USS San Francisco SSN-711
- Thread starter powell99
- Start date
Mjr. Whoopass
<FONT color=lightblue><B>I was going to say someth
I bet that mountain's not uncharted anymore.
criticalmass
Vice Admiral
Edfilho said:
Author: Major Gene Duncan, USMC Ret.
For more info go to the Corpsman site: http://www.corpsman.com
.
powell99
Aviation Junkie
Thus we can avoid the USS Mahogany from an ill-fated moving test. All joking aside he must have been a fairly good commander if he got that busted sub back.
Keep in mind psych said the was more to this that he couldnt tell us. The Navy is always quick to blame someone. I belive what he has to say about the more to the story. One being that they did not pick up the mountain on Sonar. Also US subs are used for Intel and SpecOps operations, so yeah it could be a mountian or another sub...
(I am not trying to sound like I belive in Conspiracies but c'mon...this sounds a little too strange.)
Keep in mind psych said the was more to this that he couldnt tell us. The Navy is always quick to blame someone. I belive what he has to say about the more to the story. One being that they did not pick up the mountain on Sonar. Also US subs are used for Intel and SpecOps operations, so yeah it could be a mountian or another sub...
(I am not trying to sound like I belive in Conspiracies but c'mon...this sounds a little too strange.)
AKAImBatman
Spaceman
Looking at the damage in the picture, I have a hard time believing that it ran into another sub. The damage would *appear* to be consistent with running aground at a reasonably high velocity. If there's more to the story in a SpecOps fashion, then I'd say it probably has something to do with the sub being rigged for silent running.powell99 said:
Silent Running == No Sonar
No Sonar == Dead Reckoning Navigation
Dead Reckoning Navigation == Recipe for Disaster
Of course, they might have been able to receive a GPS signal, which would explain why they were skirting an underwater mountain so closely. But the problem with GPS that people don't realize is that it's not 100% accurate. Standard deviation is ~20 meters! With water in the way of the signal (and potentially other common environmental issues) the rate of error could have been higher.
Of course, that's just my wild speculation. Feel free to add yours.
Death
gh0d (Administrator)
If the sub was traveling at full or flank speed, passive sonar (standard operating procedure) would have been pretty much useless, thanks to the flow noise over the hull, with a contribution from machinery noise transmitted through the hull in spite of the acoustic mounts for reducing machinery noise transmission.
Also, mountains don't really have a signature on passive sonar, so even if it was traveling at lower speeds it's still unlikely there would've been much of a detection possibility.
(Active sonar is really frowned upon in most conditions, as it gives away the sub's position at far greater distances than the sub can get good data.)
Also, mountains don't really have a signature on passive sonar, so even if it was traveling at lower speeds it's still unlikely there would've been much of a detection possibility.
(Active sonar is really frowned upon in most conditions, as it gives away the sub's position at far greater distances than the sub can get good data.)
criticalmass
Vice Admiral
I always like it when somebody gives me an explanation before I even ask.
cff
Kilk'dymga'qith laq Ik'vikvi
AKAImBatman said:
Of course the ~20 meters is standard GPS. You can do MUCH better with some tricks, some claim to have a resolution in the range of cm with GPS based systems. And I am talking about civilian companies. The military should be able to do better (not that I believe the 20 meter to begin with). Of course water could be a problem.
I feel that I need to put my two cents in here, the accident happened really close to where I am currently staying. There has been a recent rash of showboating chinese subs in our area. In September the chinese sailed a sub around Guam and bragged about it to the world. My take on the whole thing is that most likely our sub forces in the area were right behind these chinese noisemakers usually below and behind. My guess is that they were trailing a chinese sub and ran aground. This is why the commander wasn't court martialed due to the incident but because of "national security reasons" we won't get the full story. One thing that is certain is that the chinese are really trying to modernize their deep water navy particularily in the area of missile subs and large surface combatants. And our sub forces will be keeping a sharp eye on them.
criticalmass
Vice Admiral
Two articles about the incident - one thoroughly describing what apparently happened, the other one summarizing circumstantial happenings and drawing conclusions:
http://subveteran.org/SSN 711/SSN_711_FAULTS.htm
http://subveteran.org/SSN 711/711_summary.htm
Although the conclusions are a bit tight, the case seems solid to me: Slack handling of standard operating procedures, and administrative over-re-structuring of complex tasks.
http://subveteran.org/SSN 711/SSN_711_FAULTS.htm
http://subveteran.org/SSN 711/711_summary.htm
Although the conclusions are a bit tight, the case seems solid to me: Slack handling of standard operating procedures, and administrative over-re-structuring of complex tasks.
