[–] ardvarcus 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
How is it even possible for a fast, manuverable US military ship to hit, or get hit by, a cargo ship? The Fitzgerald could run rings around any cargo ship. Hasn't the crew ever heard about defensive driving? You don't assume the other vessel is going to avoid you.
[–] PotatoFarm 0 points 7 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago
It seems to me that the article fails to acknowledge the elephant in the room while it keeps trying to pinpoint all the fault in a commercial cargo ship.
Just in case, the elephant is: a modern military ship with the best available technology, a ship build around speed and maneuverability, a ship with a crew trained for war operations, etc. collided with a big and slow cargo ship following a known route.
Naturally, I don't want to place any blame on anyone at this point (I really have no business doing so), but the author should seriously step back and see the greater picture.
[–] carlinco 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago (edited ago)
Considering the cargo ship had tracking technology on board, the crew should have been aware of its location and course the whole time, even if they had been on some kind of exercise where radar and such was turned off to stay invisible.
It's quite obvious that whoever was in command was asleep or distracted.
And there's also a big failure in the command structures if such errors are not noted in time by the base and corrected. Even if there was some kind of radio silence, I'd expect them to be able to put up some kind of data link so the imminent collision should have been visible to someone in Japan or in the Pentagon or so when there was still time to react.
Pains me for the 7 who went over board, 1 or 2 of whom might even have tried to warn the bridge w/o success.
[–] CrustyBeaver52 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
It really is almost impossible, which is why I suspect a deliberate collision - the navy may have wanted to stop that ship for some reason, even to the point of creating a deliberate accident to do it.
I don't know the rules of "right of way" on the water - but it seems you don't deliberately get in the path of a much larger vessel for any reason - as was mentioned here elsewhere - you can't just stop a giant cargo ship.
[–] Kill-Commies 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Well there are isis members in the phillippines so there could be something tlwithin the realm of possibility, did we ever find out if that dirty bomb scare was real/where it came from?
Although it seems like an awfully expensive way to make a distraction...
[–] CrustyBeaver52 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Yeah - like they absolutely had to stop that ship - without starting a war - so have an accident.
[–] vastrightwing 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
I vote this was deliberate. I just can't see how this was an accident.
This is just trying to shift the blame. Sure the container ship was probably all sorts of fucked up too. But the actual cause of the accident, unless the Navy ship was dead in the water, must have been negligence on the Naval crew's part. There's no way they were unable to take evasive action away from this ship. Everything saying otherwise is trying to save people's careers.
[–] [deleted] 0 points 11 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago
[–] AndinBriwel 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
No kidding, right?! It takes 4 miles minimum to stop a loaded cargo ship, and that's using reverse thrust. That cargo ship could have been a robot on autopilot, and no trained maritime crew, military or private, should ever end up in a position where that giant slug could slam bow-first into your rail, even if it wanted to!