US nuclear submarine runs aground

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-01-08 10:16am

A US nuclear submarine has run aground south of the Pacific island of Guam, injuring several sailors on board.

The nuclear reactor on the USS San Francisco was not damaged in the incident, which is currently being investigated, the Navy said.

One of the sailors is reported to have sustained a serious injury.

The submarine is currently on its way back to its base on Guam, nearly 600 kilometres (350 miles) south of where the incident occurred.

"The extent of the injuries and damage aboard San Francisco is still being assessed, but includes one critical injury and several other lesser injuries," the Navy said.

"The submarine is on the surface and is making best speed back to their homeport in Guam," it said.

Military and Coast Guard aircraft had been sent out to monitor the submarine's welfare.

Guam, a territory of the US, is one of the American military's most important bases in the Pacific.

The Los Angeles-class submarines are 109.73 meters (360 ft) long and are classed as attack vessels, designed to counter enemy submarines or surface vessels. They are equipped with a single nuclear reactor.

The vessels carry a crew of 137.

BBC

Fleet Admiral JD · Post by **Fleet Admiral JD** » 2005-01-08 10:18am

Doesn't give any details about what happened to cause the crash. My first instinct is a sonar screwup...

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2005-01-08 10:32am

A US nuclear submarine has run aground south of the Pacific island of Guam, injuring several sailors on board.

OK, if the US sub has run aground "south" of Guam, then Guam is to its North, right?

The submarine is currently on its way back to its base on Guam, nearly 600 kilometres (350 miles) south of where the incident occurred.

Now Guam is 600km south of where the sub ran aground? Help me ... oh wait, fortunately there is a chart.

How can the sub run aground? Even if the sonar crapped out, there isn't that much a sub with a test depth of only 400 meters can run into. There is no need for tactical stuff there, so they won't be doing any near-bottoming crap. Between the SINS and a chart showing approximate depths, how can they possibly run aground.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-01-08 12:52pm

There's a guy who will never make Admiral ....

Burak Gazan · Post by **Burak Gazan** » 2005-01-08 01:55pm

How can the sub run aground? Even if the sonar crapped out, there isn't that much a sub with a test depth of only 400 meters can run into. There is no need for tactical stuff there, so they won't be doing any near-bottoming crap. Between the SINS and a chart showing approximate depths, how can they possibly run aground.

The N or S thing is interesting -- not wanting to start any conspiracy thingys

but something screwy there -- perhaps whoever gave the information just misspoke or was misquoted. As for the whoopsy, well, bad navigation happens in spite of all the technological goodies. Plus, the entire Mariana Islands region is part of a submerged mountain chain -- they could have hit a seamount.

northern mariana islands

If they were operating N of Guam, there sure are a lot of potential navigational hazards there.
[/url]

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2005-01-08 02:07pm

Chmee wrote:There's a guy who will never make Admiral ....

You never know- it could have been a technical malfunction.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2005-01-08 02:27pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:
Chmee wrote:There's a guy who will never make Admiral ....
You never know- it could have been a technical malfunction.

Does not matter, if you ram something, The Captian, XO both get it, their responsbility(Plus the guy driving the ship and the Navigator)

Petrosjko · Post by **Petrosjko** » 2005-01-08 02:35pm

Mr Bean wrote:Does not matter, if you ram something, The Captian, XO both get it, their responsbility(Plus the guy driving the ship and the Navigator)

Unless you're Lonestar and your captain rams a buoy and blames it on somebody else.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-01-08 03:43pm

Mr Bean wrote:
BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:
Chmee wrote:There's a guy who will never make Admiral ....
You never know- it could have been a technical malfunction.
Does not matter, if you ram something, The Captian, XO both get it, their responsbility(Plus the guy driving the ship and the Navigator)

Right or wrong, it's one of those naval traditions that everybody seems to recognize ... you run a ship aground, that never disappears from your resume. A nuke sub? He better save the President's life or something if he wants to make Admiral now.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2005-01-08 03:57pm

That's an expensive toy to be playing around with, so the navy rightly expects the officers do their utmost to make sure this thing never happens.

I expect technical failure, but that's for the inquiry to find out.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2005-01-08 08:56pm

Sounds like an Inertial Navigation problem to me...

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2005-01-08 10:47pm

Chmee wrote:There's a guy who will never make Admiral ....

Haven't you ever heard of the Dilbert Principle?

From what it sounds like, the sub took minor damage and there were a few bumps and bruises, one 'serious' (no details), and the NUKULAR bom - er, reactor didn't go off... I mean, didn't get damaged.

If the inquiry finds that it was caused by a technical error, is that still held against the CO and XO et al, for the rest of their careers? That seems a tad harsh, no?

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-01-08 11:02pm

Stofsk wrote:
Chmee wrote:There's a guy who will never make Admiral ....
Haven't you ever heard of the Dilbert Principle?

From what it sounds like, the sub took minor damage and there were a few bumps and bruises, one 'serious' (no details), and the NUKULAR bom - er, reactor didn't go off... I mean, didn't get damaged.

If the inquiry finds that it was caused by a technical error, is that still held against the CO and XO et al, for the rest of their careers? That seems a tad harsh, no?

