SSN "San Fran" Damage Pics
 

Link
http://pic7.picturetrail.com/VOL188/...3/82924857.jpg
Incredible.

This is the first I have heard of this, what caused it to run aground?

Anyone want to venture a guess on the estimate?

:eek:

Uncharted rock formation + 30 knots underwater = more than Maaco could handle.

My bet is the were performing some sort of "silent dash" excercise which relied upon charts rather than active monitoring of the seabed.

She hit a previously uncharted obstruction:

on January 7, 2005, the USS San Francisco, while on its way to making a routine port visit to Brisbane, Australia, ran aground and hit the ocean floor, approximately 350 nautical miles(560 kilometers) south of Guam, in the middle of the East Marianas Basin. The incident reportedly caused one critical injury and a number of minor ones to 23 of the submarine's crew ranging from broken bones, lacerations, bruises to a back injury. The critically wounded sailor later died of his injuries. Initial reports indicated that the submarine's hull was intact and that the submarine's nuclear reactor plant had not been damaged. The submarine resurfaced following the accident and proceeded to return to its homeport of Guam.

The article I read (I'll look for it) said exactly that.

I was wondering when images would come out on it... That's insane.

My question is, how the hell is there any "uncharted" ocean left? It isn't like the Pacific is "Darkest Africa" or anything...You would have figured by now that our maps would be relatively accurate.

Lower right hand corner (high res).

The 'job built' ladder got us a hefty fine from OSHA. Doesn't appear to be vertical supports under each 2X4 rung. I doubt the OSHA morons would get very far with the military (exempt, I assume). But they love to $crackdown$ on contractors with money.

[/Hijack Off]

I can't believe nobody's said it yet...

That'll buff out.

I was going to ask why subs didn't have something like forward-looking radar, then I thought two things:

1) Would that even work underwater?
2) It probably wouldn't be too stealthy. :)

Based on reading The Hunt For Red October 4 times, they have it, but they hardly ever use it because it reveals your position. Also beyond a certain speed your own transient noise drowns out any sonar signal you send out.

As for why nobody ever hit it before, it's a big ocean and earthquakes do change the undersea landscape. Didn't the Indian Ocean EQ drop the sea floor 30 ft?

Yeah right. Not only do we fall under OSHA, the Air Force has their own version of it to further make the CE guys miserable.

So a cylinder full of seamen blindly thrusting forward in an uncharted area at an unknown depth had the tip of it damaged.

I would say in this case it is rightfully named, and lucky.

:D

I can;t believe the thread got this far without the third grade humor ;)

/tg

There's a HUGE amount of the ocean that is uncharted, or I should say the charts aren't very accurate, especially in the Pacific. The last time I spent any time around charts was 5-7 years ago, and there are island charts that haven't been updated in 100-200+ years, and those are coastal waters not open water charts with detail of underwater objects which is FAR worse in terms of accuracy, but then they're more for surface ships, so a sea mount 500ft underwater is of little concern. That includes both DMA (Defense mapping agency, now NIMA iirc) and BA (British Admiralty) charts.

Maybe Pat will see this thread and give us some info (if he can), I'd be curious if they use the same types of charts available to the public.

Andrew

So, when fined, the Air Force cuts a check to OSHA? Or to themselves?

It must be tough enough to be in a sub for a long period of time, but to be in sub, in a depth of water that would crush your skull like a Twinkie, and to actually unexpectedly make contact with something like that - THAT must be truly scary. No thanks. I like this whole "land under my feet" thing. :)

What's under the tarp?

The attack submarine entered dry dock Wednesday at the Guam Shipyard, U.S. Naval Base Guam officials announced in a news release.

Does OSHA have jurisdiction in Guam? :)

Dick

They have active sonar ("One ping only."). But, no its not stealthy. The one-way loss is a proportional to the Range^2 while the return back from a target is Range^4, just like radar. Sonar is even more complicated since the ocean has thermal layers, a surface, and often an irregular bottom which makes for all sorts of multi-path situations. Basically something listening for you will hear you long before you can detect them. Imagine you're in the woods at night with out a light. Some one with a flashlight is trying to find you. How far away can you see them coming? How close do they have to be to you for the flashlight to be effective?

