Or one or both ships thought the other was going to pass safely behind, realised that was not going to happen, and turned away from each other too late.
Even if the destroyer were not transmitting it’s own data to AIS, I expect that it would be receiving AIS and using other state-of the art technology to keep track of other vessels in the area.
I wonder why the freighter earlier did a couple of Klink Dipsydoodles? Here’s it’s track on AIS.
Could be there were good reasons for such erratic maneuvering, but it makes me suspect that the destroyer might have been dealing with a freighter that was not predictable.
There’s no defending against a Klink Dipsy-doodle. It fools 'em every time. 
As an update, SAR efforts are secured. The seven missing Sailors were found dead in flooded berthing compartments aboard the Fitzgerald.
The most recent update from The Guardian suggests the same thing.
Obviously it’s too early to make any kind of determination, especially from a desk chair 6000 miles away, but there could have been some sort of engine or rudder casualty on the Crystal that took the watchstanders aboard the Fitzgerald by surprise.
It’s impossible to tell from the AIS track of the Crystal alone what caused them to basically reverse course prior to the collision. Hopefully the interviews with the crew of the Crystal and watchstanders on the Fitzgerald, as well as whatever sensor recordings they have, will shed some light on this.
And the full speed of the Navy ship vs the full speed of the merchant ship. I would think the Navy ship would have been going faster. That is a swag.
7 dead. There will be a court martial, I guarantee it. It may acquit everybody, but there will be a trial.
[QUOTE=Muffin]
I wonder why the freighter earlier did a couple of Klink Dipsydoodles
[/QUOTE]
Is there a source that states the point in that track at which the collision occurred because you are making a very different assumption to me about that.
Well, it’s kind of a given something did, and he is: his cabin was crushed (WSJ) and, in the Navy Times article referenced upthread,
The collision set in motion a desperate damage control effort to control the flooding beneath the waterline. Benson, the commanding officer, was seriously injured in the collision, which prompted the executive officer, Cmdr. Sean Babbitt, to assume command of the ship
That’s the captain. The Officer of the Watch (OOW) is another person entirely.
I was in the army, not the navy, but I thought this was common knowledge. I admit I’ve read it in Tom Clancy books, but I’ve also read it in, for example, the biography of Chester Nimitz, who was indeed court-martialed for running his ship onto a mudbank, with no damage.
Googling around, I found this more recent (2002) example from the English navy. A captain who ran his ship aground was astonished that he was NOT court martialed. A quote:
[QUOTE=Cdr Richard Farrington]
The ashen-faced officer said: “Just as the sun comes up in the morning, if you run your ship aground you get court martialled. It hazarded the lives of 250 men and women.”
[/QUOTE]
I am very, very certain that evidence of criminal wrongdoing is not required for a court martial. In many cases, running aground is just bad luck or inaccurate charts, but they still hold a court martial to determine whether incompetence played a part.
If it needs to be said, a court martial is not a punishment; it’s simply a trial held by the military. It has acquired a connotation of being a punishment in itself, but it is common for a court martial to result in complete exoneration.
CNN:
That suggests to me that the collision took place at the freighter’s small course changes north-east of Oshima, not the major course changes south-west of Shimoda. Why were those major course changes made? Mechanical problems? Navigation problems? Confused bridge officers?
I suppose I could just Google this, but as long as we’re all here:
I believe it’s correct that officer (or enlisted person) facing a court-martial has the right to counsel, same as a civilian on trial for some criminal offense. (But someone correct me if I’m wrong on that.) Does the officer (or soldier, airman, sailor, or marine) have to “hire”–and pay for–their defense attorney, or does a lawyer in a naval uniform show up and say “Good morning, Commander, I’ve been assigned as counsel for your defense at your court-martial for having improperly hazarded a vessel under your command and other violations of the UCMJ. Let’s go over what happened.”
Basically, how does all that work in the American military? (Or the military of other modern countries, for that matter.)
Before a court-martial is held, an Article 32 investigation is conducted. The investigating officer then makes a recommendation to the commanding officer as to disposition of the case (non-judicial, court-martial, dismiisal of charges). Following that, the CO can request the court-martial convening authority to hold a court-martial and request which type of court. If those officers are fully aware that there will be no finding of guilty, then it’s rather pointless, not to mention an incredible waste of time for personnel involved as part of the court and a waste of taxpayer funds.
While the United States does maintain a fair number of British military traditions in our Armed Forces, the military legal systems for the two countries do have quite a lot of differences.
The accused is assigned a lawyer from the Staff Judge Advocate’s Corps. If the accused so desires, they can hire a civilian attorney familiar with military law (UCMJ) at the accused’s own expense. The JAG lawyer is required to defend their client zealously, just like in civilian life, and cannot be punished for doing so. If the prosecuting and defending attorneys are found to be colluding during the case, they will both be relieved of duty and will be facing their own legal problems. Same goes for the military judges and juries: cannot be punished for their lawful actions as part of the court.
