Jump to content

USS Connecticut Nuclear attack submarine underwater collision


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Controversial_posts said:

Do you have any idea how large the Pacific is?  And at what speed is hitting a submerged rock “ of little consequence”?

Yes, I have sailed across it. One can greatly reduce the odds of a collision with prudent navigation. That sort of navigation that is repeatedly demonstrated to be quite beyond the capabilities Of the US Navy. Turning on the sonar gizmos would be prudent when lost or disoriented. 

Gee, I don’t know what ramming speed is specified for that sub. The captain should. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, coyotepup said:

And what speed is that?  These are big boats.  Lot of momentum even at low speeds.

I'm sure nobody's too worried about a barge full of rip rap, unless the Navy's new Tomahawk missile doctrine is to launch them five feet from the bottom of a shallow harbor.  Otherwise dumping debris into a 10,000 foot deep section of ocean is unlikely to work.

What speed would you drive your car on a moonless night with no lights?

Like I wrote: there is no war, except the usual US belligerence, so remaining undetected would seem pointless to assure safety of ship, crew and innocents. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, El Borracho said:

Imagine having very limited visibility and incomplete charts. Now imagine traveling at an unsafe speed for the conditions. One of the conditions is there is presently no war. No reason for endangering lives or treasure. Imagine being but one incompetent naval officer among hundreds. Go Navy!

Practice like you'll fight, or you end up fighting like you practiced.   I'm not often pro military, but your argument seems unfair.  I was hard on the Air Force when they grounded everything across the Atlantic after the Iceland volcano.   Delta, American, Lufthansa were flying passengers for days but the boys in blue were too scared.   The reality is our military is TOO cautious too often, and seemingly incapable of the great deeds of its past.    I'd rather they occasionally screw up but know how to push their toys to the limit, and know their toys can actually perform.    As teenage guys we all did that to our cars.   Insurance data shows girls are much better and safer drivers under most conditions, but in extreme events the guys have an edge.    We already tried to take that corner at 50 with bald tires in the rain and know exactly what it feels like to hydroplane into a four wheel drift.    We even managed to save it (the third time).   Driving like a girl is great if your only goal is to dodge those pesky tankers.   Let the military practice hard, just in case we ever need them to take on a capable military again.

Edit.  I quit driving in the dark without running lights (though I caught I cop following me doing just that once.   He reformed when I thought I saw a cute little bunny rabbit and brake checked his ass).    Damn sure I can and do sail on a moonless light with only running lights.   Sure I touched ground once when the wind was light and I couldn't hear waves lapping on the shore, but I learned to hear the sail luff when I pinched up, and feel the breeze off my cheek and feel boat speed change when I fell off.   I suppose practicing without a rudder is dangerous too?   

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fastyacht said:

I used to support hydrogaphics. Borracho: the scale of thectask ofvcharting is much greater than yoirvassuptiond

No surprise there.  Supports my point. An outfit as incompetent as the Navy has no business sneaking around blind with dangerous weapons of war. 
 

The Navy has been fucking around in the S China Sea for a century. Nobody thought to turn on the sonars and compile a chart? Typical. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, El Borracho said:

No surprise there.  Supports my point. An outfit as incompetent as the Navy has no business sneaking around blind with dangerous weapons of war. 
 

The Navy has been fucking around in the S China Sea for a century. Nobody thought to turn on the sonars and compile a chart? Typical. 

Well, to be fair, the sub in question is not carrying nukes...

and further, they *do* make charts. See my point above...

..and further yet, navigation is not without risk...

...and further, they were not going flank speed (far from it) because they knew what was about....

...no, you won't read that from official sources but you can read between teh lines and understand it.

The HARTFORD was another case entirely (being stupid with poor situational awareness)...as were the other collossally stupid cases....like the 688 that killed the Japanese kids.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody learned from the Gulf of Tonkin  Incident? The Navy, secret ships, lies, S China Sea, lies, commies, politicians, lies, millions dead. Fuck around and find out. Tie those subs up to the dock in San Diego before some idiot starts a war. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, El Borracho said:

Nobody learned from the Gulf of Tonkin  Incident? The Navy, secret ships, lies, S China Sea, lies, commies, politicians, lies, millions dead. Fuck around and find out. Tie those subs up to the dock in San Diego before some idiot starts a war. 

