US Navy destroyer crashes into Philippine container ship near Japanese coast - Update: 7 found dead, at least 3 injured

Ok, so a U.S. warship somehow manages to crash a container ship. A modern container ship is a very big bit of kit, Computers move it around, so we an say with a very high level of certainty the warship screwed up and the USS Fitzgerald crashed into the container ship, So why is it that it was allowed to come into contact with a boat hauling containers? Well, first the radar operation has to fail, then the navigational system has to fail and then the command system has to fail. Anyone see a very big problem here?

I believe the container ship was a JAPANESE SHIP, as published in the Guardian.

Dunno where the Philippine thing came from, but probably because of the ISIS stuff going on in the Philippines currently, and the Philippines talking with China instead of the U.S. may have some relevance.

Destroyers don't 'collide' with anything.

As of this time, there have been two patients requiring medical evacuation. One was Cmdr. Bryce Benson, Fitzgerald's commanding officer, who was transferred to U.S. Naval Hospital Yokosuka and is reportedly in stable condition. A second MEDEVAC is in progress. Other injured are being assessed

[Link]

So how does the commander end up being the most significant injury?

I see that the "captain goes down with the ship" principal is reversed in the US navy ... first off and screw the regulars who can be assessed / found later

I look forward to being with my Fitzgerald family in support of future missions and exercises. This is the best ship and the best crew on the waterfront, hands down!” said Benson, according to the release. “I am proud to work alongside the Navy’s best and brightest men and women who protect and support the Pacific region and our allies.”

Best ship and best crew ... and you hit a tanker?

At around 29,000 tons displacement, the ACX Crystal containership ship dwarfs the 8,315-ton U.S. warship, and was carrying 1,080 containers from the port of Nagoya to Tokyo.

After the collision, the tanker carried on it's way to Tokyo under its own power

I think the Russians are up to something, I know they had a hand in it somewhere.

Arrogance. I think this is all about U.S. arrogance and their refusal to give way to any ship in the water. Reuters published a photo of the container ship and the damage is all front-end [Link] The 'bulbous bow' of the container ship probably punched a big hole in the U.S. ship, well below the water line which would have immediately flooded compartments and lead to the death of many sailors who would have been sucked out of the ship through the opening.

With seven dead someone is going to have to do some explaining, Even in the dark during bad weather, there are systems that would beeping and blinking long before a collision could happen. Anti-collision systems are a feature of all destroyers, the only way they could have hit this container ship is if they INTENDED to ram it. Bridges allways have crew, Those crew know all about the systems they monitor. So unless the entire crew was in the mess getting drunk and the entire computer system failed there is not too much other than a ramming event to see here. A ramming that cost seven sailors their lives.

Anyway you cut the issue, this was not an accident. For whatever reason the USS Fitzgerald was crashed into that container ship, not the other way around.

The ship’s captain, Commander Bryce Benson, was asleep when the accident happened and his cabin was destroyed by the impact at 2.30am on Saturday

What are the odds of the captain's cabin being destroyed in a collision?

The bow of a container ship has a bulbous prow in front under the water, i think the intent was to impact the container ship with enough force to have this prow rip open the hull enough to flood the entire ship and send it to the bottom. The navy is being very elusive about any details including location, listening to the presser they did tells anyone who saw it they are in coverup mode. The reported location was 56 mile southeast of Yokosuka, looking on the maps the location is as vague as one can get. The more i read the more i get the impression this was supposed to be a SUNK destroyer.

More here... [Link]
I think i am seeing an attempt to blame this on the container ship.

the claim is a 29,000 ton ship zig zaged into the 8000 ton destroyer with a bridge full of crew, an obvious lie.

A ship like the ACX Crystal is not built to maneuver like the destroyer is.

Well looking at the course plots i think the chances of a container ship making these plots is very very small, Loaded shilps like the ACX Crystal don't turn that sharply, I think both of thaes plots of course are phony.

Again one has to ask why? If the location is correct it is in 750+ meters of water, moving south from there it drops to 1400. 2500 feet is a bit of depth, 4500 feet is deep,

Why is still a huge question, Accident does not work, a commercial boat trying to sink a destroyer also does not work, so the ball is firmly in the court of the persons at the controls of the USS Fitzgerald, wherever those commands were coming. Nobody on the Fitz is going to talk for fear of a firing squad, so is true of the media in governments pocket. Getting to the bottom of this is going to be a bit of a slog i think.

