US sailors missing after Navy destroyer collision off Japan
-
Seven US sailors are missing and the commanding officer of a US destroyer is among the injured after the warship collided with a merchant ship off the coast of Japan, the US Navy said Friday.
The USS Fitzgerald suffered damage to its starboard side above and below the waterline in the incident.
Cmdr. Bryce Benson was one of three injured sailors who needed to be flown to a naval hospital in Yokosuka, Japan. He is in stable condition, the Navy said.US Navy Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson said three sailors were medevaced.
Other injured sailors are being assessed, the Navy said.–-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does a US navy ship collide with a merchant ship? A navy ship with weapons, radar, and navigation tech vs a trading vessel???
US wouldn't even need to be there if it weren't for Tomahawk Trump.
-
Seven US sailors are missing and the commanding officer of a US destroyer is among the injured after the warship collided with a merchant ship off the coast of Japan, the US Navy said Friday.
The USS Fitzgerald suffered damage to its starboard side above and below the waterline in the incident.
Cmdr. Bryce Benson was one of three injured sailors who needed to be flown to a naval hospital in Yokosuka, Japan. He is in stable condition, the Navy said.US Navy Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson said three sailors were medevaced.
Other injured sailors are being assessed, the Navy said.–-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does a US navy ship collide with a merchant ship? A navy ship with weapons, radar, and navigation tech vs a trading vessel???
US wouldn't even need to be there if it weren't for Tomahawk Trump.
"Tomahawk" Trump? Hmm.. sounds like you are being racist here.. attacking our native American Indians? That's against the rules you so often are wailing about.
This story has me puzzled. The media are reporting this as the Navy destroyer colliding with the merchant ship. Yet, the pictures don't show that. There is a massive difference between being the one that is hit.. and being the one that did the hitting.
The photos show that the front (bow) of the merchant ship is damaged, while the side (starboard / right side) of the Navy Destroyer is damaged. In other words, the merchant ship rammed into the side of the Navy destroyer unless the captain of the destroyer has some secret method of travelling through the water sideways.
-
Bodies of missing sailors found on stricken Navy destroyer
YOKOSUKA, Japan — Navy divers found the bodies of missing sailors Sunday aboard the stricken USS Fitzgerald that collided with a container ship in the busy sea off Japan, the Navy said.
Searchers gained access to the spaces that were damaged during the collision and brought the remains to Naval Hospital Yokosuka where they will be identified, the Navy said in a statement. Seven sailors had been missing.
It said that the families were being notified and provided the support they need during "this difficult time." The names of the sailors will be released after all notifications are made.
-
US wouldn't even need to be there if it weren't for Tomahawk Trump.
What a political hack.
The ship has been based in Japan since 2004.
So explain how it's Trump's fault.
-
US wouldn't even need to be there if it weren't for Tomahawk Trump.
What a political hack.
The ship has been based in Japan since 2004.
So explain how it's Trump's fault.
#45 is continuing the failed interventionist foreign policy of the Bush and Obama eras, so yeah, its his fault.
-
Clearly, you have no idea about history. We've been in Japan since WW2, because Japan brought us into it.
So you are saying that Trump is guilty of the same vile deeds that every other US President since WW2 and way beyond the current moment. Saint Hillary wouldn't have done anything different.
-
This story has me puzzled. The media are reporting this as the Navy destroyer colliding with the merchant ship. Yet, the pictures don't show that. There is a massive difference between being the one that is hit.. and being the one that did the hitting.
The photos show that the front (bow) of the merchant ship is damaged, while the side (starboard / right side) of the Navy Destroyer is damaged. In other words, the merchant ship rammed into the side of the Navy destroyer unless the captain of the destroyer has some secret method of travelling through the water sideways.Don't blame the media . The verb "collide" is intransitive, especially when using with two moving objects. he container ship obviously hi he destroyer, but i was both their faults for being too close. And Sutieday, you need to read your history before you go spouting off your mouth. This accident could have happened under any president since Truman .
-
This story has me puzzled. The media are reporting this as the Navy destroyer colliding with the merchant ship. Yet, the pictures don't show that. There is a massive difference between being the one that is hit.. and being the one that did the hitting.
