

    (Fitzgerald's OD probably thought that in a "high traffic area", the container ship meant to pass astern of the Fitzgerald. I suspect that the container ship changed course in the last minutes in an attempt to ram the Fitzgerald amidships. JP)

    Those points are telling as the Crystal was driving toward the Fitzgerald. Furthermore, the Crystal continued on in not offering support or acknowledging the collusion.

    (The container ship was in violation of "nav rules" here, as that she WAS involved in a collision and MUST stop and render aid. This should cost the container ship's captain his master's license. JP)

    There was not a 'general quarters sounded' to prepare for the collision. This is proven by the commander still in his berth and all the sailors still in their quarters.

    (This would indicate to me that the container ship made a sharp course correction at the last minute to deliberately ram the Fitzgerald. JP)

    Conclusions can be arrived at in this based upon known facts.

    The Aegis system can not be breached, and yet it was. This concludes:

    The Aegis system was inoperative.
    The Aegis system was breached and spoofed, hiding the Crystal.
    The radar operator was compromised and did not report the proximity of the Crystal.

    (Not being familiar with the Aegis system myself, is there someone here at TB2K who can confirm these conclusions? JP)

    The Crystal has additional absolutes.

    Merchant ships utilize auto navigation for money saving measures.
    The Crystal changed course.
    The Crystal rammed the Fitzgerald

    (I believe there has to be a watch-standing officer on the bridge at all times. JP)

    Hypothetical scenario would point to a 3rd party directed the use of the Crystal as a torpedo against the American ship. This would require intelligence on American ships in the area, travel routes and the knowledge of containers ships to be utilized in this operation.

    If one of the most advanced radar systems was not spoofed, then it would point to collusion on the American ship in the radar station, as radar operates and would be aware of the Crystal, as a watch commander could not hide the radar, only the commands.

    (Not only would the Fitzgerald's radar operator(s) have to collude, but the entire deck watch would have to collude as well. Theoretically possible but HIGHLY improbable IMHO. JP)

    As the Crystal changed course and tracked the American ship, it would indicate it was boarded by foreign parties to steer the ship, run the Crystal away, and then disembark the Crystal, as in a sheering strike the ship would not be stopped. In this scenario, it would be a known which side to strike the Americans on to provide cover for an apparent terror strike.

    (Not necessarily boarded. Perhaps the parties responsible were members of the container ship's crew. JP)

    In reviewing on-line reports, this is the probable conclusion which would verse a probable scenario.

    As this is in North Korean theater, the North Koreans would be suspect, as the Crystal made runs often to Malaysia which is North Korean friendly. In addition, this was a US warship which threatened Pyongyang.

    On the surface this would seem to be a correct conclusion, but what if instead a North Korea which had made overtures to America via international star Dennis Rodman in releasing a hostage in coma, that North Korea was not seeking confrontation with the United States.

    What if another belligerent sought to frame North Korea, a nation which had just been struck with it's own ISIS terror event in Tehran, in the Iranians who blamed the United States.

    What if Iranian operators instigated an operation in the waters of Japan, to increase antagonisms between North Korea and the United States, by sinking a US warship to humiliate America and to distract the United States from regime change in Iran, and for a first retaliation of Iran on America over the Tehran terrorism, in America was framed in that in other parties.

    The North Koreans do not have a large contingent of agents in the US military. The Muslim contingent overflows after Bush and Obama. It is possible on the above facts to reach conclusions that a controlling entity steered the American ship blind and that there was intelligent design on Crystal which deliberately turned a container ship into a torpedo for an attack on the United States.

    ( I seriously doubt that the Fitzgerald was ever "blind". In addition to her electronics, she had a full watch of lookouts while underway. The old "Mark 1 Eye Ball" is hard to spoof! JP)

    There are only several likely players:

    (One likely player would be an inept deck officer on the container ship. JP)

    Russia, but Russia seeks to defuse the situation with North Korea and not escalate it, nor point more Russian hacking fingers at Moscow in having spoofed an Aegis radar defense.

