On July 4, 2017, I published an essay about collision in the South China Sea involving DD-62 US Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald and a container ship, the ACX Crystal, just south of Japanese coastal waters in the South China Sea (SCS). That essay was necessary to present, albeit inspiration-free, definitions and photographs and maps. The essay was therefore a bit "dry" for a maritime essay. It's kind of like looking at an autopsy without any one cut below the surface of the skin. You see the floating participants but no story present.

One more definition: transponder.

In telecommunication, a transponder can be one of two types of devices. In air navigation or radio frequency identification, a flight transponder is an automated transceiver in an aircraft that emits a coded identifying signal in response to an interrogating received signal. In a communications satellite, a satellite transponder receives signals over a range of uplink frequencies usually from a satellite ground station, amplifies them, and re-transmits them on a different set of downlink frequencies to receivers on Earth, often without changing the content of the received signal or signals.

The term is a portmanteau for transmitter-responder.[1] It is variously abbreviated as XPDR, XPNDR, TPDR or TP...

The International Maritime Organization's International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea requires the Automatic Identification System (AIS) to be fitted aboard international voyaging ships with 300 or more gross tonnage (GT), and all passenger ships regardless of size.[5] Although AIS transmitters/receivers are generally called transponders they generally transmit autonomously, although coast stations can interrogate class B transponders on smaller vessels for additional information. In addition, navigational aids often have transponders called RACON (radar beacons) designed to make them stand out on a ship's radar screen.

USS Fitzgerald, facts and figures.

USS Fitzgerald in tow post-collision:

Here's the story--actually many stories depending upon whom you believe or disbelieve.

Here's a partial sample of collision theories raised, without my comment of probability:

1. One ship at fault:
A. Fitzgerald
B. Crystal

2. Two ship theory:
Both ships

3. Three ship theory:
A. freighter already in SCS impacting Fitz
B. Unidentified small craft as well as those two already known

Now for samples of theories concerning execution of the collision, again without my comment:

1. Drunken crew on the Fitz
2. Sleeping crew on the Fitz
A. because they were lazy by nature
B. because they were gassed
1) by Filipino ISIS-associated boarders
2) by North Korean boarders
3) by Chinese boarders
4) by Russian special forces

sub-section of 2. B. all the night watch assassinated by snipers of boarding parties

3. A. Purposeful, malicious ramming of the Fitz by Filipino crew
B. Purposeful hacking of Crystal's auto-pilot [choose your favorite villain for this role] causing to ram the Fitz.

4. Electromagnetic pulse (EMP) induced incapacity of all ship-board electrical functions
A. Permanently
B. Temporarily so as to leave no traces

5. EMP pulse generator
A. on board Crystal
B. on postulated third ship
C. submarine
D. distant source such as aircraft or land based

6. The mysterious phone call at 0156. Why were there two different collision times given by Japanese Coast Guard and US Navy?

Note this information is current only as of July 4, 2017. By now other theories have no doubt arisen.

Here comes the Navy, oops an Army General
Jack King, (3:25) whose sea-going prowess is likely unmatched by other landlubbers. His theory is that the crash was most likely to human error--but doesn't pick a side for fault.

The US Naval Institute published an article about the Fitz collision, titled "when a big ocean gets small"

Here is the official 7th Fleet news update June 17, 2017

YOKOSUKA, Japan (NNS) -- A number of Sailors' bodies that were missing from the collision between USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62) and a merchant ship have been found.

As search and rescue crews gained access to the spaces that were damaged during the collision this morning, the missing Sailors were located in the flooded berthing compartments. They are currently being transferred to Naval Hospital Yokosuka where they will be identified.

The families are being notified and being provided the support they need during this difficult time. The names of the Sailors will be released after all notifications are made.

Here is initial official Naval explanation by Rear Admiral AuCoin (51:03--but half the time is taken for English-to-Japanese translation.)

7th Fleet Commander Aucoin initial press conference contained contradictions. (9:21)
He confirmed the time of collision as being 0231 instead of 0130, as initially claimed by the Navy. Aucoin made it clear that the impact would not have allowed the Fitz to remain an extra hour; but he does not mention how the collision happened. Further commentary is made on the Admiral's speech by Florida Maquis (FM) elsewhere. For instance: the famous below-decks phone call to home by sailor who later drowned was made at 01:56, roughly 30 minutes after the 0130 collision time initially reported to the press.

What time did the collision occur? 0130 or 226? Why is that a big deal? For starters the Japanese Coast Guard said collision occurred at 0226 but Navy said 0130. Why were the discrepancies so important that the two governments had to NEGOTIATE the collision event? This is because there were several different scenarios, none of which correct, capable of enabling an explanation of the unrevealed facts. Somebody knows the facts and it isn't enough. What I will say is that Enormous foreign policy import lies behind the real story--one so profound that it may alter the balance of military power for decades. More of that later. We must stay on course, something which obviously did or did not happen with the two antagonists.

But the Navy admits that the first report of collision was made by the Filipino sailors of the Crystal to the Japanese coast guard. Since the alleged time of attack was 0224, and the US Navy only gets the signal from the JCG after the Crystal informed the JCG.