[Link]

An integrated bridge navigation system is generally connected to

•Autopilot

•Radar

•Gyro

•Position fixing systems

•ECDIS

•Power distribution system

•Steering gear

An alarm system links all the above mentioned systems and gives out audio and visual signal in case of any emergency condition. (There can be more systems connected to the IBS and to the alarm system)

In most ships, an additional alarm connected to the IBS is also fitted in the cabins of navigational officers. This alarm provides a signal in the cabins within 30 seconds in case the officer in charge fails to acknowledge an alarm.

Best explanation that I have come across so far is this one involving the earth wobble:

[Link]

I can assure everyone that the situational awareness system on a boat like the Fitz is far in excess of any IBS fitted to a container ship, Both of these ships must have been aware of the other, the destroyer MUST have been able to easily avoid any attack from a ship as heavy as the ACX Crystal, so accident and malice of the ACX are not too plausible. The automated systems of the Fitz would have been able to steer the destroyer well clear of a collision, The systems on the ACX would not be as able to do the same if a 8000 ton destroyer was intent on ramming it.

Someone has suggested the US wants to sink it Japanese based destroyers as their hulls are now contaminated by Fukushima fallout

Sinking the ships with all the crew on board is the cheapest option

Who would have benefited from the USS Fitzgerald sinking with a major loss of crew from a attack from a container ship that let's say was hacked and directed into this collision?

Would Russia get the blame? would the crew of the container ship?

I think the fact the Fitz did not go down is a warning to us all the men with ultimate control of these systems will do anything to get their way, including killing the crew of a ship like the USS Fitzgerald

I remember the USS Liberty.

The surviving crew of the USS Liberty remember the events and command's shit response to them in distress.

Today the men and women of the navy would do well to ask some very serious questions about this event, it is after all their asses on the line.

From moment one of this event i have seen nothing to tell me it was an accident and plenty to tell me it was an attempted false flag to blame on someone as yet unnamed. Given the recent stomping of the top brass it is not too far of a stretch to say Russian hacking would have been blamed.

If you were USN and were looking at this event rationally would you want to be the one packed into Davey Jones's locker like the seven lost crew of the Fitz?

I am seeing a flood of responses to the course plots, most are just buying the validity of those plots, i have seen not one report calling into question the validity of these plot claims. What proof is there of any of the tracking plots being genuine? None.

is there any evidence to show they may be fake? yes. there is.

If they all are willing to accept faked course plots, Would they have also bought the other claims offered if the plan succeeded?

Was this an attempt to touch off a conflict? Who would have been the target of such a conflict?

Serious topic this is. The treatment it is getting in the media is telling us a very large amount.

Story after story, all have plenty to say about the dead, Almost all of them have zero to say about how this could have happened.

If the amount of all the stories put out avoid one topic you can bet that avoidance is pinpointing the truth of this event.

Nobody is thinking about the rarity of this sort of thing happening, in fact i can only recall one other time when a yacht was cut in half by an aircraft carrier killing some 80+ persons, and that was some time back, now with all the computerized gear not seeing at least 10% of the media stories asking about the plain and obvious HOW, it is looking like a plan, an operation, one that needed some cover.

America is in very deep doo doo if it's just content to allow this sort of thing to go down unquestioned my the media.

Two events in the sixties. Both by the same carrier... 22000 tons.

June 3, 1969, off the coast of South Vietnam during the Vietnam War, an Australian aircraft carrier, the HMAS Melbourne, hit the port side of the US destroyer, USS Evans, cutting the smaller ship in half. 74 dead.

HMAS Melbourne had also rammed and sunk another friendly destroyer in 1964, when she collided with HMAS Voyager. 82 dead.

After a whole day of reading the crap put out about this ramming i am sure that the Fitzgearld was suppose to have sunk.

Story after story of fluff aimed at the masses that will buy anything. I don't buy any of the accident claims at all.