    China, same policy as Russia, as China desires a continuance of North Korea, not a radioactive Pyongyang nor an American beachhead on the Yalu.

    North Korea, Kim wants a united North Korea. He is winning with not striking America in America stood down with 3 carriers. An attack on America would mean strikes on North Korea which would destabilize Kim's regime.

    The last culprit is Iran. It would fit Iranian objectives to save itself from being another Syria, in raising tensions in the Asian theater between America and North Korea, by framing North Korea and by clandestinely seeking revenge on American efforts in Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf.

    (Since the container ship was from the Philippines, and there are Islamic terrorists there, thee "Iran theory" seems to be a good starting point. JP)

    The quietness of the stories on this, points to some type of undercurrent is suspected in this was an attack, which will be retaliated for covertly by the United States.

    This would fit the bin Laden, jets as missiles, and Iranian communists being clever to utilize the same scenario in utilizing a ship as a torpedo, and lay the blame on ISIS which is again quiet over this scenario.

    Analysis concluded in another Lame Cherry exclusive in matter anti matter


    Nuff Said




    agtG
    Last edited by Jonas Parker; 06-19-2017 at 10:35 AM.
    If at first you don't secede, try, try again!

  2. #2
    Had to give up about halfway through. LC is further from reality than I've ever before seen. The scope of ignorance being displayed is matched only by the overweening and unwarranted self-confidence. This might be a medication issue or just more of the same LC personality. Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.

  3. #3
    Or maybe they were just too careless/complacent in a crowded shipping lane......

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    4,745
    Contrary to the normal interpretation of the navigational rules of the road, the Crystal would be the "privileged" ship in this scenario because there are special circumstances here due to the size differences and handling characteristics between the two ships. The Crystal would be considered "a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuvered" This category contains vessels that are either fishing towing nets, tugboats hauling a barge, or a set of barges, or would be a deep draft boat or ship in a channel, and cannot deviate from it's course, or could even be a sailboat. In cases such as these, all other vessels become the burdened vessels and must give way. In this particular case, the Crystal COULD have been operating in a marked "Traffic Separation Schemes" these are sea lanes that are marked on ocean charts, that show the marked sea lanes in bound and out bound of major shipping ports. When other ship traffic enters the areas of these marked ocean lanes, ships must cross traffic lanes steering a course "as nearly as practicable" at right angles to the direction of traffic. This reduces confusion and enables that vessel to cross the lane as quickly as possible.
    Vessel entering a traffic separation scheme should do it at an angle as small as practicable.

    These container ships are huge, and once another ship has gotten within a couple miles of them, anything that close they "cannot see you" anymore on their radar, because it is too high about sea level. They were a nightmare of the commercial fishing fleet and we stayed out of the sea lanes for just that reason. These ARE NOT SLOW SHIPS, 18, to 20 kts, for something this big is moving.
    The Captain SHOULD have stopped and rendered assistance, that is the law of the sea. His ass IS grass.
    Rusty in NC
    Don't tread on me!
    sic semper evello mortem tyrannis
    Wickr tiger133

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Maidenhead
    Posts
    23,906
    She could give Sorcha Faal a run for his/her money with some of the 'lame' things she comes up with and this is another one.
    What is the lake of fire? What is it's purpose? Is the lake of fire eternal hell? Is there any hope of escape for those cast into this lake?
    http://bible-truths.com/lake1.html

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Old Virginia
    Posts
    7,307
    http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=232143

    Uh, What Happened Here? (Fitzgerald Collision)
    The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
    2017-06-18 12:55 by Karl Denninger


    As you've probably heard one of our destroyers suffered an impact with a freighter near Japan.

    From where the impact occurred it at first-blush appears that the commander of our destroyer is in serious trouble. For those unfamiliar with nautical rules of the road if you get hit on the starboard side you probably are at fault because you're the "give way" vessel and the other is stand-on.