The photos show that the front (bow) of the merchant ship is damaged, while the side (starboard / right side) of the Navy Destroyer is damaged. In other words, the merchant ship rammed into the side of the Navy destroyer unless the captain of the destroyer has some secret method of travelling through the water sideways.Don't blame the media . The verb "collide" is intransitive, especially when using with two moving objects. he container ship obviously hi he destroyer, but i was both their faults for being too close. And Sutieday, you need to read your history before you go spouting off your mouth. This accident could have happened under any president since Truman .
Okay, but there is no denying the fact that the US military has been more aggressive under Trump, as he's increased their budget substantially.
-
This story has me puzzled. The media are reporting this as the Navy destroyer colliding with the merchant ship. Yet, the pictures don't show that. There is a massive difference between being the one that is hit.. and being the one that did the hitting.
The photos show that the front (bow) of the merchant ship is damaged, while the side (starboard / right side) of the Navy Destroyer is damaged. In other words, the merchant ship rammed into the side of the Navy destroyer unless the captain of the destroyer has some secret method of travelling through the water sideways.Don't blame the media . The verb "collide" is intransitive, especially when using with two moving objects. he container ship obviously hi he destroyer, but i was both their faults for being too close. And Sutieday, you need to read your history before you go spouting off your mouth. This accident could have happened under any president since Truman .
Yes, but the news media (including Fox) implied that the destroyer hit the merchant ship.
Another consideration is that merchant ships typically run on auto-pilot when in open water. I'm not sure where this collision occurred. It COULD be that the destroyer was trying to force the merchant ship to stop or change course, and their bravado backfired on them. That sort of thing often happens with whale boats & green peace boats.I can almost guarantee that the captain of the navy destroyer won't ever be the captain of another ship.
-
Yes, but the news media (including Fox) implied that the destroyer hit the merchant ship.
Another consideration is that merchant ships typically run on auto-pilot when in open water. I'm not sure where this collision occurred. It COULD be that the destroyer was trying to force the merchant ship to stop or change course, and their bravado backfired on them. That sort of thing often happens with whale boats & green peace boats.I can almost guarantee that the captain of the navy destroyer won't ever be the captain of another ship.
You are speculating. And he captain was hurt in the collision. But you are right, his days as a captain are probably over.
-
And Sutieday, you need to read your history before you go spouting off your mouth. This accident could have happened under any president since Truman .
It will be the same way under the next countless Presidents too.
Okay, but there is no denying the fact that the US military has been more aggressive under Trump, as he's increased their budget substantially.
I see you are ignoring Obama's use of the military.
Traditionally, democrats defund the military while republicans increase the funding.
-
There is a massive difference between being the one that is hit.. and being the one that did the hitting. The front (bow) of the merchant ship is damaged, while the side (starboard / right side) of the Navy Destroyer is damaged.
Videos of cars dashing across train tracks at the last minute only to get hit by a train help to explain this accident perfectly. They're usually the result of one party believing they can cross the path of another party quickly enough to get out of the way. The destroyer dashed in front of the merchant ship, believing that they could get out of the way in time: "I'm smaller, I'm faster!" only to be proved wrong.
T-Bone type accidents like this are very common in shipping, and are seen all the time in intersections with red-light runners.
-
Traditionally, democrats defund the military while republicans increase the funding.
Really shows which side is in bed with the military industrial complex…
-
There is a massive difference between being the one that is hit.. and being the one that did the hitting. The front (bow) of the merchant ship is damaged, while the side (starboard / right side) of the Navy Destroyer is damaged.
Videos of cars dashing across train tracks at the last minute only to get hit by a train help to explain this accident perfectly. They're usually the result of one party believing they can cross the path of another party quickly enough to get out of the way. The destroyer dashed in front of the merchant ship, believing that they could get out of the way in time: "I'm smaller, I'm faster!" only to be proved wrong.
T-Bone type accidents like this are very common in shipping, and are seen all the time in intersections with red-light runners.
That is entirely possible and plausible..