Didn't Clancy refer to this 'tradition' in The Hunt For Red October? I know in the movie they explained Ryan's civilian career as being the result of some serious injury, but IIRC in the book he had hit a promotion ceiling because of running a ship aground.

Petrosjko · Post by **Petrosjko** » 2005-01-08 11:10pm

Chmee wrote:Didn't Clancy refer to this 'tradition' in The Hunt For Red October? I know in the movie they explained Ryan's civilian career as being the result of some serious injury, but IIRC in the book he had hit a promotion ceiling because of running a ship aground.

Ryan was a Marine who got injured in a helo crash that fucked up his back in the novels, three months or so after he got out of the academy.

As for the movies, the less said the better.

The reason captains are so heavily and ruthlessly scrutinized goes back to the days of yore, when captains would go months with little to no contact with superior authority. A captain was treated as a virtual god by regulations, but the check on their authority was their ultimate responsibility for all matters concerning the ship.

It's a harsh position.

Burak Gazan · Post by **Burak Gazan** » 2005-01-08 11:27pm

Didn't Clancy refer to this 'tradition' in The Hunt For Red October? I know in the movie they explained Ryan's civilian career as being the result of some serious injury, but IIRC in the book he had hit a promotion ceiling because of running a ship aground.

I think you're mixing up Ryan with that almost-identical-but-different-named character in Red Storm Rising

That one, had ran his DD on a sandbar while he was OOD resulting in an early end to his regular naval career.

Petrosjko · Post by **Petrosjko** » 2005-01-08 11:31pm

Burak Gazan wrote:I think you're mixing up Ryan with that almost-identical-but-different-named character in Red Storm Rising That one, had ran his DD on a sandbar while he was OOD resulting in an early end to his regular naval career.

I think his name was Robert Toland, IIRC. I'd forgotten about him.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-01-08 11:33pm

Burak Gazan wrote:
Didn't Clancy refer to this 'tradition' in The Hunt For Red October? I know in the movie they explained Ryan's civilian career as being the result of some serious injury, but IIRC in the book he had hit a promotion ceiling because of running a ship aground.

I think you're mixing up Ryan with that almost-identical-but-different-named character in Red Storm Rising That one, had ran his DD on a sandbar while he was OOD resulting in an early end to his regular naval career.

That's it, thanks!

Post by **RogueIce** » 2005-01-08 11:40pm

Stofsk wrote:If the inquiry finds that it was caused by a technical error, is that still held against the CO and XO et al, for the rest of their careers? That seems a tad harsh, no?

Probably not, as he's responsible not just for the training and qualifications of his crew, but also the maintenence of his equipment (that and his people doing their jobs).

If it was some kind of preventable equipment failure he's probably in big trouble. If it's an "Act of God" type thing he might skate by. It also depends on how good he is overall and what the competition is like for promotion when it comes his time.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2005-01-08 11:42pm

He may be promoted, he may even make admiral, but one thing is certain:
He'll never command another ship, it's the desk for this guy.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2005-01-09 12:37am

As for the movies, the less said the better.

Are you kidding? The movie version of Hunt for Red October is fifty times better than the boring pile of junk that is the book.

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2005-01-09 02:12am

HemlockGrey wrote:Are you kidding? The movie version of Hunt for Red October is fifty times better than the boring pile of junk that is the book.

You ought to be bullshitting me. They completely simplified the entire plot, and eliminated most of the reason why Ramius defected in the first place - yes, his wife died, but these things happen in the West too, and only the lingering anger topped off by that incompetent surgeon gives him a particular impetus to defect.

I'm surprised how much they kept (they certainly kept more than Sum of All Fears). And yes, at least they didn't fall to using the "movie PPI sonar", but by no means is the movie better than the original.

Post by **Vympel** » 2005-01-09 09:59am

I wonder if the SSN 711 will be decomissioned early as a result.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2005-01-09 12:31pm

Vympel wrote:I wonder if the SSN 711 will be decomissioned early as a result.

I doubt it. She's not suppose to leave the fleet for more then another decade, and the damage can't be that sever if she's moving under her own power.

However, from a blurb I heard on the news, the man severally injured in the collision has died. I would personally suspect that it was a head injury caused by the violence of the impact, but I don't acutely know.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2005-01-09 01:32pm

I heard a similar report on the radio. The most critically injured sailor died.
They did not say what his injuries were but I agree its probably a head injury. Now in addition to several careers being ruined a life has been lost to probably what will amount to was a mistake.

Petrosjko · Post by **Petrosjko** » 2005-01-09 03:37pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Are you kidding? The movie version of Hunt for Red October is fifty times better than the boring pile of junk that is the book.

The profound stupidities of the movie version (submarine maneuvering like an airplane, two subs passing within a hundred meters of each other as the crew of the Red October sings the national anthem while the other sub has no clue they're there) were bad enough, but the movie I really bust on was the utter pile of shite that was Patriot Games. That was the one that convinced me that watching movie versions of Clancy novels was a waste of time, money, and brain cells.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

US nuclear submarine runs aground

US nuclear submarine runs aground

Which way is Guam?