    That is, the other vessel is supposed to maintain course and speed, you are supposed to alter course to remain clear.

    Further, there are two other considerations -- first, that if you're in doubt as to whether the risk of collision exists you're required to assume it does, and second, you're required to maintain an adequate lookout (using whatever you have, including people, radar, etc) so as to be able to assess the safety of proceeding on your current course and speed and, if you can't, you must reduce speed to bare steerageway until you can (e.g. in heavy precip that renders radar and lookouts useless, etc.)

    Then there's the "catch-all" which is that you are required to do anything in your power to avoid a collision if you determine that you're at imminent risk, even if it means breaking the rules!

    The upshot of the way the navigation rules are written is that if there's a collision it is almost never the case that either master is absolved. The only real way you avoid some responsibility is if you're properly anchored (and dayshaped/lit) or tied to a pier.

    If you're legally underway (moving or not) you're going to get some percentage of the fault, in short.

    But then this showed up and calls into question exactly where the split of fault lies.



    Ref: https://t.co/7O112WSkgG

    Boy that looks suspicious. First, the freighter doubled back at speed and then altered course again just before the impact.

    Remember, this happened in clear weather, at night. There is no reason to believe visibility was impaired or anything of the sort. The first violent, unsolicited maneuver (doubling back) looks suspicious standing alone given that the vessel's intended path was northeast if it was proceeding as-planned. The second course adjustment southward just before the impact looks even worse.

    I remind you that boats do not have brakes and although a destroyer is very maneuverable "on balance" compared against, say, a container ship you're not stopping one all that quickly. Nor would the master of said vessel (whoever was on watch at the time; the commander was presumably sleeping) have had any reason to expect a violent maneuver by the stand-on vessel approaching it and which, on its present course and speed immediately prior, would pass well clear without incident.

    If this was an intentional act then everything changes. No, the master of the Fitzgerald is sitll not faultless, but there's a hell of a difference between negligent navigation and failure to avoid the consequences of an intentional act by another vessel.

    Was it?

    I suspect the investigation will get to the bottom of this. Modern ships all have automated transponder equipment on them that provides course and speed ("AIS") and thus it's available to anyone who cares to look what that commercial vessel did.

    The question now becomes why.

    Why was the first near-180 degree turn made and then why was course altered again southward just prior to the impact, given that the second alteration, had it not been made, would have almost-certainly led to safe passage. Further, do the timelines square with this or do they suggest something else?

    In short was the collision the result of negligence or an intentional act?
    If at first you don't secede, try, try again!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    7,022
    Could be wrong. I think the Capt. of the Crystal rammed the Fitzgerald deliberately. It's not an accident.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    I'm Not Sure....
    Posts
    1,591
    An hour passed before Japan authorities were notified of Fitzgerald collision.

    Nearly an hour elapsed before a Philippine-flagged container ship reported a collision with a U.S. warship, the Japanese coastguard said on Monday, as investigations began into the accident in which seven U.S. sailors were killed.

    The U.S. Navy confirmed that all seven missing sailors on the USS Fitzgerald were found dead in flooded berthing compartments after the destroyer's collision with the container ship off Japan early on Saturday.

    The Fitzgerald and a Philippine-flagged container ship collided south of Tokyo Bay early on Saturday. The cause of the collision is not known.

    Multiple U.S. and Japanese investigations are under way on how a ship as large as the container could collide with the smaller warship in clear weather.

    Shipping data in Thomson Reuters Eikon shows that the ACX Crystal, chartered by Japan's Nippon Yusen KK, made a complete U-turn between 12:58 a.m. and 2:46 a.m. on June 17. (11.58 a.m. ET and 1.46 p.m. ET).

    The collision happened at around 1:30 a.m. but it was not until 2:25 a.m. that the container ship informed the Japanese coastguard of the accident, said coastguard spokesman Takeshi Aikawa told Reuters.