Submarines typically use passive sonar which just listen for the sounds of other vessels which allows them to hide. Stealth is a submarines biggest asset.

This is just speculation, but I doubt we pay any fines. If AFOSH nails you, you get an ass chewing, probably some paperwork (letter of reprimand, etc), and you fix the problem. If OSHA nails you, they shut down the project (if serious enough) or they contact the AFOSH representative. See above for what happens next.

I guess I should clarify that when I said we fall under both, I meant more of the rules and regs, not necessarily penalties. Of course, it's been so long since I had to attend an AFOSH briefing...

I gave up caring about all things OSHA related when I enlisted

A giant squid clinging onto the hull.

The classified pic without the tarp:
http://www.readthehook.com/images/is...00-leagues.jpg

Here's my limited knowledge, before LT Olsen jumps in and spills all the beans.

First, under the tarp is the spherical sonar array (big sphere with lots of microphones on it.

Second, even if they were doing a "mad dash" just using the charts, someone would have already plotted out where they were going and have checked it out. In other words, QM2 Johnson might not know everything about what he was doing, but LT Navigator was looking over his shoulder and did. There are only a few ways of doing this: hitting something uncharted, which is possible but I don't know how likely (though so far this is the official word and I haven't heard any rumors different); not knowing where you are, as in you are convinced you are in one spot in the ocean and you are actually in another (not going to "speculate" how often this happens); or not knowing where you are because of some system malfunction (probably not), or poor communication (unlikely); or just basic misreading of the chart, like you thought that line meant 300' of depth, not 30' (probably did not happen). In my experience, and that is to say not very much (1 month each with 2 different 688-class subs), when there is something that you could hit such as a mountain or another contact, the quartermaster is constantly updating the officer of the deck on their location relative to the danger.

As far as the active sonar, correct, they rarely use it (in my ~45 days underway, I bet I saw it used 2-3x, and probably mostly to show us how it works) because of the stealthiness issues. However, there are various ways of knowing where they are, not just some dude with a grease pencil and a chart.

Sub guys are some of the most anal people out there, and also the most well trained and capable. While ship drivers get relieved with some regularity (I think there were 15-19 last year?), it's not as common with subs. Granted, there is also a smaller sample size. Therefore, it's likely (not definite, mind you) that this is not entirely human error. The CO was relieved, but my understanding is that it was more of a reassignment pending an investigation. Not too much gouge on that though, being halfway around the world.


Oh, and BTW...pretty sure they were going flank speed, or top speed....the unclass top speed is "in excess of 35 knots"....so use your imagination.

Disclaimer: most of this was based on knowledge I gained at least 1.5 years ago, so it may not be entirely accurate...also left a few things out because I'm not sure if they are classified or not. But the gist of it is right.

I'm not buying the explanation they give. I think they ran into the back of a Russian sub doing a "Crazy Ivan"

What's incredible is that we only lost one guy. Thats a big freaking hole there. They were at 500' when this happend!

From strategypage.com:


January 12, 2005: The American nuclear submarine USS San Francisco hit an uncharted seamount on January 7th, killing one sailor and injuring sixty others, 23 of them so seriously they could not perform their duties. Facts about the incident were slow to emerge. It appears that the sub was traveling on a course it was ordered to follow, at a depth of 500 feet and a speed of about 56 kilometers an hour. This was the first time the navy had given the speed of a Los Angeles class sub as anything but “25+ knots” (45 kilometers an hour.) It has long been believed that these subs could make more than 55 kilometers an hour.

The visible damage to the sub indicated that the sonar dome at the front of the sub was partially collapsed, and, according to information released by the navy, some of the forward ballast tanks were damaged. The pressure hull was not compromised. The submarine immediately surfaced after the collision, which was apparently a glancing one, but it immediately slows the sub to about seven kilometers an hour. The crew had some trouble getting to the surface, because of the damaged forward ballast tanks (which hold water, that is rapidly pumped out, and replaced with air, to give the sub buoyancy and bring it to the surface.) The impact, of course, caught everyone unawares, which is why there were so many injuries. The sailor who died, had been thrown forward, hitting his head on a pipe. He died of that injury two days later.