The above applies to courts-martial. NJP is a different animal, especially for Naval and Marine Corps personnel assigned to sea-going units. NJP is bullshit, but at least it’s bullshit that doesn’t leave a conviction on your record to follow you into civilian life.
Fun trivia for you: If you’re in South Korea and you attack one of their military personnel or do something illegal to one of their bases, the ROK military gets to decide if you, a civilian, get tried by court-martial or by the civilian courts.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but shouldn’t a Navy ship always keep itself in a position and on a course so that no possible actions or failures of another ship results in their collision? That is, the fact that the Navy ship was trusting the other vessel to behave a certain way in order to avoid their collision is itself a failure of the Navy ship.
Here’s a possible/plausible scenario from a former USN ship driver:
"Tim,
My guess … only a guess because I wasn’t there to know what happened ……
The merchant ship was probably on “iron mike” (autopilot) with one watch stander on the bridge who determined that the merchant was the “stand on” vessel and had the right of way and was required by international rules of the road to maintain course and speed so the other ship (the “give way” ship) could maneuver to avoid collision without the two ships joining in a “death tango” where both ships were second-guessing each other and maneuvering constantly in a reaction to each other’s movement getting ever closer and constantly turning into each other’s path of advance until they ran out of maneuvering room and crunched. The merchant ship probably expected FITZGERALD to maneuver. If this was the situation, the merchant ship must maintain course and speed until “in extremis” then it can maneuver to avoid collision.
From FITZGERALD’s starboard side damage and merchant ship port side damage it appears as though this was the case although that was at moment of impact and we don’t know how the two ships maneuvered before the collision.
If in fact the merchant was “stand on” and FITZGERALD was “give way” the investigation will determine why FITZGERALD didn’t maneuver.
However, the merchant might have been “overtaking” FITZGERALD (coming up from astern) in which case the roles would have been reversed with FITZGERALD being the “stand on” vessel and the merchant would have been required to “give way” and maneuver to avoid FITZGERALD. That might account for the port bow damage to the merchant and the starboard side damage to FITZGERALD.
All ships are equipped with a marine VHF set (combined transmitter and receiver) and are supposed to monitor channel 16 (156.8 MHz) the international calling and distress channel which is routinely used to sort out ambiguous maneuvering situations. The investigation will also show if the two vessels were communicating on Channel 16 and if not, why not.
And on the FITZGERALD there are two sets of “eyes” watching the surface contact picture … the watch standers in Combat Information Center and the bridge watch standers. The two groups are supposed to coordinate all surface contacts and ensure safe navigation. And, I’m pretty certain the FITGERALD’s combat systems include an “accident avoidance” feature that automatically tracks surface contacts and calculates CPAs (closet points of approach) and alerts watch standers of CPAs that fall within a preset parameter (no closer than)."
I think that timing is incorrect. Everything I’ve read says it occurred at 2:30am local time (17:30 UTC June 16th) (I was using 2:20am earlier as a couple earlier articles said that). Unfortunately the marine trackers don’t show past tracks without a subscription but I was looking at it while it was still available and I believe the collision was at this red circle I put on the track.
If the collision happened where you circled then something was very wrong on the merchant ship before the collision. The kind of changes there do not make any sense.
Just looking at the course that is layed out my swag is the merchant ship made a course change to the left. Then just before the accident made a 90 degree course change to the right at the accident was happening. then swung left and then made a u turn back to the Destroyer to help, then maneuvered some and then headed back on its course just before the accident.
I have seen no time line on this graph any where.
Monty nailed it:
Continuing a bit from here …
At least in USAF, there is a separate office, called the “Area Defense Counsel” or ADC which acts as the “public defender” for all UCMJ defendants.
The local ADC office answers only to a much higher level headquarters within the JAG corps. Not to the local SJA = prosecutor’s office nor to the local installation commander.
This pretty well ensures the defense counsel and the prosecuting counsel have no reason to collude or to pull punches. Certainly it eliminates the careerist concerns inherent in defending somebody your boss, grandboss, etc. desperately wants to convict.
My wife was a USAF JAG, SJA, and later an ADC commander. At our overseas location her ADC office also provided defense services to the Army, USN, and USMC since those organizations weren’t large enough locally to provide their own local ADC office.
Funny aside: At that time the standard USAF overseas uniform was OD green fatigues; we hadn’t gone camo yet. Fatigues were worn with an ordinary baseball cap of a certain color with your department’s abbreviation in big block letters. The local main unit’s cap color was black. So the SJA office personnel wore black baseball caps with “SJA” in big block letters in a dark brick red. Very sinister looking.
My wife, as unit commander, got to pick her group’s hat color. Since SJA had black, she chose white. With “ADC” in gold. Same colors as the Pope wears. Take *that *you evil-doers of the opposition. 