San Diego? WTF?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, El Borracho said:

Imagine having very limited visibility and incomplete charts. Now imagine traveling at an unsafe speed for the conditions. One of the conditions is there is presently no war. No reason for endangering lives or treasure. Imagine being but one incompetent naval officer among hundreds. Go Navy!

"you train like you fight."

Rather dent up a sub in peace time and know where the chart is fubar, then in a hot war where losing such a mission capability for a year or more is more serious than a heart attack.    I can see why China wants to know where the accident occurred.  Not for navigation purposes, but to know where the US Navy is snooping about in their back yard.

 

EVERY DAY, young men and women risk their lives whether or not the US is at war.

Planes go down, trucks flip over, parachutes fail to open.  Hence why many of us hold service people in high regard.  Putting their asses on the line every day and night for minimum wages.

 

You think the same logic regarding going to the moon?  We lost people on that one.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, El Borracho said:

Imagine having very limited visibility and incomplete charts. Now imagine traveling at an unsafe speed for the conditions. 

I guess a call for full reverse was a tad too late...

 

Breaks, breaks, breaaaaakkkkkssss!

 

Reminds me of this

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/2/2021 at 6:22 PM, El Borracho said:

Yes, I have sailed across it. One can greatly reduce the odds of a collision with prudent navigation. That sort of navigation that is repeatedly demonstrated to be quite beyond the capabilities Of the US Navy. Turning on the sonar gizmos would be prudent when lost or disoriented. 

Gee, I don’t know what ramming speed is specified for that sub. The captain should. 

Well. Sailing across the pacific gives you expertise in submarine operations, any day now the Navy will be calling for advice, don’t stray too far from your phone.

I suggest watching Hunt for Red October, just think of the pearls of wisdom you can share with us then!

Dumb twat hippie.

 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Controversial_posts said:

… I suggest watching Hunt for Red October, just think of the pearls of wisdom you can share with us then!

Are you proposing that the Caterpillar Drive failed? Or the captain had gone rogue? You know that is fiction, right? But thanks for sharing the extent of your knowledge. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Insurance data shows girls are much better and safer drivers under most conditions, but in extreme events the guys have an edge. 

I would be interested to learn, per mile driven, who has more accidents, injuries, and deaths.

(And, for full disclosure, I'm now a middle aged man who drove like an insane person in my 20s, and am still quite amazed that I survived).

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, sailor-cfn said:

I would be interested to learn, per mile driven, who has more accidents, injuries, and deaths.

(And, for full disclosure, I'm now a middle aged man who drove like an insane person in my 20s, and am still quite amazed that I survived).

When I was a teen, boys payed double of insuranve. Then later on, some kind of title 9 thing forced equal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, quod umbra said:

No more so fiction than one thinking we could possibly accurately chart every square inch of sea floor........

Not to split hairs, but the sub in this case hit something much bigger than an inch.  

Maybe the Navy could say they are looking for MH370 and do some serious surveys in the SCS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Virgulino Ferreira said:

I am The Author, it is I who have the power to nuke this thread. B)

 

Screenshot_20211104-101008_Messenger.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rain Man said:

This is a compelling argument for not becoming a submariner.  

If that's what swings it for you you haven't really thought about becoming a submariner.

You would have to drag me kicking and screaming, and it would not be because the charts aren't good enough.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The South China Sea is an area of ocean not too dissimilar in size to the Gulf of Mexico, and strategically important to US interests.  Are we to believe that there are “uncharted seamounts” in such an area?  I call BS.  Bumping hulls with a Chinese sub is more likely.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patriot said:

The South China Sea is an area of ocean not too dissimilar in size to the Gulf of Mexico, and strategically important to US interests.  Are we to believe that there are “uncharted seamounts” in such an area?  I call BS.  Bumping hulls with a Chinese sub is more likely.