The captain usually losses his command after accidents like this, although in this case, that might not happen. If the captain was following all procedures correctly, and there was no way the seamount could be detected, the incident might not destroy his career. There are many uncharted underwater features, especially 500 feet underwater. The technology does not yet exist to economically chart all of the ocean bottoms to that, and greater, depth. Most waters are charted sufficiently to protect surface ships. But there are only about two hundred subs that normally operate at the depth this accident took place. There may be a call for the navy to change its procedures, and have the sub use more active sonar devices when traveling in certain waters. But this will generate protests, because active sonar disturbs the fish. There are also technical issues regarding how effective such sonar would be in avoiding all types of underwater collisions. Moreover, in wartime, you avoid using sonar as a navigation aid, as it gives away your position. Actually, traveling at high speed gives away your position, because of the noise generated by the propulsion system and water rushing over the sub. In wartime, the sub might have been moving at 10-20 kilometers an hour, which would have caused less damage and fewer injuries.

If the Navy adheres to maritime tradition, that calls for the naming of previously unknown underwater features after the vessel that "discovered' them, even if by running into them, the uncharted seamount will now be known as the "San Francisco seamount".


Accidents like this are rare, but there will probably be a review of the charts, of underwater geography, that are used by American subs. This review process is standard whenever there is a major underwater earthquake or volcano eruption. For example, the December 26, 2004 earthquake off Aceh is known to have seriously rearranged the ocean bottom in that area, and efforts are already underway to update charts. But now an effort will be made to try and determine where there may be other potential "San Francisco seamounts".

"Save the fish! Fuck the sailors!" :mad:
Don't get me going.

Let's see, where to start...

I still haven't seen an official Navy statement that released the actual speed of the SAN FRAN when she ran aground, so I'm stickin' with the "in excess of 25 knots" that has been the standard answer for a while. (Aside: It used to be "in excess of 20kts and in excess of 400ft" until Diane Sawyer went out on a boomer probably 10 years or so ago for whatever news show she was doing at the time. The CO took it upon himself to "expand" the rules a bit and told her "in excess of 25kts and in excess of 800ft", at which point the Navy's official story had to change. :rolleyes: ) SAN FRAN was at max speed, and pretty much instantaneously came to about 4kts upon striking the sea mount. Much of the crew was up because the ship had just completed a cleaning period, and it was lunchtime. Fortunately, since it was lunch a lot of people were sitting down. If they had run aground during the cleaning period things would have been a lot worse, as there would have been lots of equipment broken out, heavy metal deckplates removed for access to bilge areas, etc. As it was, nobody was injured by any flying equipment - all the injuries were due to flying bodies.

The Executive Officer onboard is a friend of mine who was on my last ship, and one of the junior officers was also on my last ship (although I didn't know him as well, he showed up towards the end of my tour). Both were OK, but the XO in particular was pretty banged up.

At the speed they were going it is a requirement to take a sounding (projecting active sonar straight down, just like a surface ship's bottom sounder or a fish finder) every 15min. Our fathometer in secure mode is pretty much undetectable, so that's not a concern. At high speeds we have to shift to non-secure (due to the increase in own-ship's noise previously mentioned) at which point it is detectable. Transiting from Guam to Australia that's not really a concern, since there's nobody out there to hear it. :) Anyway, SAN FRAN had just gone deep and fast a few minutes prior to the grounding. Prior to any significant depth excursion we always take a sounding, and it was 1000+ fathoms. As I recall that was 4 minutes before the grounding.

There are two charts that cover the area in question. I know one is a LIMDIS (Limited Distribution) classified chart, so it's not available to the public. That type of chart is generally what we use for open ocean navigation, and they have very good sounding data. In this particular case, on this chart there was nothing shown in the area. The other chart, which I think may be available to the public, did show "discolored water" in the vicinity of the grounding, as does our electronic chart of the area (which are still not authorized for navigation, just as an "aid"). Honestly, as a Navigator myself, I can't say I would worry much about "discolored water", as there's really no definition of what that means and often it seems to be old data (as in the chart will be marked "Discolored water (rep 1971)"). I'm not sure where exactly SAN FRAN's track was laid out relative to the discolored water area, but I believe they grounded ~3nm away from it, so it's not like they plotted a track right over it.