    He declined to elaborate on why the ship took nearly an hour to report the accident but said it could take ships time to notify authorities as they dealt with more urgent matters.

    Right after being notified of he accident by the container vessel, the Japanese coastguard made contact with the U.S. ship and confirmed it, Aikawa said.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN19913U
    Attached Images
    ...Rubbin' is Racin'......

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Looking Up
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas321 View Post
    Could be wrong. I think the Capt. of the Crystal rammed the Fitzgerald deliberately. It's not an accident.
    I agree with you. It is not an accident. I need proof it was an accident. The Crystals only purpose was to deliver the cargo to the harbor that lie NE. It a came about as if on a mission, struck and left. Why is the big question? Certainly an international incident. Certainly a failure on the bridge of the Fitzgerald to determine the location of the Crystal as being a threat. A lot to answer for but I will say it looks deliberate.
    "They wanted to be left alone to face challenges head-on, and to prosper from their own hard work and ingenuity...harsh country tends to produce strong people."-John Erickson

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Maidenhead
    Posts
    23,906
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas321 View Post
    Could be wrong. I think the Capt. of the Crystal rammed the Fitzgerald deliberately. It's not an accident.
    So do you think a speedy destroyer couldn't get out of the way of a plodding container ship? That is what it boils down to. Once that container ship came within whatever minimum distance the Navy sets for taking specific action the OIC on the bridge [officer of the deck?] should of taken the appropriate action to prevent the collision. Why didn't he/she? Intentional on the part of the container ship or not that ship should never of been allowed to get close enough to the destroyer to hit it.
    What is the lake of fire? What is it's purpose? Is the lake of fire eternal hell? Is there any hope of escape for those cast into this lake?
    http://bible-truths.com/lake1.html

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by bw View Post
    Had to give up about halfway through. LC is further from reality than I've ever before seen. The scope of ignorance being displayed is matched only by the overweening and unwarranted self-confidence. This might be a medication issue or just more of the same LC personality. Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.
    I agree.
    I think Lame Cherry should be added to the proscribed list since most of their "reporting" seems to be highly inaccurate clickbait.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Hfcomms View Post
    So do you think a speedy destroyer couldn't get out of the way of a plodding container ship? That is what it boils down to. Once that container ship came within whatever minimum distance the Navy sets for taking specific action the OIC on the bridge [officer of the deck?] should of taken the appropriate action to prevent the collision. Why didn't he/she? Intentional on the part of the container ship or not that ship should never of been allowed to get close enough to the destroyer to hit it.
    ood was probably in the head and did not get informed maybe?.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Looking Up
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Hfcomms View Post
    So do you think a speedy destroyer couldn't get out of the way of a plodding container ship? That is what it boils down to. Once that container ship came within whatever minimum distance the Navy sets for taking specific action the OIC on the bridge [officer of the deck?] should of taken the appropriate action to prevent the collision. Why didn't he/she? Intentional on the part of the container ship or not that ship should never of been allowed to get close enough to the destroyer to hit it.
    I can't do anything but agree with you Hf. The Crystal should never have been allowed that close. This puzzles me. General Quarters was not sounded. This puzzles me. Two ships running Starboard to Port are going in the same direction. Angle of Starboard damage does not show same direction but closer to a right angle. There should be no way the Crystal could sneak up on the Fitzgerald and hit her. But that is what happened! I am going to stand by our sailors in the incident and wait for some facts to be released. The Navy is being very tight lipped about this investigation. There could be and more than likely is far more to this than a hit in the night. Top Secrete equipment failures or sabotage should never be ruled out.

