US warship vs Philippines freighter, freighter wins.

[ZenOps]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/16/us-navy-destroyer-collides-ship-japan

Seven crew dead on USS Fitzgerald in dock for repairs, freighter continuing its journey.

They just don't build 'em like they used to.

[colsankey]

The fitzgerald was one third the size and appears to have been struck broadside.

What is the expected outcome, of said colliosion, back when they built em like they used to?

[ZenOps]

Well... They *should* have been made with at least six inch naval Krupp type armored steel - as a guess.

What is vastly more interesting to me is that the USS would have had multiple backups for sonar detection. There is zero point zero percent chance they did not see the ship coming with at least two or three hours of collision avoidance. Even with the entire technology of the ship disabled in some sort of catastrophic failure, there should at least be two spotters with binoculars. Its not like a car on a highway where you might have seconds to avoid a collision.

This was by my estimation - for sure a game of chicken, a game which amazingly the US lost.

rTAx8r_090o

[Xtrema]

The fitzgerald was one third the size and appears to have been struck broadside.

What is the expected outcome, of said colliosion, back when they built em like they used to?

The question, how can a warship be surprised by a cargo ship? Somebody fucked up.

[Sentry]

What is vastly more interesting to me is that the USS would have had multiple backups for sonar detection. There is zero point zero percent chance they did not see the ship coming with at least two or three hours of collision avoidance. Even with the entire technology of the ship disabled in some sort of catastrophic failure, there should at least be two spotters with binoculars. Its not like a car on a highway where you might have seconds to avoid a collision.

This was by my estimation - for sure a game of chicken, a game which amazingly the US lost.
http://i.imgur.com/ZsQmFjm.png

[zhao]

of course they dont build them like they used O_o. We're not firing cannon balls at each other or conventional shells, and frigates/destroyers/sloops/corvettes were always thin skinned ships.

Super structures also didn't have 12in armor belts even on the yamato lol. Even on a ship like that, most of the superstructure was basically sheet metal, or 10-20mm thick. It was common for armored ships to have all or nothing strategies with armor protection too, so you'd get your thickest armor in the barbettes (so you didn't get one shot like the HMS Hood), midship side belt, conning tower, and turrets, and almost nothing fore and aft, most of the deck, etc. You could have armor upwards of 600mm on a barbette, and a mere 20mm in front of the forward most turret.

Then you have the thin skinned ships which were never armored dating back to the first torpedo boat/destroyer, because their job wasn't to take a 16in shell, or a collision. Their job was speed and to protect the assets, or to try to take out the other guy's assets. Even if you go back to the age of sale, brig's (basically our modern day equiv of a destroyer) were also thin skinned ships that couldn't absorb a hit from even a 4 pounder pop gun.

So not sure what point you're trying to make here it'd be surprising if a DD didn't take damage like this in a collision with something 3-4x it's displacement.

[colsankey]

Well... They *should* have been made with at least six inch naval Krupp type armored steel - as a guess.

What is vastly more interesting to me is that the USS would have had multiple backups for sonar detection. There is zero point zero percent chance they did not see the ship coming with at least two or three hours of collision avoidance. Even with the entire technology of the ship disabled in some sort of catastrophic failure, there should at least be two spotters with binoculars. Its not like a car on a highway where you might have seconds to avoid a collision.

This was by my estimation - for sure a game of chicken, a game which amazingly the US lost.

rTAx8r_090o

What ship the fitzgeralds size was ever given that much armour? I took a quick look, i wasnt able to find much other than as far back as 1892 they were building destroyers with hulls as thin as 1/8th of an inch thick. Where are you getting 6in armoured steel from?

[bjstare]

*snip* Where are you getting 6in armoured steel from?
His crazy imagination, same place all his other whacked out posts come from.

[Buster]

Most destroyers would have an armor piercing shell go right through and out the other side. The shell wouldn't even detonate. Basically zero armour.

[zhao]

What ship the fitzgeralds size was ever given that much armour? I took a quick look, i wasnt able to find much other than as far back as 1892 they were building destroyers with hulls as thin as 1/8th of an inch thick. Where are you getting 6in armoured steel from?

He pulled it out of his 'zero to expert in 15 seconds of googling' ass. "Krupp armor" was obsolete in the early 20th century too.

No DD was ever given 6in armor belts. Light cruisers wouldn't have armor like that. Even heavy cruisers wouldnt even have armor that thick. The best heavy cruisers at the start of ww2 had armor thickness ranging from 3in (german) to 5in (japanese) for their main belt.

ship collisions happened enough in history. here is a armored heavy cruiser collision with a light cruiser.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/12/51/72/1251728a08e5ebbf48cc38a9df2fbdd0.jpg

collisions under convoy occasionally ended with the warship going to the bottom too. The one i can think of is the queen mary colliding with a destroy which sent it to the bottom.

washington and north carolina collided too. major damage to both. Both were recently launched battleships when it happened. major damage to both.

