The public story is bullshit.

There are redundant computerized systems and subsystems and ancillary systems on Navy vessels(all fully operational underway). If ALL of those fail there are Sailor stationed, provisioned with sound powered phones and binoculars at at least 4 points throughout the shit 24/7 whose duty it is to report ANYTHING seen.

This was a deliberate attack on a US warship. I'm not sure why the fedgov is spinning this BUT this Navy Veteran knows the smell of dung when its in the air.

The USS Fitzgerand has a max speed of 30 knots (and enough power to get out of the way of a slower oncoming ship is given a bit of time). Considering all the systems and people in place to avoid this very happening there had to be massive system failure AND gross negligence on a massive scale.

My 2 bits.

I don't know about an attack. Hitting a 100,000 hp destroyer with dual, controllable pitch propellers with a containership, is like Rosanne Barr catching Lionel Messi. It only happens if Messi is not paying attention. That destroyer can stop from flank in a few ship lengths, and maneuver like a rabbit.

Maybe the containership crew were doing something inappropriate, but the containership has right of way, and destroyer is very fast and very maneuverable. The ONLY way the destroyer gets hit is US crew incompetence.

The problem is that like air traffic control systems, marine navigation relies on transponders instead of active radar. It would be interesting to see if the transponder on the freighter had been turned off, so it became "invisible" to other vessels.

nickuris, I share your concern.
Now my navy and sea-faring knowledge is limited to what I learned from Hornblower
(British navy during the war with Napoleon, probably not shown on US TV).
From this, there must be a court-martial of the navy captain in which he has to prove his innocence.
That is, if his ship was not the offender, what steps if any were taken to avoid collision?

After some of the grievous errors I've seen committed on our nation's ships (carrier Captains having wild parties in their cabins, destroyer Captains allowing terrorists to get close enough to blow holes in their ship, love "triangles" leading to massive explosions in gun turrets), it would not surprise me to learn that a particular watch was either asleep or just away from his post.

I'm not picking on our Navy, but some of the current batch of sailors may not be up to the standards of those we knew in years (or decades) past.

I agree this incident is being covered up. Forty some odd years ago I was a hydraulics maintenance mechanic visiting customer oil and chemical tankers in the Port of New York and riding some of them between refinery discharge berths I never heard or seen a collisions the New York or New Jersey anchorages. Today, most merchant ships have sophisticated navigation and radar equipment. This was a deliberate act of ramming!

A Highly armed and super technical US Navy Destroyer getting slammed while it's pants were down around it's ankles is simply unacceptable. The Fitz is a Burke Class ship with a published top speed of over 30 knots and probably can hit closer to 40 if necessary. It could run circles around the cargo ship and scoot out of it's way in rather fast fashion. There is something mighty fishy in this story but no surprise that we are not getting the truth.

The track of the freighter and Navy ship shows a movement due to the hit and then a return of the freighter after the turn. I believe there were screwups but both were at fault. First the freighter was on auto pilot but the bridge should still have been manned in case something happens. The Navy ship bridge should have given right away to the freighter and screwed up by not changing course. I was Navy and even on an aircraft carrier, we changed course to steer clear of any possible collision. Granted, most ships steered clear of us but occasionally we had to change. I did 3 WestPac (Western Pacific) cruises and it is a busy ship traffic area, especially around South Korea, Taiwan, mainland China and the Straits of Malacca.

Sounds like JFK....got run over by a destroyer in fog on his first combat patrol. Didn't have the full compliment of lookouts on duty. Should have been cashiered out of the navy....but family connections got him written up in "Profiles in Courage"

Here is an article from the Seattle Times that adds to the same questions: http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-wo...

Don't go overboard, shipmate. I joined the US Naval Institute a couple of years ago. That is where I get my news from the fleet. In my office, we have a Spirit Wall. I put up the first reports of the sailors who were killed. (US military die too often as it is - seven in Afghanistan so far this year, three earlier this month.) These were a cross-section of America, young, old, seven states, mixed ethnicities... They were in their berths when the ship was struck. The commander's stateroom was smashed in around him: he found himself outside the ship.

There is a lot to this, agreed.

But there is no conspiracy.

It appears - appears - that the cargo ship was on autopilot and the watch crew was asleep. The salient discrepancy seems to be that the USS Fitzgerald did not radio for help but that the cargo ship did, and did so about one hour after the collision, which is the same time that the destroyer reported the collision. It appears - appears - that the collision took out the destroyer's radio room and they called in their first report from a satellite telephone.

First indications are that the merchant ship turned around after the collision to see what they hit.

Right now, the US Navy, the US Coast Guard, and the Japan Coast Guard are all investigating. Until the final reports are published, speculation is scuttlebutt.

Here is an article from the UK saying the Merchant was signaling, but again it would just add to the mystery of what their lookouts were doing, as well as why the merchant just did not either turn back north, or just stop, as it makes no sense that they were heading away from their destination and signaling the Fitz. More ambiguity.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/uss-fitzge...