NIMA, the chart people, has recently changed to NGA (National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency). I've seen one article since the grounding in which NGA said that they have thousands of photos of the ocean, which can be analyzed with modern technology to determine water depth. However, there's a big backlog, and the area in question had not been analyzed yet. I found the article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Jan15.html (one pop-up).

That's LCDR Olsen, mister! ;)

Pat Olsen

Condolences to the family of the deceased sailor, and speedy recovery to the ones injured.

As always, this site has the best tech around. Period. Thanks for the sub-lesson.

Pat,

You always hear that a grounding effectively kills a Captain's career in the USN. Do you think that's likely in this case given the circumstances?

What does "discololred water" mean?

And you call yourself a thug.

However, I have to admit that I share Adams condolences and well wishes.

This NYTs article goes into more detail:

Now, Defense Department officials say they have found a satellite image taken in 1999 that indicates an undersea mountain rising to perhaps within 100 feet below the surface there.
---

The officials said the main chart on the submarine, prepared in 1989 and never revised, did not show any potential obstacles within three miles of the crash. They said the incident happened in such a desolate area - 360 miles southeast of Guam - that updating their depiction of the undersea terrain was never considered a priority.
---
But since the accident, Mr. Andreasen said, his office has examined commercially available images taken by a Landsat satellite in 1999, and at least one image indicates that an undersea mountain could rise to within 100 feet of the surface there. Analysts say variations in water color can sometimes indicate a land mass below. Mr. Andreasen said his agency had not normally used satellite imagery to update sea charts, though it recently began using the images to help pinpoint the boundaries of islands and other land masses. He and other officials said that the charting office's staff had shrunk in recent years, and that the Navy never asked it to focus on the area south of Guam, where it began basing submarines in 2002.
---
Current and former Navy officials say the main focus during the cold war was charting areas in the Northern Pacific and in Arctic seas where missile and surveillance submarines guarded against a Soviet attack. Since then, the Navy has been trying to improve charts of shallower coastal waters in the Middle East and other areas where it might have to help battle terrorists.
---
As ships have reported these coordinates, sea-charting offices around the world have found that many islands were "maybe a mile or two out of position" on widely used charts, he said. So over the past year, his agency has been using the Landsat images and other data to update many nations' boundaries.


"a mile or two out of position" Yikes!

First graders + Swimming lessons = discolored water

Sorry 'bout that, sir. Didn't know there was a promotion, cuz I wasn't invited to the wetting down :) BTW, what's your job?

Ever notice how the color of the water changes as the depth changes? Dark for deep light blue for shallow, etc.

Wes

They grow up so fast. :)

Congratulations.

Monroe

Navigator/Operations Officer on a fast attack boat out of Pearl Harbor.

The Navy Times has an article in the Jan 31 issue that shows a LANDSAT image overlayed onto the unclassified chart. There's clearly a shallow spot (estimated to rise within 100ft or less of the surface), and it's about 5km to the north-northwest of the charted "discolored water".

I'm still awestruck by the pictures of the boat in drydock. If they had been 5 yards farther to the left they would have hit square on the bow, and I think we might be talking about the first loss of a US nuke sub in almost 40 years. As it is, what that crew went through is truly amazing. Their corpsman in particular is a hero in my mind. Subs don't have doctors onboard, just an "Independent Duty Corpsman", an enlisted man who receives extensive training - an EMT with the ability to do emergency surgery if necessary. Their corpsman (aka "Doc" on every boat, of course) held it together for about three days while treating nearly half the crew, with 23 people who were pretty much out of commission. Truly amazing.

Pat

So did the airbags deploy? :D

So what, about 3-5 years until you can invite all your CC.com buddies out on your OWN boat? ;)

Andrew

Not to take anything away from their abilities to hold together and get home, but I would assume that if they did an emergency surface, they would be able to call in some sort of airial support to do damage assesment of the boat, bring in more crew members to get her back under way, as well as a few extra doc's or even fly by helicopter the ones who needed imediate med-vac to somewhere that could do the work. Is this the wrong assumption

I say this more because I am curious to here what they could do and also because I would like to hear in more detail about what they had to do to get home.