We are talking about a very high tech boat, built to work in the most challenging conditions they could think up, armed with some of the most advanced radar and tracking equipment available to a ship commander today, All the accident stories are trying to explain this accident using WWII ship thinking and are glossing over the very systems making this sort of event almost impossible to occur. Seeing the almost complete full court press of MSM stories on this affair i can say the fix is in. I am sure there was a completely different story planned, a story of the Gulf of Tonkin sort. The failure of sinking the Fitz forced a hasty and crude backup story to be thought up and launched, this story was full of holes and filled with outright untruths about the event even a normal person like myself could see right through them. I looked at the damages to both ships, The Fitz shows damages consistent with a large amount of speed, a 45 degree angle, the ACX shows that the Fitz hit the ACX from behind and across the path of her. ( see scrapes on the anchor chain guide ) prooving the Fitz was put onto a collision course with the ACX. The men in command would have know FULL well that such a course was extremely dangerous with the masses of the two ships to look at, I doubt that a single man on the Fitz had a hand in doing this. I think the whole event was a remote control act to start a war with.

If these forces that have the top of this command and control system are in fact responsible, you can bet you will never hear one word of it, EVER.

This plan failed, the next might not.

interest time plot of ACX movement ... though we have no idea where the Fitzgerald is

[Link]

Didn't realise that these container ships could travel backwards etc.

It is obvious that this event is being covered up as fast as they can, Why is now obvious. I am still seeing plenty of dead crew fluff. The NYP came out with a bit, they played the sailor card as well, all they said as explanation was collision....

"The Philippine-flagged ACX Crystal plowed into the far smaller USS Fitzgerald around 2:20 a.m. Saturday"

so the MSM claims are now ACX was the cause, A bold and obvious lie. The damage done to the ACX prove the Fitz was the one crashing into the ACX ( again, see the paint scuffing at REAR of anchor chain guide), I will guess they think the because the ACX is way bigger they had to be the ones at fault.

I have seen nothing in any of the news i have read in the last few days to call int question the heap of failures of the Fitzgerald and it's crew allowing this ramming to happen. Every man trained to navigate a destroyer knows full well just what a 29000 ton container ship will do to a fast moving destroyer. That fact should have reporters shouting all sorts of how come questions to the navy, yet noting is said? No reports of failed navigational safety systems both ships have? no questions about the damage and what it is showing anyone looking at it?

It does not take too much looking to see this was a failed attempt to sink a destroyer, the boys on that destroyer would not willingly engage such a course, even under orders from the top, so we are left to ponder the remote controlled nature of this event and how it could be done. There is absolutely no way an Arleigh Burke class boat is going to ACCIDENTALLY ram a container ship, And there is even less chance of a ship like the ACX chrystal being able to ram a ship of this class and load out... ZERO.

So it looks like the intent was in fact to sink the Fitz by remote controls of the navagain systems and use the event in some way...

Sott search facility! ... would have thought this article would be findable by the word "Fitzgerald"

At least if came up with this link ... not much info but from 08/2012 - US Navy guided missile destroyer was left with a gaping hole on one side after it collided with an oil tanker early Sunday just outside the strategic Strait of Hormuz

The Brass are worried about something big and are using a very big stick to keep the lid on...

[Link]
There is a huge elephant in this room, i have seen plenty of disbelief, but every time i poke at it i am brought back to the same conclusion.

+katesisco: .... Destroyers don't 'collide' with anything ....

This one didn't, too. Fitzgerald was rammed!

Ok, perhaps you might explain how if this container ship first managed to out maneuver and ram a vastly better performing and crewed destroyer, then explain the paint scuff marks on the rear of the ACX's anchor chain guide?

ACX was at the time 29000 tons driven by a 8 cyl diesel at 26,250 BHP and the USS Fitzgearld was at the time an estimated 8600 tons driven by 4 turbine engines combining to 105,000 BHP, So how is it that a ship that at the time might be able to touch 20 Kts versus a ship that is able to exceed 36 Kts, and do so without any of the gear on board the Fitz alerting the crew, or any of the lookouts seeing this approach and not one hand managed a response?

One simple look at the post accident damage of the ACX Chrystal will tell anyone who looks that the Fitz did the ramming.There is no truthful way to spin those marks on that chain guide.

Truth is the Fitzgerald was the cause of the contact, Who had control of the ship is the question.

