US Navy destroyer collision

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

An ocean-going containership is fairly limited in what it can do in last-ditch manoevring . Relatively speaking.

Do you know how long it takes a ship like the Crystal to crash-stop?

[Jim Cate]

This observation fringes on speculation and not being "nice", but the CV of the Fitz's skipper sure sounds like he was being trained as a manager and "brass hat" rather than accumulating a lot of sea time... the proverbial paper sailor.

I have no naval experience, and may have wrongly interpreted his training history, but that's my overall impression.

Jim

[JPA Cate]

To those of you who might think the Crystal could "radically" alter course, she really can't! We see them on our AIS, and their rate of turn is usually between 1 and 3 degrees per minute. Totally unlike the response of the average sailboat to her tiller!. There is too much mass involved. Look again at the picture of the Stockholm's bow posted by El Pinguino, that was a T-boning! Those ships cannot slow down nor turn, fast. The destroyer is the one designed for agility and maneuverability.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Do you know how long it takes a ship like the Crystal to crash-stop?

I do not. Some interesting discussions about that here. And elsewhere I'm sure. The mentioned response distance for bigger vessels varied from 1/2 nautical mile, to 2 to 5 nm, to two days' written notice from full ahead to full astern. Some commenters mention that the shortest stopping distance involves some S-turns, though that would obviously require adequate sea-room.

My point was that there's not a whole lot such a ship could do quickly.

[UAEguy]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

This observation fringes on speculation and not being "nice", but the CV of the Fitz's skipper sure sounds like he was being trained as a manager and "brass hat" rather than accumulating a lot of sea time... the proverbial paper sailor.
Jim

Agreed, but whatever the case, his career was likely irreparably damaged while sleeping. Would suck to be in his shoes.

[DnA9413]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

This observation fringes on speculation and not being "nice", but the CV of the Fitz's skipper sure sounds like he was being trained as a manager and "brass hat" rather than accumulating a lot of sea time... the proverbial paper sailor.

I have no naval experience, and may have wrongly interpreted his training history, but that's my overall impression.

Jim

Stick to discussing sailboats. Officers in all US services routinely cycle through operational, developmental and other career building assignments. Sea time alone does not develop a good officer. Discard nonsense you learned about "punching tickets" - all career military follow very structured career paths. All of them. There are no officers who just go to sea and make admiral. It doesn't happen. Sorry.

[Steadman Uhlich]

While reading the comments posted above, along with the natural speculation as to what would cause such an accident, I am reminded of what I read in the article about the Melbourne-Voyager collision. I will post an excerpt here for consideration. The two points I am highlighting below are to raise these two points in this famous collision:

1. The bridge crew was distracted and the commanding officer had impaired night vision because he had been looking at charts

2. The ships did try to avoid collision, but even with about a minute before impact and about 2,000 feet apart they could not maneuver out of the imminent collision.

______________________

"On Voyager's bridge, the officer of the watch and the navigator had become distracted, and Stevens was reading navigational charts, impairing his night vision.[13]

The port bridge lookout had come on duty while Voyager was turning to starboard, and raised the alarm when the swing back to port brought Melbourne back into view around 20:55.[13]

Melbourne's navigation officer ordered the carrier's engines to half speed astern around the same time, which Captain Robertson increased to full astern a few seconds later.[12] At the same time, Stevens gave the order "Full ahead both engines. Hard a-starboard," before instructing the destroyer's quartermaster to announce that a collision was imminent.[12]

Both ships' measures were too late; at 54 seconds from impact, the ships were less than 600 metros (2,000 ft) apart and in extremis –physically unable to alter their speed or course enough to avoid a collision."

SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbou...ager_collision

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by DnA9413

Stick to discussing sailboats. Officers in all US services routinely cycle through operational, developmental and other career building assignments. Sea time alone does not develop a good officer. Discard nonsense you learned about "punching tickets" - all career military follow very structured career paths. All of them. There are no officers who just go to sea and make admiral. It doesn't happen. Sorry.

.... and as a result watchkeepers on navy ships have very limited watchkeeping experience/ bridge time when compared with watchkeepers on merchant ships.

[Jim Cate]

There are no officers who just go to sea and make admiral. It doesn't happen. Sorry.

I bow to your apparent knowledge of naval training and career development practices. I could speculate that while officers who "just go to sea" may not make admiral, they might become damn fine COs and great seamen... chaps who don't have collisions with cargo vessels.

Again, I openly admit that this is speculation, looking for a possible event stream that lead to this most unfortunate incident... just as most of the other posts in this thread are speculation. When (if?) the actual causes of the collision are made public, such idle talk will be moot, and I will go back to commenting on sailing as suggested.

In the meantime, I continue to have great respect and admiration for professional seagoing folks, both merchant and naval.

Jim

[powsmias]

U.S. Navy Identifies 7 Deceased Fitzgerald Sailors

[dan swift]

I heard that they were passing and the Philippine vessel did a 90 degree turn in too them.
I think at the end of the day it will be found to be an intentional act by the Philippine boat

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by dan swift

I heard that they were passing and the Philippine vessel did a 90 degree turn in too them.
I think at the end of the day it will be found to be an intentional act by the Philippine boat

Intentionally hitting a modern US Navy ship on the high seas with a loaded containership is sort of like hitting a Porsche with a semi. Not impossible, but the Porsche driver would need to be asleep at the wheel.

[Randy]

Originally Posted by dan swift

I heard that they were passing and the Philippine vessel did a 90 degree turn in too them.
I think at the end of the day it will be found to be an intentional act by the Philippine boat

Not out of the realm of possibilities

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by dan swift

I heard that they were passing and the Philippine vessel did a 90 degree turn in too them.
I think at the end of the day it will be found to be an intentional act by the Philippine boat

Ludicrous is the nicest thing I can say about this statement.

Jim

[Randy]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Intentionally hitting a modern US Navy ship on the high seas with a loaded containership is sort of like hitting a Porsche with a semi. Not impossible, but the Porsche driver would need to be asleep at the wheel.

In certain situations vessels are passing close aboard 100 - 200 yds and if there is ill intent there are countless opportunities whether it's a warship or not.