Wes

I don't know where the accident happened, but what are you going to do if you're thousands of miles out to sea or away from the nearest part of land that is capable of helping you.

I spent a long summer doing some off-shore sailing, and the realization that the only people you can rely on are yourself and the crew aboard is a bit sobbering. There are places in the ocean where you are truly 1-2 thousand miles from the nearest piece of dry land, you are well out of helicopter rescue range, which means in the event of an emergency you are potentially days away from help (obviously any ships in the area can and legally should come and help, but that's providing you are near other ships/boats).

Andrew

After looking at the hi-res pictures...I'm amazed. It surfaced and steamed home under it's own power, and only lost one sailer.

Given the damage, that's incredible.

US navy, British/Australian Navy, Japan's Navy, etc could head your way pretty quick. Also, they were headed to Australia from Guam, and I would assume that it is a pretty common trip for most Navy vessles since moving to Guam in 2002. Of course it would appear that The San Fran was going a route not normally taken, but I would think that ships would be in the area. It's not like they were headed from Guam to Alaska, and even if they were way far away from help, I have a feeling that we could get some sort of air drop on the way that could atleast stablize the situation(making the big assumption that the boat could get to the surface of course).

On another note:
Check out this pic:
click

It looks like the bulk heads compressed like a crumple zone just behind the guy to left on the catwalk. Notice the bulge I have to wonder just how much of the ship had to be sealed off to get it water tight.

I wonder how much the repairs will cost or if they will retire the ship and part it out for other units still in service. One could only hope that they would update the ship significantly if they put it back into service.

I guess the navy will have some survey ships working under the guise of science out using some sort of observation equipment to map the sea floor in the net few years. The stuff they used to find the titanic seems like it would be up to the task.

Wes

Answer:
Shit, that was what, 20 years ago? I hope they have something better by now! Plus, I'm sure using that technology to do all water bodies would be a little time prohibitive. If I recall correctly, Ballard used "extra" time after working for the Navy to find the Titanic, and he had a real good idea of where it was.

Mit

If they were on the surface, an aerial damage assessment would tell you less than someone walking out and looking down. Particularly since the person looking down probably knows what he is looking at more than the guy on the helo. When my brother was on Subs, they had a diver on board, who could do a much better job of damage assesment than anything short of a drydock.

As to a helicopter, IIRC an SH 60 has a range of under 400 miles, which means they wouldn't have enough range to make it to the sub and return to Guam. True, it could come from a nearby ship, but there probably wouldn't be any submariners on board ships, so aside from medical people it wouldn't do much good and may actually hurt (as in they may require supervision). They could evacuate some injured, but as all people would need to go up a ladder and out a ~2 foot hatch, (with the ship rolling in open ocean) then be loaded on a hoist and winched to a helicopter, then flown to a ship. I think the odds favor leaving them in their racks for the couple days it would take to get to port than risking further injury trying to transport them. 350 miles out, even if they could only make 10 knots, they would still make it to Guam in a day and a half.

According to the news articles, none of it. The articles mentioned that the pressure hull was not compramised. With damaged ballast tanks, there was probably some problems controlling bouyancy (as Pat mentioned), but it doesn't sound like flooding was a problem.

Tom

They just need to come up with drones that keep going on course at a set depth and broadcast to a satalite.

As for the Pressure hull not being compromised...I saw pat's post but it was unclear to me if that meant they were able to come home with out running evac pumps by sealing doors off or if it was saying that everywhere people are normally working at in the sub while submerged, was not damaged. I guess I was fishing for a little more clarity.

Wes

My boss (former USS Louisville Capt.) told me the front of those ships were meant to be able to take a hit like that. He said he had no doubt the ship made it back to port under it's under power.

The only thing he complained about was the sleeping arraingments. He said he fought with designers over having the sailors heads facing the front of the ship while they slept. If they would have hit while sailors were in their bunks it would have probably broke a few necks.

