Not to mention that CIC plot and track all movements of anything 24/7, determining their paths, in most cases, long before they are anywhere near a US Navy vessel. I've seen dozens of ships being tracked and plotted on grease boards. Granted it was some time ago but even with computers the Navy isn't going to abandon whats tried and true and has worked.

My apologies for my fat typing mistakes.

:If ALL of those fail there are sailors stationed, provisioned with sound powered phones and binoculars at at least 4 points throughout the ship 24/7 whose duty it is to report ANYTHING seen."

Thanks for promoting the government's story.

The public story is bullshit.

There are redundant computerized systems and subsystems and ancillary systems on Navy vessels(all fully operational underway). If ALL of those fail there are Sailor stationed, provisioned with sound powered phones and binoculars at at least 4 points throughout the shit 24/7 whose duty it is to report ANYTHING seen.

This was a deliberate attack on a US warship. I'm not sure why the fedgov is spinning this BUT this Navy Veteran knows the smell of dung when its in the air.

The USS Fitzgerand has a max speed of 30 knots (and enough power to get out of the way of a slower oncoming ship is given a bit of time). Considering all the systems and people in place to avoid this very happening there had to be massive system failure AND gross negligence on a massive scale.

My 2 bits.

nickuris, I share your concern.
Now my navy and sea-faring knowledge is limited to what I learned from Hornblower
(British navy during the war with Napoleon, probably not shown on US TV).
From this, there must be a court-martial of the navy captain in which he has to prove his innocence.
That is, if his ship was not the offender, what steps if any were taken to avoid collision?

Mike, my main question is "How did one of the most advanced ships in the Navy NOT see this coming from a huge distance?" They have not one but several search radars for surface search, and the FC system will automatically designate contacts as hazards based on course, bearing rate and calculated speed. I would think a merchant contact going into Tokyo suddenly veering off course 120 degrees or more would have piqued any OODs interest. As I said, if I can man an ancient AN/BPS11 radar and go through SF bay, I am pretty sure our best should be able to deal with a rogue merchant. It just does not make sense.

Don't go overboard, shipmate. I joined the US Naval Institute a couple of years ago. That is where I get my news from the fleet. In my office, we have a Spirit Wall. I put up the first reports of the sailors who were killed. (US military die too often as it is - seven in Afghanistan so far this year, three earlier this month.) These were a cross-section of America, young, old, seven states, mixed ethnicities... They were in their berths when the ship was struck. The commander's stateroom was smashed in around him: he found himself outside the ship.

There is a lot to this, agreed.

But there is no conspiracy.

It appears - appears - that the cargo ship was on autopilot and the watch crew was asleep. The salient discrepancy seems to be that the USS Fitzgerald did not radio for help but that the cargo ship did, and did so about one hour after the collision, which is the same time that the destroyer reported the collision. It appears - appears - that the collision took out the destroyer's radio room and they called in their first report from a satellite telephone.

First indications are that the merchant ship turned around after the collision to see what they hit.

Right now, the US Navy, the US Coast Guard, and the Japan Coast Guard are all investigating. Until the final reports are published, speculation is scuttlebutt.