USS Fitzgerald collides with ACX Crystal off coast of Japan

More than likely, not. We drilled constantly, at the sound of a general, chemical or collision alarm we would have been awake, dressed out and at our battle stations or damage control stations in a matter of a few minutes, all watertight doors, hatches, and scuttles would have been secured, all ventilation and vents would have also been secured. The ship would be watertight.

This blog has the pictures of both types of hatches (link) for DDG 103

EDIT: Subject matter berthing compartments would have two of these hatches (port & starboard) and each would have a scuttle in the center to get out of the space with.

Nice set of pictures from a tour of USS Barry (DDG-52) – (link)

1 Like

Found another picture from when she was sitting in the lagoon in Diego Garcia:

(Not my picture. From the net but cannot remember source)

It looks like the fitting supplier got the contract to design the piping!

3 Likes

Look at this youtube video and tell me that a ship like that cannot take evasive action, even at a VERY late stage to avoid a collision: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzveUz-WRGQ
Of course it takes somebody order such action and some more to execute, but h*ll there should be enough people available on the bridge and engine room to do what it takes.

I would guess in the middle of the night that they would be slow steaming. Possibly trailing one shaft and only one engine on the other. But I would guess even on one shaft and engine it could still make a dash to get out of the way of traffic.

One engine clutched in to one reduction gear with second shaft at 100% pitch and trailing was normal transit configuration on a Spruance class destroyer. Turns for 19kts would give about 16kts SOA. Transition to all four engines on line, clutched in and full speed available could be five minutes, initiated from the bridge or CCS.

Haven’t been on a Arleigh Burke class, but I imagine a similar situation. Fitzgerald could have been on one engine, but when I was XO on a Spruance class DD we would have been one engine on each shaft in a busy shipping area.

All my experience is on low-speed civilian vessels, but I thought one advantage the gas turbines in the Aegis equipped cruisers and destroyers were supposed to have was in acceleration. Yes, no?

Difference is between acceleration and availability … acceleration is fast but availability takes a little longer.

It’s nice to know our navy is ready at a moments notice to maneuver and avoid hazards to their ship.

In fairness, having availability of the maximum performance possible within seconds is not something that is a normal operating condition.

How many merchant ships keep all the generators online and synched with the shaft generator at all times?

I’m asking this about a warship, not a civilian vessel. You know, a warship, the ones that refuse to transmit AIS data to preserve security. I have no problem with them not transmitting AIS data. I would just expect them to be ready in other ways as well and be situationally aware enough to use that well paid for performance when it’s required. Or to you know, get back to the point in the original post, not have a collision. It’s not fair, but it’s not supposed to be fair. If it’s underway, the warship is supposed to be ‘ready’.

1 Like

While economical transit makes sense for civilian (commercial) vessels, a naval ship is not always followed by a fleet oiler. Having all four gas turbines online at all times probably does not count as “economic cruise”.

I’ve seen a diesel-electric vessel sailing with multiple 1990s era gensets online at 20-30% load for ten days straight. I found it rather surprising but the engineering folks said it was ok with the fuel they were using.

A few may have read or watched this already.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/21/politics/fitzgerald-initial-investigation-blames-navy/index.html

1 Like

Just enough to toss to us sharks this morning. A hint of the direction the investigation potentially is going without too much in the way of detail. It still does not let the ACX Crystal off the hook, but I suppose once they get past a certain point the Navy investigation will focus on the Navy. I hope they end up giving out detailed failings so they can be actually fixed at a ‘cultural level’ so to speak.

I do applaud the post collision damage control efforts, keeping a horrible situation from being even worse.

2 Likes

Still that’s pretty open ended on what actions or inactions by the watch team and OOD led to that…

True, but the first (and biggest) step in the Navy releasing exactly how they screwed up is them admitting that they screwed up.

3 Likes

In my experience through life, all organizations or entities “circle the wagons” when under attack. I saw this in the military and in private life (as a district attorney prosecutor and private practice federal litigation lawyer).* It is human nature for people to “protect our own” and to “have your six,” at least initially after an event or situation; i.e., everyone puts on a united front.

This is a roundabout way of saying that it was not unusual for the Navy to INITIALLY circle around Commander Bryson (Fitz. CO), and by extension the Fitz. crew as a military unit. What would be remarkable is if the Navy right out of the gate left the Fitz Commander, XO, ODD, and night watch flying in the wind to fend for themselves. Of course, behind the scenes things are different.

One of my favorite WW II movies In Harm’s Way illustrates the point. In the film it accurately depicted what happened in real life. Soon after the attack on Pearl Harbor U.S. Navy heads were rolling. Admirals and Captains were quickly relieved of command, or ship captains suffered discipline for action or inaction during the attack. (In contrast, the public saw a unified Navy and were unaware about Navy “personnel decisions.”)

As all Navy and Coast Guard Vets, and active duty personnel know, after the situation stabilized on the Fitzgerald the crew and officers had on their minds “who would be going down for this.” As we all know, when an incident occurs whether in combat or at peace, the crew of the stricken vessel know what happened. They know who most likely screwed up. (The captain especially knows about his crew. Excuse my language, but the capt. knows who are the screw-ups, who can be depended on, who is a salty dog, and who to utilize where.)

The Fitz officers and crew almost immediately knew that some careers would be ending, and on proven gross malfeasance or major dereliction those responsible may be at risk for incarceration. (Recall the UCMJ, in a noncombat situation directly or indirectly causing the loss of life is the most grave charge a military man can face.)

  • I am intimately familiar with the USS Frank E. Evans collision with the HMAS Melbourne; in Vietnam the USAF deadly friendly fire attack on a USCG patrol boat (Point Welcome), and my boat’s and other’s (almost fatal) mistakes while in combat. (In one battle a USCG boat had its guns trained on the target; just about ready to fire an alert competent PO1 Gunners Mate screamed to the officers on deck that the target was my boat. Saved with 5 seconds remaining on the bell)

P.S. Personally, after having served on a few ships, witnessed scores of incompetence, and knowing intimate details about the Frank E. Evans / Melbourne collision (where 74 sailors were killed) my immediate impression was that the Fitz dropped the ball here. What might have happened: Matt Bracken is probably 99% accurate here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ED26UO2n2c

2 Likes

CNN is in comport with what ex-Navy SEAL Matt Bracken said around the time this accident happened.