Steel is cheap. The money in subs is in the reactor and the combat system. Though one does wonder if they won't just mothball it since older boats in the class are being retired. The later, improved, Los Angeles class boats had the forward dive planes located forward on the hull not the sail.

I (and many others) are very curious about what the outcome of this will be - will we repair it or not? Part of the deal with "forward deploying" 3 boats in Guam is that all 3 boats are 1st flight 688s that have just been refueled. As a result, they have a new reactor core that will significantly outlast the rated hull age, so we can forward deploy them in Guam and run them all over the place and never have to worry about core consumption. So, the Navy spent lots and lots of $$$ just a couple years ago to refuel SAN FRAN - do we throw that investment away (and put a serious kink in the PAC Fleet submarine employment schedule) or do we spend lots more $$$ to fix her? There are boats of the same flight that have been decomm'd - perhaps it's feasible to cut the nose of one of those and plop it onto SAN FRAN. I really don't know.

The "people tank" was not breached at all - no need to shut any hatches, no need to pump any water out of the people space.

Yes, it's the wrong assumption. I think they eventually got a couple docs onboard, but it took a couple days to happen. Getting people on/off a submarine in the open ocean is not an easy undertaking, particularly when the submarine is riding low in the water (as was SAN FRAN) because half her main ballast tanks have been crushed. Their only option was to do a helo drop onto the sail. They were unable to medevac anyone because the hatch in the sail doesn't open far enough to allow a backboard to exit there.

There are always ships out there mapping the ocean floor. The problem is it's a really, really big fucking ocean!

I think there will be some serious evaluations by structural and naval engineers on her hull to find out what other damage occurred. Although the pressure hull was not breached, that does not mean it didn't deform (permanently) in some manner. The decision to keep her or scrap her would have to based on a full boat inspection, bow to stern, to look at the hull shape. If it is just bow damage, and we can paste in a new bow a al the USS Wisconsin, that's great.

At least if they scrap her, it's not a total loss. She can be a "donor boat" for some other sub nearing EOL for the reactor core.

And no matter what the outcome, this will provide some very good (though costly) data about the design and manufacturing of our subs. You can simulate crashes all day long with FEA, but a real world test is great verification of all that effort. Having the accident occur at flank speed will provide lots of useful data. The sad part is the loss of a life and the injuries :( - but if it happens, we might as well get something useful out of it.

At least when I was on the 'E' we hit mud when we went aground in '83. I can't imagine hitting a solid rock at flank speed (shudder).

Sub skipper to lose command
 

Link from CNN

I recall someone mentioning early in this thread this was par for the course. I hope more info is released as to the circumstances leading up to the incident.

Link

The following is purported to be the unedited account of the San Francisco grounding written by the on-watch Diving Officer. I received it from a reliable source. I have inserted comments in color to define the jargon or terms that may be unfamiliar to non-submariners.

To say that I've had a bad year so far would be a little short on the tooth I think (understated). Last year was a good one for the boat. After spending 5 months away from home in drydock (Sandy Eggo) we got our second BA (below average) on ORSE (Operational Reactor Safeguards Exam) (bad juju), received the highest score in PacFlt (Pacific Ocean Submarine Force) for a submarine TRE (Tactical Readiness Evaluation, a significant evaluation of the crew's ability to use their weapons systems) inspection, aced (got a high score on) our mine readiness inspection with 4 out of 4 hits, completed 2 outstanding missions (will have to shoot you), and completed a early ORSE just before Christmas with an EXCELLENT.

It was also the first year that Auxiliary Division had a Christmas standown since coming out of the yards in 2002. A-division also took the CSS-15 Red DC award for the second year in a row. My retention has been 100% since I checked on board in Oct 2002 amongst 1st/2nd and turd termers.

We were going to our first true liberty port 2 weeks ago, heading for Brisbane and fun in the sun. As this WOG (a traditional term used by sailors for those who have experienced the crossing the equator, sort of a "right of passage") knows, we were getting ready for our crossing the line ceremony and the crew was really upbeat, and hard charging, we had just completed a great year for the San Fran.

To say the world went to shyte in a hand basket would be an understatement. I would put it closer to a nightmare that becomes reality.

