Once I saw the initial reports on this I thought it must have happened in port or at the entrance to a harbor because its impossible for this to happen in the open ocean. But as time passed we found out that it did happen in the open ocean under the cover of darkness and the cargo ship deliberately turned around and opened up the throttle before ultimately ramming the USS Fitzgerald.
This article makes a lot of sense for obvious reasons. What does not make sense is that this is some type of accident. Too many safety measures in place, both human and technology for this to have happened just due to bad luck, they would have had to have had total electronic failure for this to happen and the tanker would have had to go off its course accidently to accidently crash into a US Navy ship in the open ocean.
Don't buy it for a minute, what does it all mean? Maybe exactly what the article says it does....
Look at the rout of the container ship in this NY times article. The obvious question is purposely not asked. Why did the cargo ship turn around 180 from its course accelerate towards the Fitzgerald, ram it and then turn back towards its normal route?
When the GPS tracking shows this is what happened, why is this not talked about? Why did this cargo ship go out of its way to ram a US Navy ship in the open ocean? More importantly why is the media not asking this question?
The container ship hit the destroyer while on autopilot and no awake bridge crew. The turn around was to come back and see what they hit.
Abigger question, to me, is how a warship didn't see them coming and get the hell out of the way. Thought US ships had radar and all sorts of other cool [Bleeeeep!]. Guess not.
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: USS Fitzgerald accident - 06/26/1712:20 PM
THE TURN AROUND WAS NOT TO SEE WHAT THEY HIT, THE CARGO SHIP DIVERTED FROM ITS AUTO PILOT AND THEN RAMMED THE SHIP.
THIS WAS TALKED ABOUT ON FOX NEWS YESTERDAY MORNING BY AN ANYLIST, BUT NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
Both the Philippines and Japan are our allies, even though the Philippines seem to be feeling a little scratchy towards the US at present.
Both nations are scared sh!tless of a resurgent China as they well should be. What is the upside to alienating their biggest ally?
Lastly and most importantly I give you Hanlon's Razor- ""Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
OR... I can believe your screwball, totally unsubtantiated BS.
Two other sailors are recovering in a hospital with minor injuries, he added.
It’s still not entirely clear what caused the collision — and Aucoin wouldn’t elaborate — but Japanese authorities are investigating “endangerment of traffic caused by professional negligence,” Reuters reports.
Japanese media also reported that the ACX Crystal made a “sharp turn” shortly before the pre-dawn crash, per The Guardian.
It’s still not entirely clear what caused the collision
It's perfectly clear what caused the collision.
I'm with DD, it was the wookie, he was taking a $hit...
the bigger story is how a second generation carpenter, somewhat educated botanist, certified pot head cant find a job in Washington...
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: USS Fitzgerald accident - 06/27/1709:30 AM
This is what likely happened; Some type of localized EMP or something else like a "Hack" temporarily knocked out the ships electrical systems, who ever was responsible for the ships controls going down also remotely took control or the tankers controls and remotely controlled the ship and used it to ram the USS Fitzgerald.
It was done to send a message, maybe to prevent war, or in attempt to start one. Regardless our government would never tell anyone if they were compromised like that, because it would show how venerable its military has become.
US Navy ships don't have accidents in the open ocean, Tankers don't accidently crash into navy ships in open oceans either. All the pre set navigation paths are known, if something went wrong with a ships pre determined path any navy ship in the area would know immediately and be able to take counter measures. Its considered an attack to use a tanker as a battering ram and the Navy would perceive it as that.
Thanks Evo, for backing me up, and doing a little research, but you probably already knew this before I posted it.
This is what likely happened; The Crystal was on autopilot and the bridge crew was either not present or asleep when the two ships collided. Unaware that they struck another vessel, the Crystal sailed on for another few minutes before realizing what had happened and turned around to investigate.
The real questions are how and why the bridge crew of the Fitzgeraled either failed to detect the Crystal and change course, or if they did detect it, why nothing was done was about it, or if a course correction was made, why it came too late.
Bigfoot and gnomes were wanted for questioning by the US Navy and Japanese Authorities.
As it now goes/sounds, I would really not want to be any one of the sailors on nav detail, surface search radar ops, or the command guys in charge of the Fitzgerald's CIC ops as this incident unfolded...........
possible that something bad happened? if anyone here would have a speck of a clue it would be you... hope your good...
This happened because of literal fvcking and entitled, equality politics. The Navy's become soft in the whole. Women on board, social media, diversity training, playstations ad nauseum have blurred focus, concentration and doing your fcvking job. Maria, the radar gal was blowing CIC, while bridge watch was deep into a fierce game of Call of Duty.
Don't overthink this. It's just your typical, run-of-the-mill everyday government incompetence on full display.
And who's watch did all of the bullchit start on? Commander and Chief Obama's.
No S#$t I'm right, just look at the available facts, the tanker turned around diverted from its course and rammed the USS Fitzgerald. That's what happened, the media and the Navy is not saying that but that's what happened.
You can think of your own reason why that happened but what it exposed is that somehow this was able to happen when it was thought impossible. Its not an incident of derelict of duty, what do you think there is like two sailors on watch that are responsible for everything and they were off playing video games? there are a whole bunch of technical experts watching all sorts of stuff as well as sailors on the deck on watch and somehow this little tanker got under their noses. I don't think so......
What happened is we were attacked, and someone was able to make the USS Fitzgerald "dead in the water" and either pay off some tanker captain and crew or remotely take control of the ship and use it to ram a US Navy ship off the coast of Japan.
Pure BS. Those ships have ultra redundancy including heavy state-of-the-art electrical shielding. Dead in the water my ass. If that was the case, there would have been full blown all hands on deck. 18's would have been scrambled from the nearest base or carrier. The CIC would not have been in his bunk sleeping. Tankers or any boat for that matter would have been lit up like a Christmas tree outside of 1000 yards. The fact is nobody was paying any attention.
What? Some super secret weapon that can not only incapacitate a US Destroyer but also its entire crew?
Likely that the Captains will bear the brunt of the punishment as they are in charge. But it is obvious that training leaves a lot to be desired if a ship that moves as fast as these Navy vessels do collides/is hit by something that moves as slow as those commercial vessels. Stupidity does provide an adequate explanation.
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: USS Fitzgerald accident - 01/17/1809:03 AM
Not very believable. More likely falling on their own swords for the good of the country.
