Now I'm no Nelson....

[gooner1]

....but can any of you nautical coves, explain how the below happened.
Pretty sure the Cargo ship would have the bare minimum crew possible but
the American ship, one of the most up to date warships afloat?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-40310563

[gooner1]

Out paced by a 30,000 tonne water based HGV.
Would be funny but for the missing personel.

[gooner1]

L


Map of ships travels.

[gooner1]

TTmonkey said:

Read the whole article posted above. Seems to me odd that go ship does odd manoeuvres prior to the incident. Cargo ships usually sail straight from point a to point b.

Agreed, wouldn't the course have been set on auto pilot, or whatever it is these ships use?

[gooner1]

Not sure if the above helps.

[gooner1]

gadgetmac said:

Damn that Kim and his nefarious plans to ram the entire US Pacific fleet!

Well they have been attacked much closer to home, in the not so distant past, tbf.😱

[gooner1]

gregs656 said:

I think the initial change of course (the hard turn to starboard) is to try and avoid the collision and not prior to it.

It then makes a hard turn to port going back to the site of the collision (to provide assistance if required) - you can see it slows at that point - and then turns to starboard again to resume it's previous bearing.

Makes no sense that this was deliberate IMO.

But why just sail away? You can't do that accidentally.

Edited by gregs656 on Saturday 17th June 22:35

[gooner1]

FiF said:

So what's the reason for the second set of strange course changes to the NE of Oshima.



Edited to post map.

Edited by FiF on Sunday 18th June 10:09

Tin foil hat on.
A meet , and discharge of passenger(s) to a waiting Sub. Who knows?

[gooner1]

EarlOfHazard said:

I was on the HMS Belfast yesterday, and discovered that its top speed was 32knots. It had 4 steam turbine engines, each devoloping 20,000 hp (or shaft hp). There were high speed and cruising speed turbines (the cruising one would also be used for reversing). When both turbines were used in conjunction, full speed would be achieved, but at full chat it was burning 26 tons of oil an hour!

Thanks for that, I had no idea of the kind of fuel consumption required needed to power these things. What tonnage is HMS Belfast?

[gooner1]

mac96 said:

Absolutely- it shouldn't happen.

Rules basically say that in given circumstances one ship (the 'stand on ship') should maintain course and speed; the other should take the necessary avoiding action. Problems arise either when neither ship is alert, or when the stand on ship is alert, and sees the other ship bearing down on them apparently oblivious. Eventually stand on ship takes its own avoiding action either too late, or alternatively the other ship also changes course at the last minute rendering the avoiding action unsuccessful.

With big ships it's a slow dance, with the visible course change coming somewhat after the change of course order, which makes it all more difficult to tell what the other guy is doing.

Are this ships not in radio, or any other form of contact, Flares, signal rockets Etc.?

[gooner1]

cuprabob said:

HMS Belfast displacement is 11,550 tons

Thank you..

[gooner1]

Many thanks for the update Ian.

A sad state of affairs for any ship.