USS San Francisco SSN-711

Heh I remember when Alfas were revelead to be crap. I have had an obsession with the US Navy since I was 2...Actually around the same time I became a Wingnut.
 
Making noise is the least of your problem if the submarine is flooding, don't you think? As for using props, yes, they do on occasin use props. But if you read my original post carefully I never stated they were necessary to surface the boat, what I did say was that if you had a torpedo going off anywhere near the aft end of your ship and your propellers are damaged you've got alot more problems to think about then just getting to the surface.

And as for the comment about WWII, in WWII they had the crew run from the front end of the boat to the back end of the boat to make it surface as quickly as possible, so you can bet they didn't just rely on compressed air to surface.
 
The USS Hammerhead (SSN-663), a Sturgeon-class boat, was decommissioned on April 5, 1995, last home-ported in Vallejo, California. Other than that, you'll have to get a little more specific on what it is you want to know.
 
I saw this article recently. As expected, it doesn't give an insight of why the sub was there and what it was doing at that speed (as it's still classified), but it does talk about the corpsman who saved those lives.

I can't paste the article cause it's too long, but here's the link here
 
I was on her when I was 8 in SF
yeah I know it was chopped up in 95, there was apparently a reunion but my father didn't go.

I was more interested in finding out where she served and whether she saw any action. Also a list of her sailors...well at least those current in 88, I think she changed COs at one point or another
....
any information that I could impress my father with would be appreciated

thanks death
 
Other than in the Pacific, where the Hammerhead went isn't likely to be public knowledge, nor is any activity in which it might have participated. Part of the idea behind subs is, after all "is one there? Maybe, maybe not... but there could be. Do you feel lucky, punk?"

Besides, the only info I have on anything, really, is what can be found in Google searches, besides what I learned myself. I don't have some SUP@R S3KR1T S0URC3 or whatnot. (And even if I did I'd be reluctant to share it; even old classified info can compromise current classified activities/facts, depending on the specifics of the situation.)
 
Kon said:
Can annyone tell me about the SSN Hammerhead (the last one) my father served on that sub
Click to expand...

I assume that your father is unavailable to talk about it? Or were you looking for some sort of technical info? As someone else said, much of the later info is still classified to this day. If you're looking for the men (no women on subs) who served with your dad, try this page. Most naval ships have reunion pages like that so that sailors can look each other up at a later date and shoot the bull about old times. Hope this helps. :)
 
I cannot remember which threat it was but can someone tell me how do they name their naval ships in the US Navy??
 
Dahan said:
I cannot remember which threat it was but can someone tell me how do they name their naval ships in the US Navy??
Click to expand...

It changes over time, and tends to be nothing more than a guideline.

- Battleships have traditionally been named after states. (e.g. U.S.S Iowa, U.S.S. Wisconsin, etc.)

- Carriers are currently named after US Presidents or important political figures. (U.S.S John F Kennedy, U.S.S. Ronald Regean, U.S.S. Nimtz) Traditionally, I don't believe there was any naming convention for carriers, as many of them obtained names of old US Ships, many of which were named after British ships. (U.S.S. Enterprise, U.S.S Yorktown, U.S.S. Lexington)

- Submarines were traditionally named after ocean creatures both real and mythical. (U.S.S. Dolphin, U.S.S. Sea Wolf, U.S.S. Triton) Submarines now appear to be named for political reasons, with names such as U.S.S. Los Angeles, U.S.S. Virginia, and U.S.S. Ohio.

- Destroyers tend to be named for famous military men and figures in US History.

- Cruisers are usually named after US Cities, although many have carried on early American ship names.
 
Just out of curiousity because I haven't read on the navy in quite some time. But is the Battleship now almost extinct? It would seem to me...that with guided missiles and advanced sensor arrays and so forth (not to mention that niftly little rail gun thats going to be mounted on the next generation of destroyers I believe) the big hulking battleships would be extinct. When a destroyer can open fire on a battleship miles and miles away...the big guns of a Battleship are outranged. Or, are they equipping battleships with all missile launchers and so forth. I'm just curious because it would seem to me at a glance that slow bulky battleships would be somewhat useless in today's military.
 
There aren't battleships actively deployed by any modern navy. Nevermind the vulnerability issue, an Iowa class BB (arguably the best all-around battleship class ever built; the Yamato class may have out-gunned Iowas, but their fire control systems were crap, as was damage control) requires a crew almost as large as that of an aircraft carrier, and in general is pretty damn expensive to operate and maintain.

(The fate of the ARA Generalisimo Belgrano (ex-USS Phoenix), in the Falklands campaign, is hardly a big selling point for "big gun" warships, either, though the Belgrano was only a light cruiser.)

- Submarines were traditionally named after ocean creatures both real and mythical. (U.S.S. Dolphin, U.S.S. Sea Wolf, U.S.S. Triton) Submarines now appear to be named for political reasons, with names such as U.S.S. Los Angeles, U.S.S. Virginia, and U.S.S. Ohio.
Click to expand...

Or, as Adm Hyman G. Rickover (father of the modern nuclear US Navy) reportedly put it, when asked why the Los Angeles class was named after cities instead of the more traditional naming scheme using sea creatures: "Fish don't vote".
 
Death said:
(The fate of the ARA Generalisimo Belgrano (ex-USS Phoenix), in the Falklands campaign, is hardly a big selling point for "big gun" warships, either, though the Belgrano was only a light cruiser.)
Click to expand...