However, I would add that those destroyers can go EXTREMELY fast.. In fact, that destroyer should have been able to hit the speed, and turn away even at the last second.
Furthermore.. let's just say to make a point that the merchant ship was intentionally trying to ram the navy destroyer (I'm sure that is not the case). But even if that WERE the case, it should have been extremely easy for the navy destroyer to avoid being hit.One other thing.. which someone who has served in the navy could answer. When at sea, do navy vessels ever come to a complete stop? I would think not.. because that would increase the odds of them being hit with a missile or torpedo exponentially.
*** I have to add one personal anecdote. I was once an assistant manager in an office. We hired this guy who served in the navy and had just gotten out. The entire staff was about 20 people, and we all went out on a chartered deep sea fishing trip as a mini-holiday. Out of the 20 people.. only ONE was seasick and puking the entire trip! Mr Navy! That was hilarious. I hated that guy. We kept him on… mainly because the #3 guy in the office was his bestest buddy. I got fed up with that office, and quit. The manager got re-assigned.. making #3 the manager.. and within the first month of being manager, he fired his bestest buddy Mr. Navy! haha...
When being the back-seat driver of the office, #3 was the big defender for Mr. Navy.. but when he got to be the boss.. he sent Mr. Navy packing quick! About 6 months later, that manager got fired because they had nobody to maintain the computers after I left, and a year after that the office closed. Oh, and in that same office.. I got a husband & wife fired after I left. They were stealing about $1000 worth of office supplies per month, and using it to operate their own office. I raised holy hell about that, but the out-of-state owners didn't believe me. After I quit, I was working on the computer of this old guy's computer.. and found a business card of the husband & wife and the address of their little office that they were doing side jobs in. This old guy was working WITH that husband & wife doing checking for them. Well.. "somebody" (cough cough) faxed that business card to the out of state owners.. and within an HOUR.. the husband & wife were FIRED! Hasta la vista, Baby! -
Yes, but the news media (including Fox) implied that the destroyer hit the merchant ship.
Another consideration is that merchant ships typically run on auto-pilot when in open water. I'm not sure where this collision occurred. It COULD be that the destroyer was trying to force the merchant ship to stop or change course, and their bravado backfired on them. That sort of thing often happens with whale boats & green peace boats.I can almost guarantee that the captain of the navy destroyer won't ever be the captain of another ship.
You are speculating. And he captain was hurt in the collision. But you are right, his days as a captain are probably over.
I once met a pilot of a barge who was responsible for knocking down a major bridge and killing 35 people. (He was high on marijuana at the time). After that incident, he was stripped of his license to pilot barges in and out of the ports.. but you will not believe what his next job was… TEACHING people to pilot barges!!!
-
The destroyer was hit on the starboard side, meaning the container ship had the right of way, with the destroyer required to yield to it, rather than speed up.
-
-
U.S. Warship Stayed on Deadly Collision Course Despite Warning - Says Container Ship Captain
Reuters
June 26, 2017TOKYO - A U.S. warship struck by a container vessel in Japanese waters failed to respond to warning signals or take evasive action before a collision that killed seven of its crew, according to a report of the incident by the Philippine cargo ship's captain. Multiple U.S. and Japanese investigations are under way into how the guided missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald and the much larger ACX Crystal container ship collided in clear weather south of Tokyo Bay in the early hours of June 17.
In the first detailed account from one of those directly involved, the cargo ship's captain said the ACX Crystal had signaled with flashing lights after the Fitzgerald "suddenly" steamed on to a course to cross its path. The Crystal steered hard to starboard to avoid the destroyer, but hit the Fitzgerald 10 minutes later at 1:30 a.m.
The Fitzgerald sustained damage to its starboard side in the collision, which initially trapped the commanding officer in his quarters. The time of the collision remained murky in the days following the fatal collision. The Navy initially placed the time of collision at 2:20 a.m. local time. Japanese coast guard officials later revised the time of the collision to 1:30 a.m. after interviewing Crystal crew, last week.
