How does a US Navy ship get hit by another ship?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
14,538
9,918
136
Just saw on the news that damage under the waterline extended almost all the way to the keel. The admiral (didn't catch his name) said the damage under the water line was very extensive.
 

Z15CAM

Platinum Member
Nov 20, 2010
2,184
64
91
www.flickr.com
I doubt any nation on earth ever had a Destroyer broadsided.

Very much waiting, in anticipation, on the results of the inquiry into this one.
 
Last edited:

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,533
6,968
136
The main engines are driven by 4 GE LM2500 gas turbines (2 per shaft). Depending on how hard the side impact the main shaft bearings could be damaged resulting in the shaft being bound up and not able to turn.

Can confirm with you that prop shaft bearings are fairly temperamental and tricky to align properly having done shafting work on four DDG's a couple of FFG's and CG's within the last ten years, including removal, reconditioning and re-installing shafts, bearings rudders and screws. Rigging for and Installing body bound bolts on bearing housings while keeping everything aligned is a really painstaking and energy draining task considering how hot, humid and claustrophobically cramped together everything is in those shaft alleys.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kage69

Z15CAM

Platinum Member
Nov 20, 2010
2,184
64
91
www.flickr.com
The main engines are driven by 4 GE LM2500 gas turbines (2 per shaft). Depending on how hard the side impact the main shaft bearings could be damaged resulting in the shaft being bound up and not able to turn.

Very much so, the spine of the Fitzgerald is broken but minutes or seconds before the collision the Sheffield was very capable of pulling away like a drag racer.

Hope they they don't crucify some Harbor or Traffic Controller over this one.
 
Last edited:

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,533
6,968
136
might be cheaper/better to scrap it and build a new ship

As subcontractors to BAE we did a lot of repair work on the Port Royal after she grounded herself and there was some major concern about the ship being seaworthy after repairs to the point where the higher ups really did want to retire the ship, but then decided to keep her in service.

Fitzgerald looks in far worse condition than the Port Royal did though.
 

Z15CAM

Platinum Member
Nov 20, 2010
2,184
64
91
www.flickr.com
Putin is right the Fitzgerald is now scrap.
...........

Sorry if I get mixed up between the Fitzgerald and the Sheffield now and then.
At least the Sheffield got hit with a Exocet Missile.
 
Last edited:

simpletron

Member
Oct 31, 2008
189
14
81
Just saw on the news that damage under the waterline extended almost all the way to the keel. The admiral (didn't catch his name) said the damage under the water line was very extensive.

Almost all container ships have a bulbous bow aka a battering ram under the waterline that is designed to reduced drag. Here is an image of ACX Cystral's bulbous bow.
https://blog-001.west.edge.storage-...8/folder/1134168/51/27137551/img_1?1242993672

So now you should understand that there is a dent just below the waterline as large as the damage to superstructure.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,325
28,582
136
Finally, something I can actually answer.


Its dark out at night, on the ocean.
And the running lights can surprisingly not be enough to see another ship. Sounds crazy but its true.

Also, the lookouts on both ships were probably napping or fucking off. I stood lookout. Its boring.
But if I got caught fucking off, I'd get the shit beat out of me.

So obviously, the Navy needs to bring back ass whoopins.

Also, was the weather bad?
Not going to read this whole thread but don't ships have like radar and sonar and shit? Maybe some collision detection software?
 

SOFTengCOMPelec

Platinum Member
May 9, 2013
2,417
75
91
Not going to read this whole thread but don't ships have like radar and sonar and shit? Maybe some collision detection software?

The massive cargo ship suddenly performed a u-turn. That is what probably was a major cause of the accident.

Ships take time to be steered round obstacles. So if the u-turn meant that a massive cargo ship was suddenly on a collision course with the destroyer, it may not have time to do much about it.
 
Last edited:

JMC2000

Senior member
Jun 8, 2006
295
192
116
The massive cargo ship suddenly performed a u-turn. That is what probably was a major cause of the accident.

Ships take time to be steered round obstacles. So if the u-turn meant that a massive cargo ship was suddenly on a collision course with the destroyer, it may not have time to do much about it.
What I read was that the Crystal initially turned to avoid hitting something (most likely the Fitzgerald), proceeded Eastward, then made the u-turn to find out what they hit.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,325
28,582
136
The massive cargo ship suddenly performed a u-turn. That is what probably was a major cause of the accident.