Using an example from the Falklands War is an interesting example. That same war established the French "Exocet" missile in British minds as a very powerful and fearsome weapon. A single missile managed to breach the defenses and sink the HMS Sheffield. Yet in 1987, an Iraqi Mirage fighter accidentally fired 2 exocets against the US Navy missile frigate USS Stark. The Stark was heavily damaged, but did not sink. Why could a frigate (a very small boat) take twice the punishment of a larger destroyer?

The answer lies in the area of military design. You see, the Exocet is actually a very poor weapon, with a mere 167kg warhead. WWII torpedos were easily twice that yield per weapon, and it generally took several to sink a ship. The HMS Sheffield sank because she was built under new thinking that an aluminum hull would be sufficient for a well screened ship. This made her lighter in the water (thus faster), but also dropped her survivability to nil. In addition, the modern British light aircraft carriers proved to be incapable of providing cover for the battlegroup AND force projection. As a result, the Exocets were able to launch and intercept British ships.

American ships, OTOH, are still built with sufficient armor to survive a firefight. Thus the two Exocets fired at the USS Stark were unable to remove the ship from fighting condition. Had the Stark been a full blown battleship, it's quite likely that she would have suffered comparitively minor damage from such blows. Because of this, a common American joke arose:

Q: What does the captain of an Iowa class battleship do when hit by an Exocet missile?

A: He sends two ratings up top. One with a broom, the other with a spraycan.
Click to expand...

Coming back around to the case of the ARA General Belgrano, the problem is not that she could be attacked by submarines. Such attacks were a regular event in WWII, and generally proceded along the same lines as the Belgrano. i.e. In a surprise attack, the British fired four 363kg torpedos at the Belgrano, two of which hit their target and managed to shatter the hull. Had the Belgrano been a full sized battleship, it is likely that she would have held together and replied with the full anti-submarine force available to a battleship.

The real reason why battleships are retired has nothing to do with their survivability and has everything to do with aircraft carriers. You see, WWII proved that a carrier can deliver torpedos to a target miles outside the range of a battleship. i.e. Carriers can easily sink a battleship long before the battleship can get within range to attack the carrier. The Japanese had a hard time believing this in WWII, and this led to their defeat in the Battle of Midway.

The result of this is that we're unlikely to see battleships again used in Naval warfare. They've been pulled out of mothballs a few times, but only for the purpose of ground bombardment. (Shells are cheaper than sending a missile or aircraft.) The intent of the railgun weapon is to maintain this inexpensive bombardment ability, while again making long range artilery a useful force in Naval combat. The EM Rail Gun system to be installed on the DD(X) class will have a maximum range of 250 miles. The munitions will have control surfaces, and will be guided to the target by GPS. The maximum hang time for that range is 6 minutes as opposed to the 60 minutes of a traditional missile. As a result, the US's smaller ships will carry all the teeth of a larger battleship, but with greater stealth, speed, and safety from return fire.

EDIT: An addition from Wikipedia:
The Exocet that struck the Sheffield failed to explode but the impact of the missile travelling at 315 m/s and laden with unburnt rocket fuel was enough to set the ship ablaze. Accounts suggest that the initial impact of the missile immediately destroyed the ship's onboard electricity generating systems and prevented the anti-fire mechanisms from operating effectively, dooming the ship to be consumed by the raging fire.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but for a Naval vessel that performance is just sad.
 
Sounds like something from Hunt For Red October.

Also, your anaylsis of the Battle of Midway is in correct. There were a large number of factors that affected the out come of that battle, and no small number of them came from sheer luck.

The Japanese understood better then anyone the range and capabilites of carrier-based aircraft. I think this fact is most evidenced by a little battle we like to call Pearl Harbor.
 
Jason_Ryock said:
Also, your anaylsis of the Battle of Midway is in correct. There were a large number of factors that affected the out come of that battle, and no small number of them came from sheer luck.

The Japanese understood better then anyone the range and capabilites of carrier-based aircraft. I think this fact is most evidenced by a little battle we like to call Pearl Harbor.
Click to expand...

Your call of incorrect is incorrect. ;) The Japanese did not fully understand the power of carrier fleets when they attacked Midway. According to this page the Japanese simulations of Midway showed that the carriers would be a sufficient force to take out the battleships. The umpires didn't like the result and "re-floated" the battleships. The end result? The Japanese had their carriers in front of their battleships at Midway instead of taking the (fairly recent) American approach of using the battleships to screen the carriers. Combined with the slow rearming of the Japanese planes (which *was* very lucky), the Japanese carriers were quickly dispatched. The remaining fleet of Japanese battleships ended up posing little threat for the rest of the war.

Remember, the Yamato was supposed to be a battleship that was far superior than anything that the US could get through the Panama canal. Unfortunately for the Yamato, she became obsolete overnight and was later sent on a suicide mission to disuade the US advance. Her sister ship the Shinano was coverted into an aircraft carrier part way through construction. The submarine tender Shoho and the passenger liner Junyo were also converted into aircraft carriers late in the war.
 
Yes, and at the Panama War Games it was ruled that American Air Craft Carriers lost. Both times I point you instead to the results of the battle, which I think speak for themselves. I refuse to get drawn into a debate with you. I've written several papers on the Battle of Midway and researched the subject substantially. I have seen little evidence of what you claim in the various books and journals I have read.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top