A tracking of the Crystal's route by the vessel-tracking service MarineTraffic showed the massive container ship made a sudden turn as if trying to avoid something at about 1:30 a.m. before continuing eastward and making a U-turn before returning to the collision area at about 2:30 a.m., the AP reported. As several U.S., Japanese and Philippine investigations into the crash get underway, what remains unclear is how the hulking cargo ship was able to get that close to the advanced, Arleigh Burke-class Fitzgerald.
-
U.S. Warship Stayed on Deadly Collision Course Despite Warning - Says Container Ship Captain
Reuters
June 26, 2017TOKYO - A U.S. warship struck by a container vessel in Japanese waters failed to respond to warning signals or take evasive action before a collision that killed seven of its crew, according to a report of the incident by the Philippine cargo ship's captain. Multiple U.S. and Japanese investigations are under way into how the guided missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald and the much larger ACX Crystal container ship collided in clear weather south of Tokyo Bay in the early hours of June 17.
In the first detailed account from one of those directly involved, the cargo ship's captain said the ACX Crystal had signaled with flashing lights after the Fitzgerald "suddenly" steamed on to a course to cross its path. The Crystal steered hard to starboard to avoid the destroyer, but hit the Fitzgerald 10 minutes later at 1:30 a.m.
The Fitzgerald sustained damage to its starboard side in the collision, which initially trapped the commanding officer in his quarters. The time of the collision remained murky in the days following the fatal collision. The Navy initially placed the time of collision at 2:20 a.m. local time. Japanese coast guard officials later revised the time of the collision to 1:30 a.m. after interviewing Crystal crew, last week.
A tracking of the Crystal's route by the vessel-tracking service MarineTraffic showed the massive container ship made a sudden turn as if trying to avoid something at about 1:30 a.m. before continuing eastward and making a U-turn before returning to the collision area at about 2:30 a.m., the AP reported. As several U.S., Japanese and Philippine investigations into the crash get underway, what remains unclear is how the hulking cargo ship was able to get that close to the advanced, Arleigh Burke-class Fitzgerald.
Thanks for that update… it is a very strange story.
Here is something that bothers me... if that cargo ship was trying to EVADE the destroyer, that should have been quite easy to do with 10 minutes to work with. The slightest change in course over a span of 10 minutes should have been plenty to avoid a collision. On the other hand, the change of course is suspicious. if that cargo ship made a course change 10 minutes before impact and hit the destroyer.. I would assume that if the cargo ship didn't make that course change that it would have MISSED the destroyer. Could it be that the cargo ship intentionally made a course change to ram the destroyer?
I don't think all the information is being revealed. -
The change of course is suspicious if that cargo ship made a course change 10 minutes before impact and hit the destroyer.
I think this course change actually turned out to be a U-turn which the cargo ship made 30 minutes after the collision. The initial reports got the time of impact wrong.
Could it be that the cargo ship intentionally made a course change to ram the destroyer?
From the position of the people on the bridge of the cargo ship, as long as the destroyer was appearing to them to be left of their centerline, they were legally obligated to [desc=If the other crossing vessel is in your port sector, then you are the Stand On vessel, and you ought not slow down or change course.]stand on[/desc] without changing course or speed. This would only change if the destroyer suddenly appeared to the right of their centerline, in which case evasive action would be required to avoid a collision. Evasive is a misnomer because it takes >10 minutes to make a meaningful course correction in cargo ships of that size.
If I'm the ship in the diagram below then I should expect every ship I pass to stay to my left. As long as they stay there, I can continue full speed ahead. If their plan is to cross in front of me, this changes only their obligations in the passing—not mine. I would remain, from their point of view, to the right of their centerline, where they are obliged to [desc=If the other crossing vessel is in your starboard sector, then you are the Give Way vessel, and you must stop or slow down.]give way[/desc]. Those ships would be seeing my red light, which is a stop sign for them. I would be seeing their green light telling me I am free to 'Go'. Since we know the destroyer was hit on its starboard side, this green light was what they were displaying to the cargo ship — all while dashing in front of them.
Interestingly enough this is the same location where the Andrea Doria was hit—on its starboard side. If you have a ship passing you on the starboard side and you don't give way then you are inviting the collision—because your green light is telling the other ship to "Keep on Movin Dont Stop."