Deceased Fitzgerald sailor's call home before his death. (2:24).
This is the original reporting of Martin the sailor's call, using WhatsApp, only serviceable if there is wi-fi transmission available. If this call occurred at 1356, this then would mean it was made after a 0130 crash, when ship's compartments were flooding, using wi-fi. If the sailor could use wi-fi after the crash, then why couldn't others have communicated the crash to the 7th Fleet HQ before the Crystal's crew at 0224?

Who was watching the course on the Fitz before collision? A former US Navy Helmsman / lookout gives his view that multiple people aboard the Fitz were derelict in their duty (5:54)

Here is a quote from another Navy vet with experience in traveling heavily trafficked sea lanes. Note EMCON is operating under electronic shielding so as to not use active radars which might give a ship's positions away.

I'm ex US NAVY. Operations Specialists. Worked in the CIC of USS Nassau LHA-4 for 4+ years. Have been in CIC and/or on the bridge during many situations like Fitzgerald was in. Operating in heavy traveled waters near a major port. Ship would have had extra 'lookouts' on duty, likely with night vision gear. There would have been at least 3 and probably more persons dedicated to monitoring surface surface search radar.

This ship has 2 different surface radar systems. Both would have been operating (unless, UNLESS. for some reason, she was operating under EMCON conditions, if she was, that is very interesting in itself, considering she was off the coast of an allied nation, in a heavy shipping lane) Having been at radar consoles, on the bridge, or standing lookout in these conditions many times. Im convinced after what Ive read or heard about this incident...that it certainly was not an accident. The fact that the merchant got within even a mile of the Fitzgerald is extraordinary.

The reported location of the incident is in restricted waters (limited maneuvering room), but not so restricted that the Fitzgerald could not have used several options to avoid contact, including simply increasing speed. She is capable of 30+ kts, the ACX Crystal would likely have top speed of 15 (and she would have a hard time getting to that speed, and could not maintain it long, merchants dont have a great power to weight ratio compared to a military vessel 1/3 her size) Even if the Merchant intentionally rammed Fitzgerald, alot of people on Fitzgerald had to be 'asleep at the wheel' for this to happen. the fact that it has been reported that the CO of Fitzgerald was asleep in his cabin is very strange, because, No commanding officer I ever served with would be anywhere but the bridge when his ship is maneuvering near shore in a heavily trafficked area....Ship should have been at 'Special Sea and Anchor Detail' that close to land, mandating the Captain be on the Bridge of the vessel. Alot of things do not add up here...I could say a whole lot more about this. I know these situations intimately, having been on watch during these situations many times.

This statement is immediately contradicted by another Navy vet:

Retired OSC(SW) stationed onboard LCC-19 and CV-41. Wait for the investigation before fanning the flames of theory. To assume a ship would be at Special Sea and Anchor is hyperbole at best, I hope. They were at least fifteen miles clear of any land (to the north and southeast). For example: I spent many a night underway in this area and we were not in any special detail and the captain was asleep in his cabin all those evenings. Again, wait for the investigation before making assumptions about "when we were there".

Thus two reasonably well-experience former Navy seamen give two starkly different opinions.

Remember that ACX Crystal's route map referred to in the first essay?

In-depth track analysis (9:05)

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfZlbSZqxqk]

Here it is again, with explanation of fine points (10:41):

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqntRlUR1dI]

Sailors aboard the destroyer believed they were under attack after the collision; hence they manned guns, which would not happen in an accidental collision.

Pictures of collision damage of the two ships are analyzed and compared for assessment (7:51). General order 7 shows that in event of "fire or disorder", the FIRST duty of the watch is to report the damage to the captain, on shore, fleet, etc. There would be no delay in notification broadly.

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GV4f9AchnCU]

Note: gray paint scrapes are abundant on the ACX Crystal's port bow, where it struck the Fitz but no red or black paints scrapes on the Fitz. Thus the Fitz was not moving at time of collision. Why not?

Other video reveals that portable water pumps are gas-operated and would not be affected by EMP weapons: further discussion of timing of collision from one time to another. (9:10).

This video is highly detailed analysis of the bizarre Crystal course changes (5:41)

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO37Vi7Xoms]

Except for a planned attack and return to see the damage done, the Crystal's subsequent "post-collision course" makes no sense.

What Is the Import? Why should We care?

Two ships crash in the night. So what? One ship cost $1,000,000,000. The same ship carried anti-ICBM missiles. That same ship had allegedly state of the art electronic surveillance capabilities (such as spying on others). The other ship hauls boxcars (now called containers) for transshipment once reaching destination port. Could it have been carrying Japan's supply of gold to parts unknown? There is a disproportionate strategic significance between ability to perform 3 critical functions of international power versus a cargo ship carrying 32,000,000 giant Mickey Mouse stuffed animals.

So a billion dollar ship is blinded and/or paralyzed. These are the only scenarios which make sense.
Now the major questions remaining are:

1. Why was the Fitzgerald attacked?
2. How was the Fitzgerald attacked?
3. What is the result of effective crippling of our Navy?
4. What is the effect of crippling the Air Force?
5. What is the effect of crippling our long range missile?
6. What is the effect of satellite inoperability?

Part 3 of this Fitzgerald saga will cover questions 1 and 2. Hopefully there will be enough time for discussion of the other issues.