    Remember when the Cole was blown up. It didn't have to take on fuel at that Port and how they let those rag heads get that close is beyond me. In my day upon approach a warning shot and then they would be dead. The warning shot just filled the technical need for the rules of engagement.
    "They wanted to be left alone to face challenges head-on, and to prosper from their own hard work and ingenuity...harsh country tends to produce strong people."-John Erickson

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Central Illinois..halfway between here and there.
    Posts
    8,838
    I don't know much about those maritime rules and what color the lights are supposed to be. That being said, two things stand out to me as a layman. The known course and speed of the Crystal looks much like my three year old grandson at the toy store. It's all over the place. Either the navigational system was hacked, or the adjustments were deliberate, or the captain had ADD. Second thing is that the Crystal didn't stop or render any aid but instead continued on for an hour before reporting anything to the Japanese authorities. Granted the ship is big and everyone was probably asleep but if I was that far out to sea and there was the tiniest "boom", I would certainly be up trying to figure out what made the sound. My life may depend on it.

    The Fitzgerald is another mystery. I cannot believe that there were that many crewmen/women who were asleep at the helm. Nothing showed up on radar? No could visually see a ship that size with the proper lighting? I can see one or the other going kaput but both? At the same time? While a huge container ship is prancing all over? Either the Fitzgerald's systems were hacked into, or the entire watch was in collusion or the entire ship had just finished an big old party and everyone was either drunk or passed out.

    JMHO but it's just too much of a cowinky dink for it to be accidental. Something about this whole situation isn't passing the smell test. Unfortunately, I can no longer depend on news sources, the navy/military or my government to tell the truth, so I see this going into the Unsolved Mysteries file.
    Needs more cowbell.
    "The Constitution only gives people the right to persue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." --Benjamin Franklin
    Proud member of fly-over country

  15. #15

    I tend to think it is 1 of 2 scenarios.

    1. Deliberate attack and ramming in busy waters to provide near approach before turning and ramming, followed by the oops did we hit something.

    2. The destroyer falling into a normalcy bias, who would suspect a freighter from being used as a weapon, think airliners 9/10. When you are on station it is totally normal to "view" the signals as part of something you have already experienced. Had they been approached by a small speedboat, likely would have set off all kinds of bells but a freighter looks like another piece of background, until its not...

    Could be both happened.

    I think we should take the crew of the freighter to a quiet relaxed location for a conversation.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Hfcomms View Post
    So do you think a speedy destroyer couldn't get out of the way of a plodding container ship? That is what it boils down to. Once that container ship came within whatever minimum distance the Navy sets for taking specific action the OIC on the bridge [officer of the deck?] should of taken the appropriate action to prevent the collision. Why didn't he/she? Intentional on the part of the container ship or not that ship should never of been allowed to get close enough to the destroyer to hit it.
    THIS ^^^^ !!!!!

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    7,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Hfcomms View Post
    So do you think a speedy destroyer couldn't get out of the way of a plodding container ship? That is what it boils down to. Once that container ship came within whatever minimum distance the Navy sets for taking specific action the OIC on the bridge [officer of the deck?] should of taken the appropriate action to prevent the collision. Why didn't he/she? Intentional on the part of the container ship or not that ship should never of been allowed to get close enough to the destroyer to hit it.
    Well, our destroyer was not speedy enough to get hit broadside center. The crew was not doing their job it appears. I don't think it was a planned attack, but maybe a target of opportunity.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


NOTICE: Timebomb2000 is an Internet forum for discussion of world events and personal disaster preparation. Membership is by request only. The opinions posted do not necessarily represent those of TB2K Incorporated (the owner of this website), the staff or site host. Responsibility for the content of all posts rests solely with the Member making them. Neither TB2K Inc, the Staff nor the site host shall be liable for any content.

All original member content posted on this forum becomes the property of TB2K Inc. for archival and display purposes on the Timebomb2000 website venue. Said content may be removed or edited at staff discretion. The original authors retain all rights to their material outside of the Timebomb2000.com website venue. Publication of any original material from Timebomb2000.com on other websites or venues without permission from TB2K Inc. or the original author is expressly forbidden.



"Timebomb2000", "TB2K" and "Watching the World Tick Away" are Service Mark℠ TB2K, Inc. All Rights Reserved.