[Sentry]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/12/51/72/1251728a08e5ebbf48cc38a9df2fbdd0.jpg

They did nazi that coming

[JRSC00LUDE]

They did nazi that coming

Slow clap.....

[J-hop]

The question, how can a warship be surprised by a cargo ship? Somebody fucked up.

No doubt. Plus in an encounter (at least according to Canadian rules) the more maneuverable ship must always give way to the less maneuverable ship regardless of the situation. If a container ship is more maneuverable than a warship that is sad...

[Seth1968]

Can you think of any way this could happen other than both ships having extremely careless crews?

[Mista Bob]

http://i.imgur.com/ATUipLV.gif

[revelations]

Captain is very likely going to be court martialled for this.

Unless they were engaged in some special operations, they have no business being that close to a giant container vessel. Smaller ships give away at all times to larger ones.

[Xtrema]

Captain is very likely going to be court martialled for this.

Unless they were engaged in some special operations, they have no business being that close to a giant container vessel. Smaller ships give away at all times to larger ones.

https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/06/uss-fitzgerald-collision/530793/

Sounds like container ship did 2 u turns. But US Navy is disagreeing with Japanese Coast guard's timeline so far if the collision is on the 1st U turn or 2nd one.

Something is fishy.

[Seth1968]

https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/06/uss-fitzgerald-collision/530793/


Something is fishy.

Just like that "Pure Atlantic salmon"

[revelations]

Anything regarding this event, coming from the Americans, is fishy. They fucked up, either due to their ship operational failure or otherwise, and are trying hard to duck and cover.

A warship is far more maneuverable than its size suggests.

[ZenOps]

Nothing about this makes much sense.

But I partially blame the D- level of metalworking that the US usually has. The US gets a solid A+ for building nukes, but when it comes to metalworking, in things like the F-35 bent canopy - The US seems to have lost the ability to create useable goods nevermind quality goods.

Could it be a case of beggar chops off his own foot to get financial security for the rest of his begging days, sure - but the US would have to have fallen pretty far for that to happen.

You cannot discount Japanese mastery of iron and steelworking even to this day. (seems to have been updated as a Japanese vessel manned by a Philipino crew)

[Gman.45]

You can't even SEE the damage caused by the freighter which killed the 7 sailors, it was the bulbous bow from the freighter that did the real damage, all below the water line - hence the flooding part. The damage to the superstructure from the bow isn't what caused the fatalities.

Warships are rated on the strength of their hulls, yes, but this has more to do with damage control capabilities than "armor" as most understand it these days. The 4 Battleships the US had in service in the early 90s still are the last ships to really have an armor protection belt. These days, the best defense for a ship are its surveillance systems and its defensive missiles, anti torpedo weapons, etc, NOT it's ability to take damage. Taking any damage from a subsonic cruise missile, to a wake homing torp, to a supersonic sea skimmer = all are bad news to any type of ship, armor or no armor, 2000lbs of explosives hitting you at mach 3 or 4.

Even though it was the US ship rammed, from the charts showing the movements of both ships, it looks like the US ship was the one that had to "give way", even though the freighter made some strange u turn and changed course radically beforehand. Either way, the US ship should have had sailors watching both surface radars and on the spotting scopes, there is NO way the sailors should have missed the port night beacon on the freighter. Somebody screwed up on the US ship. Big time. Just my opinion, but it's based on talks with 2 former navy co workers in the USN, one of whom had time on a similar Burke class destroyer prior to joining a different unit in the USN.

[Supa Dexta]

Something is definitely odd about this. The AIS system alone would have warned them well in advance, Maybe they had the volume turned down?

The U turns of a ship that size are also fishy. Large ships generally don't like you within a mile of them, and are usually on the radio early on to agree on courses to ensure you'll both pass safely.

[Gman.45]

Exactly, many components at play, the freighter making that course change, at night, in that shipping lane with over 20 other ships within a 30 mile radius = suspect. More suspect is the USN Destroyer not seeing it coming, a complete lapse of several things, the bridge watch crew, sailors on the wings watching with the optical spotting glasses of various power, the radar watch. So far as AIS, the USN uses it differently so I'm told, but that doesn't change the fact that the freighter should have been visible TO the USN ship, even if the reverse wasn't true and the USN ship was in "low observable" mode and had its AIS signature masked or shut off or whatever they do. Plus GPS/AIS systems are at best a tertiary system for safety and collision avoidance, eyeballs, radar, etc, all had to fail in some way as well for this collision to happen.


Very odd is right, seems like it's likely to be a combination of many mistakes. Shitty way to die, trapped in a compartment flooding with water and no way out...

[revelations]

Shitty way to die, trapped in a compartment flooding with water and no way out...

That would be a freaky way to go. Pitch black, trapped in twisted metal and with water coming in.