US Navy Ship and Philippine Merchant Ship Collide

[Kathianne]

7 US Sailors missing.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1972SW

At least three injured, seven missing after U.S. Navy destroyer collides with merchant vessel off Japan Sat Jun 17, 2017 | 12:00am EDT

By Idrees Ali and Tim Kelly | TOKYO/WASHINGTON


Seven crew members are missing and at least three injured after a U.S. Navy destroyer collided early on Saturday morning with a Philippine-flagged merchant vessel south of Tokyo Bay in Japan, the U.S. Navy said.


The Japanese Coast Guard said the U.S. ship was experiencing some flooding but was not in danger of sinking, while the merchant vessel was able to sail under its own power.

...

[NightTrain]

Those big container ships are notorious for not paying attention to other traffic in the way. Many small vessels like sailboats cruising around the Gulf of Mexico have been hit by those ships and they didn't even stop to assist - just kept on hauling ass.

It will be interesting to see what the investigation uncovers and I hope a few of those philipinos go to jail to set an example. My guess is they had that ship on autopilot with no one watching the radar.

Given that the container ship was clearly at fault, why on earth didn't our Destroyer take evasive action? With the billions we've spent on radar systems for our Navy, this is inexcusable. They didn't know there was a 700 foot ship bearing down on them in a collision course?

[Gunny]

Those big container ships are notorious for not paying attention to other traffic in the way. Many small vessels like sailboats cruising around the Gulf of Mexico have been hit by those ships and they didn't even stop to assist - just kept on hauling ass.

It will be interesting to see what the investigation uncovers and I hope a few of those philipinos go to jail to set an example. My guess is they had that ship on autopilot with no one watching the radar.

Given that the container ship was clearly at fault, why on earth didn't our Destroyer take evasive action? With the billions we've spent on radar systems for our Navy, this is inexcusable. They didn't know there was a 700 foot ship bearing down on them in a collision course?

I was kind of wondering that, but let's wait for the resident squids (@aboutime) . There's plenty of screwy variable that go on at sea. The weather giving false reports comes to mind first. You can't turn a ship on a dime like in the movie "Battleship" (although that broadside was cool ) .

[Elessar]

I was kind of wondering that, but let's wait for the resident squids (@aboutime) . There's plenty of screwy variable that go on at sea. The weather giving false reports comes to mind first. You can't turn a ship on a dime like in the movie "Battleship" (although that broadside was cool ) .

There are so very many things that pop into my mind. What were the bridge crews of BOTH vessels doing?
Just wrapping up an 'operation', was the Fitz steaming at darkened ship?

Was this a crossing situation?

Being struck on the starboard (right) side would initially indicate that the merchie had the Right of Way unless:

...the Fitz was at anchor - unlikely 56 miles off shore;
...the Fitz was 'Restricted in the Ability to Maneuver' displaying Red over White over Red lights;
...the Fitz was a 'Vessel Not Under Command' due to propulsion problem(s) and displaying Red over Red over Red lights.

Was it an overtaking (passing) error?

If the Fitz was overtaking, then the merchie would be the 'stand-on' vessel maintaining course and speed,
and the Fitz the 'give-way' vessel...to maneuver to avoid collision.

Why was the CPA (closest point of approach) so rapidly decreased? Was the Danger Signal
(5 rapid blasts of the ship's horn) used by either vessel?

There could be so many more probabilities.

One thing is certain...the Fitz's C.O. is toast as might be some of the bridge crew to lesser
degrees.

The investigation could be interesting.

[aboutime]

I was kind of wondering that, but let's wait for the resident squids (@aboutime) . There's plenty of screwy variable that go on at sea. The weather giving false reports comes to mind first. You can't turn a ship on a dime like in the movie "Battleship" (although that broadside was cool ) .

Thanks Gunny. Today, with all of the automation involved, where only one, or two civilians might be paying attention on the bridge. There's a possibility (sounds like it to me) that the Container ship changed course 25 minutes before the collision. That MIGHT have been programmed....(SHIP AUTOPILOT) like on airliners. At specific times, course changes take place...but I suspect, there was no Human intervention at the time.
On the other side of the coin. THERE IS NO REASON for a U.S. Navy Destroyer of today to NOT see, or know about the CARGO ship's movements.
As I have seen over many, many years. Despite the fact that the CO was injured, and flown from the ship. HE LOST HIS COMMAND, the second the OOD, and others on the Bridge in the Pilot House....WERE NOT PAYING ATTENTION.
The COMMANDING OFFICER (CAPTAIN) IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING.

[Kathianne]

Thanks Gunny. Today, with all of the automation involved, where only one, or two civilians might be paying attention on the bridge. There's a possibility (sounds like it to me) that the Container ship changed course 25 minutes before the collision. That MIGHT have been programmed....(SHIP AUTOPILOT) like on airliners. At specific times, course changes take place...but I suspect, there was no Human intervention at the time.
On the other side of the coin. THERE IS NO REASON for a U.S. Navy Destroyer of today to NOT see, or know about the CARGO ship's movements.
As I have seen over many, many years. Despite the fact that the CO was injured, and flown from the ship. HE LOST HIS COMMAND, the second the OOD, and others on the Bridge in the Pilot House....WERE NOT PAYING ATTENTION.
The COMMANDING OFFICER (CAPTAIN) IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING.

That is exactly what I heard, I think. Something to the effect: 'The container ship was heading into port and for an unexplained reason, began to turn around, into the US vessel. The assumption is that the destroyer was on auto-pilot and wasn't able to adjust in time when the 4X larger ship hit.'

[aboutime]

That is exactly what I heard, I think. Something to the effect: 'The container ship was heading into port and for an unexplained reason, began to turn around, into the US vessel. The assumption is that the destroyer was on auto-pilot and wasn't able to adjust in time when the 4X larger ship hit.'

Gotta agree, and disagree in a way Kathianne. U.S. Navy ships are FORBIDDEN from any AUTOPILOT use. The safety of the entire crew RESTS with those on watch in the pilot house, watching radar, steering, engineering, and a multitude of other safety factors. Especially at Night when only specified people are on WATCH. Watches normally last Four Hours on the Bridge (pilot house). I believe just the opposite took place, though I am only guessing; if there was any use of an AUTOPILOT, steering the ship, navigating, and engineering...I suspect, as I mentioned...it was on the Civilian ship.

Unless navigational duties have changed. I AM SURE, there are several people on the bridge during EACH WATCH.
It appears to me...the Merchant ship collided with the Navy ship, based on the ANGLE OF ATTACK (they call it) Much like two cars...ONE coming from a side street, into the RIGHT SIDE (Starboard) of the Navy ship. IMO

It also appears, from photos I have seen. The BRIDGE was struck, which would explain the CAPTAIN being injured.