USS San Francisco SSN-711

Someone also did not get the tarp on fast enough

DSC00034.JPG


Those sonar domes are tough. I got it from google images. :eek:
 
Do any of the reports have anything on the depth the collision happened at? Either way, the captain did well to get his boat up onto the surface before it flooded too badly.
 
Actually, watertight integrity can be set in a matter of minutes on any Navy ship. I would imagine that it's less that 3 on an attack sub.
 
powell99 said:
Someone also did not get the tarp on fast enough
Click to expand...

Actually, that image looks like they've sheared off the forward section of the bow. (i.e. It was taken *after* the first image.) There's probably still "classified" stuff in that photo, but I doubt there's anything important.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Actually, watertight integrity can be set in a matter of minutes on any Navy ship. I would imagine that it's less that 3 on an attack sub.
Click to expand...

Actually, "watertight", on a 688 class, can be done in less than a minute.

Why, you ask?

There's only one watertight door, roughly half-way down the "people tank", seperating the non-engineering crew from Zoomieville, where the reactor and other equipment is located. If a hole is punched in the inner hull, you don't have all that much time to pull the emergency blow lever to get to the surface ASAP, because there's no further watertight divisions in the hull (not counting the hatches leading out of the sub, of course, since they're not internal WT divisions).
 
So, you're saying that if a hole is punched in the hind end, there's no way to keep the forward torpedo room from flooding, except surfacing? Not ever having been on one, I have to defer to the experts, but I find that very hard to believe. :confused:
 
It's not too surprising anyway. Submarines rely entirely on stealth for their advantage rather than heavy armor. If the stealth is in any way pierced, the submarine is as good as dead. Any sort of structural breaches would require a sub to surface, thus removing her stealth capabilities. The flooding of the engine and torpedo rooms would be the least of their concerns.
 
If you read any books that talk about Anti-Submarine warfare they'll talk about going for an aft shot on the ships.

I would be quick to point out, if the ship gets hit with a torpedo in the aft, she's probably lost her propellers anyway, at which point surfacing is only the first of a long list of problems. Especially because American boats don't have twin-propellor designs (With the exception I believe of SSBN's).
 
Ridgerunner said:
So, you're saying that if a hole is punched in the hind end, there's no way to keep the forward torpedo room from flooding, except surfacing? Not ever having been on one, I have to defer to the experts, but I find that very hard to believe. :confused:
Click to expand...

No, if a hole is punched in the ass, the engine room and associated machinery spaces in back are what gets flooded, the front stays dry (baring a hole up there, too). Since that's roughly half of the internal volume of a Los Angeles class SSN, no amount of emptying the ballast tanks will help if the sub doesn't get to the surface before it fills up, since either half has more volume than all of the ballast tanks combined.

(I think you might be confused by my use of "inner hull". That term refers to the part of the hull that keeps water out of the manned parts of the sub, as opposed to the plating that forms the ballast tanks, which are external to the people tank.)

Jason_Ryock said:
If you read any books that talk about Anti-Submarine warfare they'll talk about going for an aft shot on the ships.

I would be quick to point out, if the ship gets hit with a torpedo in the aft, she's probably lost her propellers anyway, at which point surfacing is only the first of a long list of problems. Especially because American boats don't have twin-propellor designs (With the exception I believe of SSBN's).
Click to expand...

Nope, no twin-screw subs in the US sub fleet.

Ideally, one looking to sink a sub tries to get a hit at the tail end, to pop the shaft seals and flood the engine room. AFAIK, pretty much every design from every nation has an engine room that takes up a significant part of their internal volume, not to mention the utility of making the equipment that makes the sub go "vroom" unaccessable.

As for surfacing, the screw isn't the only way of rising in depth. Subs keep a reserve of compressed air to blow all the water out of the ballast tanks, to generate positive buoyancy in a hurry if something goes really wrong. When they do yank the emergency blow lever, having something to hold onto is a good idea.

(Personal experience, from a simulated engineering casualty during a drill that became a not-so-simulated one, and the engineering personnel couldn't get things going.)
 
As I said, I always defer to the experts. I thought there would be more divisions in the "people tank". My only experience with squid haulers is what the sub guys call "targets". An LPH, an LHA, and a CV. I also had a 1 day tour on the HMS Fearless. Our Brit buddies really know how to make you feel welcome! :D
 
There are more divisions, especially in the forward half, but none of them are watertight. Neither the walls themselves or the doors through them are rated to withstand any significant water pressure.
 
Do recall that when the 688 was in development, the Alfa class SSN was the bogieman of the day (and later found to be crap, but that was a common situation during the Cold War). More WT partitions means more weight, and more weight means worse performance.
 
Death said:
Do recall that when the 688 was in development, the Alfa class SSN was the bogieman of the day (and later found to be crap, but that was a common situation during the Cold War). More WT partitions means more weight, and more weight means worse performance.
Click to expand...

Is this a problem with the older fast attacks (Permits and Sturgeons) and the Ohios, or is this something unique to the Los Angeles-class? I never knew about the single watertight door before.
 
Patton said:
Is this a problem with the older fast attacks (Permits and Sturgeons) and the Ohios, or is this something unique to the Los Angeles-class? I never knew about the single watertight door before.
Click to expand...

I don't know about Permits or Ohios, but as I recall Sturgeons had 2 of them, roughly dividing the people tank into thirds.
 
Since when do you use your props to surface the boat? Dont tell me you gotta point the nose up and give some throttle to go up with a sub! :D LoL Man, that would be a hard time :D Thats what the compressed air is for, ain't it? It did work before and through the II.WW, i can't belive they forgot how do build a proper sub. Btw, the ship looks like it hit the mountain with only one side, not total frontally, strange luck...

Edit: hmm, seems like you write darned fast, or i just forgot to read teh second page?? :D soooory
 
lorddarthvik said:
Since when do you use your props to surface the boat? Dont tell me you gotta point the nose up and give some throttle to go up with a sub! :D LoL Man, that would be a hard time :D Thats what the compressed air is for, ain't it? It did work before and through the II.WW, i can't belive they forgot how do build a proper sub. Btw, the ship looks like it hit the mountain with only one side, not total frontally, strange luck...

Edit: hmm, seems like you write darned fast, or i just forgot to read teh second page?? :D soooory
Click to expand...

What do you think would make more noise, blowing the ballast tanks, or maintaining neutral buoyancy while setting the planes up a few degrees? Remember, if you make noise, you're as good as dead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top