Ships take time to be steered round obstacles. So if the u-turn meant that a massive cargo ship was suddenly on a collision course with the destroyer, it may not have time to do much about it.
I get the part about taking a long time to change course. I do not buy for a second that these ships can't detect possible collisions in real time though.
 

SOFTengCOMPelec

Platinum Member
May 9, 2013
2,417
75
91
What I read was that the Crystal initially turned to avoid hitting something (most likely the Fitzgerald), proceeded Eastward, then made the u-turn to find out what they hit.

I get the part about taking a long time to change course. I do not buy for a second that these ships can't detect possible collisions in real time though.

I just tried researching it, and there is lots of information in the following, very long article:

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/19/533432845/how-could-the-navy-destroyer-collision-happen

Some of what I learned:
It seems we won't know the proper explanation for many months, because they will have to have extensive inquiries and check the various logs and things.
The Crystal may well have been on autopilot, and was apparently sailing in the same direction as the Destroyer. By examining where the damage is, on both ships.

So apparently there are lots of possible explanations. Including that the crew were messing about (at 2:30 AM), and not really paying attention and/or when they finally noticed there was going to be an imminent collision. There just wasn't time for them to correct their course and avoid a collision.

It was a very crowded area, with lots and lots of ships. This makes it much harder to see and interpret what was going on.

tl;dr
I'm definitely out of my depth (excuse the pun) here, and I'm NOT sure how the collision happened.
Probably too little information has been released publicly so far, and there are a large number of ways things could have gone wrong.
 

SOFTengCOMPelec

Platinum Member
May 9, 2013
2,417
75
91
I'm having trouble linking the adverb "suddenly" to "massive cargo ship". :)

That is a good point!

It looks like the u-turn theory, was something I picked up on, in the VERY early news reports. Now that more information has been released, as I said in my last post. I now know, I DON'T know what happened or why.
Hopefully, in a few months we will know, publicly what happened.
 

xthetenth

Golden Member
Oct 14, 2014
1,800
529
106
Can't fix the Fitzgerald she's got a broken spin.

Can't is a strong word that the USS Stark would be a sufficient counterargument to.

Just saw on the news that damage under the waterline extended almost all the way to the keel. The admiral (didn't catch his name) said the damage under the water line was very extensive.

Yup. They had to fight for hours to save the ship.
 

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
16,029
4,798
136
All males.
Sad regardless of the sex of the sailors. They might have to rethink their berthing locations as the lower enlisted are all on the same side of the ship. I'm just an old leg so what do I know about ship building. I can tell you that the Arleigh Burke class was the first DD I've ever been aboard and I immediately noticed how the lower enlisted crew quarters were up against that side of the ship. I spoke to the crew as I moved about who informed me about bunking procedures which led me down to the female area beneath them which is also why I figured they'd make up the bulk of the casualties.
 
Last edited:

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,442
7,506
136
Sad regardless of the sex of the sailors. They might have to rethink their berthing locations as the lower enlisted are all on the same side of the ship.

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to pay attention, know the impact is imminent, and call everyone to move up above the death trap?
 

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
16,029
4,798
136
Wouldn't it be more reasonable to pay attention, know the impact is imminent, and call everyone to move up above the death trap?
There really isn't enough time to try to move everyone out of their berth before the collision and might possible increase casualties as the bunks have straps to keep them from falling out. I'd be willing to bet that everyone was in their comfort zone and had lowered their guard which allowed this to happen. The guys who bunk against the hull probably died upon impact and the rest had to fight the pressurized seawater gushing through the hull to reach the stairs on the port side which they also share with the berth below them.

When the dust settles on this one I'd be willing to bet that the command ordered the hatches sealed to save the ship from foundering trapping those guys below deck in the flooding. The good of the many outweigh the good of the few so deontological ethics reign supreme here.
 

xthetenth

Golden Member
Oct 14, 2014
1,800
529
106
I'd be surprised if the hatches weren't closed in the first place, in which case good luck getting them open.