Death
gh0d (Administrator)
Joker057 said:
There's one minor problem with that scenario.
Namely, that the damage from the photo is a lot more consistent with an impact at high speed, as is reports of the effects on the personnel. Even with Chinese boats currently being noisy enough to be trackable by just listening through a glass placed against the hull (only slight hyperbole, there), tracking while at full or flank speed (over the officially stated "20 knots", but how much is a classified number) isn't really possible.
(Before anyone asks "how would you know?", I was a sonar operator for a good bit of my time aboard the USS Bremmerton (SSN-698) thanks to a personnel shortage in that department. I think I might possibly have an idea or two on how things work...)
Maj.Striker
Swabbie
Banned
Just my two cents formulated from the opinion of a buddy who used to serve onboard a sub in the late 70s and early 80s. Uncharted Mountain? Sounds BS to me, that area of water is pretty darn well mapped as we've had a constant force of subs there for decades now. The captain was relieved of command and was issued a letter of reprimand...that's pretty serious even if it wasn't a court martial. I think someone screwed up. True, they didn't court martial but you don't relieve a person of command and issue a letter of reprimand if there wasn't something done wrong. The truth is, only the Navy and the men aboard that sub know exactly what happened. Really its just fortunate the entire sub wasn't lost.
AKAImBatman
Spaceman
Read the links that criticalmass posted. Apparently, it was less of a "mountain" and more of a mud hill. It *had* been charted, but only in the chart updates. The sub was using maps from 1989, and it was the responsibility of certain crew members to add the updates to them, and the responsiblity of the Captain to sign off on them.Maj.Striker said:
Indeed. But the captain is ultimately responsible for the conduct of his crew. And from the sound of things, his crew ignored all the warning signs and failed to notify the captain of those signs. (Had the captain been given all the info and made the decision, the blame would rest squarely on his sholders and not the men underneath him who are also being cashiered.)
Of course, the real questions here are
a) Why was the sub making 26 knots in the first place? (According to Death, that 6 knots above her unclassified speed.)
b) What was so important that the crew wouldn't consider slowing to get accurate readings from the fathometer?
You can say that again. Look at the walkway right behind the construction worker in the first-post photo. Notice the bulge? Very lucky indeed.
Ridgerunner
Vice Admiral
AKAImBatman said:
So, someone was making a mountain out of a mud hill?
Everyone has their mishaps and the Royal Australian Navy is no exception.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National...d/2005/01/22/1106334265063.html?oneclick=true
Back in January (22nd) the HMAS Ballarat ran aground. Nothing too major and I actually think she made it back to port on her own. Really not sure as I haven't followed it up.
One thing I'd like to mention though as I'm interested to know what happened. I was watching a "funny video" site and in it they had listed a video which I didn't find too amusing really.
It was on the back of some naval vessel (you can only see the flight deck). A large Chinook was coming in very fast and hits the deck hard and too close to the edge. Because of the angle it was sitting at, it lifts off the deck slightly and plumets into the water sideways. Apparently 12 US Marines were killed during this.
I was interested to know what actually happened if someone can point my in the right direction. Sorry to take the thread off topic for a second there.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National...d/2005/01/22/1106334265063.html?oneclick=true
Back in January (22nd) the HMAS Ballarat ran aground. Nothing too major and I actually think she made it back to port on her own. Really not sure as I haven't followed it up.
One thing I'd like to mention though as I'm interested to know what happened. I was watching a "funny video" site and in it they had listed a video which I didn't find too amusing really.
It was on the back of some naval vessel (you can only see the flight deck). A large Chinook was coming in very fast and hits the deck hard and too close to the edge. Because of the angle it was sitting at, it lifts off the deck slightly and plumets into the water sideways. Apparently 12 US Marines were killed during this.
I was interested to know what actually happened if someone can point my in the right direction. Sorry to take the thread off topic for a second there.