The seamount that is a large part of the discussion the last 2 weeks is un-named. The charts we carried onboard were up to date as far as we can tell. No modern geographic data for this area was available to us onboard as it is a remote area not often traveled by the Navy. We have one of the BEST ANav's (Assistant Navigator) in the fleet onboard, a true quartergasket (quartermaster, the Navy rating that is trained as navigator) that takes pride in his job. We have RLGN's (Ring Laser Gyro Navigation, or, fancy high-end accurate navigation equipment) onboard, when they are running, they are accurate as hell for our position, they also drive Tomahawks (the same cruise missile weapons used in Iraq) .

We knew where we were. All of my depth gauges and digital read the same depths as we changed depth to our SOE (Ship's Operating Envelope, technical specifications for the required minimum or maximum depth for a given speed for a submarine) depth for flank. I can't discuss a lot, because I'm still a participant of at least 2 investigations....LOL.

I was the Diving Officer of the Watch when we grounded. If you read the emails from ComSubPac, you will get some of the details, from flank speed to less than 4 knots in less than 4 seconds. We have it recorded on the RLGN's-those cranky bastages actually stayed up and recorded everything.

For you guys that don't understand that, take a Winnebego full of people milling around and eating, slam it into a concrete wall at about 40mph, and then try to drive the damn thing home and pick up the pieces of the passengers.

As for the actual grounding, I can tell you that it was fortunate that myself and the Chief of the Watch were blessed by somebody. I was standing up, changing the expected soundings for a new depth on the chart (yes, we had just moved into deeper water) leaning against the ship's control panel with a hand grip, and the COW (Chief of the Watch) was leaning down to call the COB on the MJ.

The next thing to cross my mind was why am I pushing myself off of the SCP (Ship's Control Panel, the main instrument and control panel for steering and driving the submarine) and where the hell the air rupture in the control room come from? I didn't know it, but I did a greater than 3g spiderman against the panel, punched a palm through the only plexiglass gauge on the SCP and had my leg crushed by the DOOW (Diving Officer Of the Watch) chair that I had just unbuckled (seatbelts are normally worn at high speeds) from. The DOOW chair was broken loose by the QMOW (QuarterMaster Of the Watch) flying more than 15 feet into it and smashing my leg against a hydraulic valve and the SCP. I don't remember freeing myself from it. If I had been buckled in, I don't think I would be writing this.

The COW (Chief Of the Watch) was slammed against the base of the Ballast Control Panel, and only injured his right arm. He could of destroyed the BCP (Ballast Control Panel), he was a big boy. Everybody else in control, with the exception of the helm, was severely thrown to the deck or other items that were in their way, and at least partially dazed.

Within about 5 seconds of the deceleration! , we blew to the surface, it took that 5 seconds for the COW to climb up the BCP and actuate the EMBT (Emergency Main Ballast Tank) blow.

We prepared to surface right away and got the blower running asap, I didn't know how much damage we had forward but knew it was not good, I wanted that blower running.

I would say that about 80% of the crew was injured in some way, but do not know the number. We grounded in the middle of a meal hour, just after field day, so most of the crew was up. Once we got the boat on the surface and semi-stable with the blower running the rest of the ship conditions started sinking in to our minds.

We were receiving 4MC's (reports over a submarine's emergency-use-only sound-powered phone system) for injured men all over the boat. I was worried that those reports were over whelming any equipment/boat casualties that could make our life worse. I had teams form up of able bodied men to inspect all of the forward elliptical bulkhead, lower level, and tanks below those spaces. I couldn't believe that we did not have flooding, it just didn't fit in. At one point I looked around in the control room, and saw the disaster. The entire control room deck was covered in paper from destroyed binders, and blood. It looked like a slaughterhouse, we had to clean it up.

I knew that Ash (MM2(SS) Joseph Ashley, the only crewmember that did not survive the grounding) was severly injured and brought to the messdecks, he was one of my best men, and one of our best sailors onboard, he was like a son to me. After surfacing I was the control room supervisor, I had a boat to keep on the surface and fight and knew that if I went below to see how he was doing, it would teeter me on the brink of something that the ship did not need, the ship needed somebody who knew her. I have to say that the design engineers at Electric Boat, NavSea and others have designed a submarine that can withstand incredible amounts of damage and survive. We lost no systems, equipment, or anything broke loose during the impact. The damage to our sailors was almost all from them impacting into the equipment.