No sane crew of a US destroyer is going to willingly ram into a behemoth like the ACX and not know the sinking of their ship is the most likely result.

So we are left with little else to think, Remote control of the systems on the USS Fitzgerald is looking like the cause of these deaths and damages to both ships.

All one has to do is to think about what if it sank, How would the media portray the loss of near 300 crew and a destroyer? How would the men desperate for combat to keep the game going spin it to suit their goal? Russian hacking is a pretty good bet.

Anyone seeing the first reports of this day can see a trail of lies, the balone put out by every MSM outlet only confirms the story was BS, Just like claiming in any way a cargo vessel of this size can in any way harm a modern Arleigh Burke class destroyer.

[Link]
A world of lies surrounds the USS Fitzgerald story.

Reuters has a piece today saying USS Fitzgerald Vered to a course ACROSS the ACX Chrystal's path, Just like i said days ago.

[Link]
Eventually the Paint scrapes and transfers and the anchor chain rip in the bow of the ACX are going to be a very hot topic.

Thers is a split in the blame coming from MSM postings, but the Photos will send the search for answers into the REASON the Fitz engaged in a course that (i claim) was intended to sink her. Who was controlling this warship at the time of impact IS going to come out i can assure you all.

After reading story after story on the event i can not see any attempts to comment on the damage to the ACX. Her captain claims the Fitz suddenly veered onto a collision course and failed to respond to attempts to warn it. I believe his claims are true, the Fitzgerald is the only ship in the encounter to be able to initiate contact like this. The fact the crew of the USS Fitzgerald were unable to prevent this contact is the main topic. Damages to the ACX prove the Fitz was the actor of this event, The control of the USS Fitzgerald before and during the event is not being talked about at all in any of the news reports i have red in the last 3 weeks. The main talking points are the dead and the report that the captain of the ACX gave claiming the warship veered onto a course across the path of the ACX Chrystal, a claim consistent with the damage photographed on the bow of the ACX, I find the complete lack of mention of the control of the Fitz in regards this event a curious omission. The crew members of the USS Fitzgerald are trained and know full well the dangers of collision and the full spectrum of procedures to prevent any from happening, So knowing they were risking life and ship who would even consider that they would engage such a course?. Not me, i am certain that the ship WAS steered onto a suicidal course, i am also certain no crewman of ANY boat of this class would EVER command their ship into a collision with a container ship for any reason, So WHO was in control of the USS Fitzgerald in the minutes before the impact? The crew were warned before impact, The systems on board the Fitz warned them, the ACX sent warnings and the humans on the Fitz had built in warnings about this sort of occurance, So with all this info i can easily say that the USS Fitzgerald was under remote control at the time of impact. The major and un asked question is WHY would this event have happened? I don't see ANY media questions about why. I don't see any military response as to WHY. I see nothing at all about why. Well let me tell you my call on the WHY.... The intent was to have a sunk warship to start a war with. One with a plausible "Russia Hacked it!" explanation. This gambit failed when the crew managed to prevent the Fitz from going down, The point is this, What will be the next play in furtherance of this need for war? What depths will the controllers stoop to get their war they so desperately need to hide the economic disaster looming on the horizon? .Who is the next sacrificial crew to be used? What will the damage be if they are successful? Three weeks now these comments have been here, Three weeks the hope has been here that some might see the dangers. Do You see? I hope so because this event is being covered up, The time of it's replacement is here and the next gambit is going to have success as a primary objective.

Gunner’s Mate Seaman Dakota Kyle Rigsby, 19, from Palmyra, Va.

Yeoman 3rd Class Shingo Alexander Douglass, 25, from San Diego, Calif.

Sonar Technician 3rd Class Ngoc T Truong Huynh, 25, from Oakville, Conn.

Gunner’s Mate 2nd Class Noe Hernandez, 26, from Weslaco, Texas

Fire Controlman 2nd Class Carlos Victor Ganzon Sibayan, 23, from Chula Vista, Calif.

Personnel Specialist 1st Class Xavier Alec Martin, 24, from Halethorpe, Md.

Fire Controlman 1st Class Gary Leo Rehm Jr., 37, from Elyria, Ohio

Rest in Peace

Every military person should be asking a lot of serious questions about why these men died.

And who killed them.