To add to the above - the operating area for the Connecticut in the South China Sea where one could expect it to run aground on an uncharted seamount at or less than test-depth is a mere fraction of the total area of the South China Sea……so again, the notion of an uncharted seamount in such a strategically important area of ocean is utter nonsense……

Link to post
Share on other sites

From G Captain today

 

The leadership of an American nuclear-powered submarine that hit a seamount in the South China Sea last month will be relieved of command, U.S. officials told Reuters on Thursday.

The U.S. Navy fast-attack submarine Connecticut hit the submerged object last month but there were no serious injuries and the vessel is currently in Guam. Fifteen people suffered minor injuries such as bruises and lacerations.

The officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the leadership was relieved because of a loss of confidence after the crash and that an investigation was underway.

They said three service members would be removed from their positions on the submarine.

It is not clear how long it will take to the repair the submarine. While such crashes are rare,Navy ships in the Pacific have had a number of accidents in recent years.

In 2017, a U.S. guided missile destroyer collided with an oil tanker near Singapore, killing 10 sailors. (Reporting by Idrees Ali; editing by Jonathan Oatis)

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, longy said:

If it's not on the charts can you blame the navigator???

If there are procedures for navigating in poorly charted areas that weren't followed on Connecticut then yeah, Nav would be on the short list.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Al Paca said:

“Fuck! There’s a big sea mount here mate”

Funny, and a bit related to the people taking responsibility with their careers in this case, I will never forget hearing the words of the skipper not taking responsibility in the Vestas case. If he had only said the responsibility lies with me we would have all said well the navigator fucked up, but instead he looks like a weasel for throwing the navigator under the boat. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, quod umbra said:

Well maybe......

Years ago I had good fortune to sail with a fellow named Jim Danvers (USN Ret.). Jim was one of two navigators on DeCoursey Fales' Nina and as such a very good family friend. So my Dad decided to invite Jim and his wife Adele to join us on our Summer cruise. I was maybe 15 years old at the time and took full advantage of the situation to hone my navigation skills. He taught me a few good tricks but the one thing he said to me was this, when the skipper asks how much further can we go on this board Jim said he responds in this fashion, "First hundred yards is mine, second hundred is yours Skip."

The role of a navigator is an advisory role. He does not dictate where you put the boat, he advises on the dangers of putting the boat where the skipper wants to go.

Years ago doing a BIRW we are sailing along in the round the island race. We are pretty close to the beach northeast of the island, heading for 1BI.
Having consulted the charts, having a good feel for how tight we are, the tactician is urging the skipper to get closer.......I advise against this as we were right on the edge of good water. Tactician says something along the lines of, "YOU COULDN'T BE MORE WRONG!". Mainsail trimmer, a sailmaker name Louis, is sort of looking over the side and I point out a few big ass cows we are sailing past not terribly far below the surface. Louis looks at the skipper and says, "Listen to your navigator."

Sailing egos.

Or

Why it is so hard to get wives and friends to race

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, quod umbra said:

Well maybe......

The role of a navigator is an advisory role. He does not dictate where you put the boat, he advises on the dangers of putting the boat where the skipper wants to go.

Navy-wise, it's somewhere in between that.  More like, the captain says, "we're going here, now figure out how we get there."  Then the navigator demonstrates a chosen route and the captain either nods approvingly or doesn't.

(Except for the one time the captain didn't want to go where the big brass wanted him to, so his direction to the nav was, "I don't want to go here, give me some reasons why we shouldn't."  It worked.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59186655

"Metallurgist admits faking steel test results for US Navy subs"

Here's a really good reason not to be a submariner.... apparently the head metallurgists at one of the suppliers thought that one of the test requirements was 'stupid' so she altered the results.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JohnMB said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59186655

"Metallurgist admits faking steel test results for US Navy subs"

Here's a really good reason not to be a submariner.... apparently the head metallurgists at one of the suppliers thought that one of the test requirements was 'stupid' so she altered the results.

Two separate issues with missile tube fabricators caused nashing of teeth over jjust the past few years.

Good help is hard to find.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...