@rjd9999 said:
Subs hiding under surface ships is a common practice. They can run at higher speeds, their engine noise effecively hidden in the noise interference created by the large marine diesels. It is prossible that the destroyer was tracking, or trying to track, a sub (of either Chinese or Russian signature - though most of china’s sub fleet consists of old russian boats - November class, mostly, IIRC). In this region, only the Chinese subs are of major concern to the US Navy (though tracking all subs is a routine practice, especially for destroyer and submarine crews).Discipline on container ships may be lax to the point of negligance (it has been in the past and that probably hasn’t changed). Generally, the computer systems use radar and respond to contacts quite effectively. Collisions are rare, and seem to happen only when (usually for dubious reasons) someone overrides the computer system and takes the ship where it has no (legal) business. The computer systems are quite reliable and plot a course that should be maximally efficient. The deck hands are involved with loading and unloading and have little to do while out at sea except to respond to emergencies (fire, someone overboard, etc.). Captains are overly reliant upon the automated systems and, despite their knowledge and skills, spend less and less time on the daily management of the ship and more on crew management. Specialists in radar and ship navigation systems are expensive and are considered redundant to the automated systems. They, generally, are not part of the crew.
The course of the container ship in the first incident was under control of such as system (according to http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-23/container-ship-was-autopilot-when-it-struck-uss-fitzergerald?page=3). The ship did not report any mechanical problems and did not report the collision until an hour after leaving the point of the accident. In at least one prior incident (APL ship vs. a lowly junk, the APL ship nav system could not be overridden by the captain and crew and APL had to pay massively when the ship left the scene of the incident). in this case, the Nav system seems to have tried to power through the destroyer, backed off, made a course adjustment only to resume it’s normal course after a 15 minute diversion. What the captain and crew were doing, I have no idea. The ship did return (almost) to the point of the collision, but never attempted to render aid and it is probably that it simply was trying to maintain its schedule.
Thus, the fault seems to be on the destroyer crew and since the navy will not report on it’s activites, we can only assume what may have happened. There is a good chance that the ship was carrying on some type of activity where they felt a need to approach the container ship.
Rick
Two destroyer radars were turned off? The radars of tanker/cargo ships, carrying millions of dollars of goods, were turned off ? No one was on watch in two destroyers outfitted with thermal imaging gear, AiS receivers, electromagnetic emission suites??? No one was on watch on the tanker/cargo ships? The tanker which returned to a suspected collision event went to a geographical location rather than to a radar blip?
Or, the destroyers were cruising within 100 feet of the ships, in their radar shadows.
I may be wrong about subs under the tankers…perhaps the destroyers were using the ships to hide their own acoustic emissions and to become indistinguishable on radar.