The crew is a testament to training and watch team backup. When a casualty occurs, you fight like you train, and train like you fight. It kept us alive during that 2+day period.

I've just returned from the honor of escorting my sailor home to his family. God bless them, they are truly good people and patriotic. The Navy is doing everything they can for them and they are learning how submariner's take care of each other. During the memorial and viewing on Saturday, CSS-15 (Commander, Submarine Squadron 15) provided a video from the coast guard of us on the surface and the SEAL/Dr. medical team being helo'd in, the family had this video played on 2 screens in the background. It was a sobering reminder of what a hard woman the ocean can be. We had to call off the helo because of the sea state, it was becoming too dangerous for the aircraft, we almost hit it with the sail a couple of times.

The sea would not allow us to medivac (evacuate people for medical reasons) in our condition and that sea state. I was one of the 23 sent to the hospital that Monday. I was fortunate, my leg was not broken, just trashed/bruised. I walked on that leg for almost 24 hours before it gave out on ! me and they had it splinted. The SEAL made me promise not to walk on it, how do you refuse a SEAL? LOL. So I hopped around on a single leg for awhile, the other chief's were calling me Tiny Tim, LOL. "God bless each and every one! Except you, and you, that guy behind you!". The COB (Chief Of the Boat) threatened to beat my @ss if I walk onboard before my leg is otay, he's about the only man onboard that I'd take that from, hehe.

The crew is doing better, we've lost a few due to the shock of the incident. We will make sure they are taken care of.

The investigation goes on, and I have a new CO. I will only say that the San Fran was the best damn sub in the Navy under CDR Mooney's leadership. We proved that. God bless him and his family no matter what happens in the future, he is truly a good man.

I just need to get my leg healed and get back to fighting my favorite steel bitch (working on his favorite submarine).

So they give a commander a bum set of charts, he uses them properly, hits a rock, and they end his career? I wonder if any Navy cartographers will lose their job over this, or just the guy that was using their map?

It's the nature of the beast. IIRC, there was an article in USNI's Proceedings 20 years ago concerning washing out potential Captain's over minor shiphandling mistakes would have derailed Admiral Nimitz's career. He'd grounded a destroyer as a junior watch officer and the incident didn't prevent him from advancing.

I can't say anything, but I've read the mishap report detailing the results of the initial investigation. There were things the chain of command could/should have seen that would have prevented the grounding - that's why the CO was relieved.

Pat

Fair enough, you're definitely in a position to know more than I do regarding this situation. Thanks Pat.

The whales were using their sonar and caused it to beach. ;)

Rumor I heard is that the chart was not certified for sub use. Just a rumor, but from a reasonably reliable source (and I assume UNCLASS-LCDR Olsen, if I'm wrong, please PM LT to have this post deleted). How a non-sub-certified chart got on a sub, well, the Navy moves in mysterious ways.

From www.strategypage.com

Medical Report

I'm not sure I agree with the way strategypage.com characterizes the intelligence problem. They make it sound as though NGA knew there was a seamount at that location and willfully decided not to put it on a chart. That (in my understanding) is not the case. First of all, the satellites aren't able to tell exactly what is there, or how far below the surface it is - they can just tell there's something there, and thus a survey ship should go accurately survey the area. And that assumes that the data from the survey satellite has been processed and that there has been human interaction with the data so that someone actually knows there's a seamount there. When we were trained on all the lessons learned immediately following the grounding we were told that NGA "found" the seamount as a result of the SAN FRAN grounding - they went and did a targeted search through the satellite survey data and found that yes, there's something there.

As with many of the intelligence agencies, all the money invested gets you lots of cool toys (satellites and other gadgets) that gather shit-tons of data. But it still takes some sort of human interaction to extract information from that data, and that's where NGA was lagging behind. There's no easy fix for that. And once you've identified that there's a spot that needs to be surveyed out in the deep blue sea, you run into the fact that there are only a small number of survey ships around the world to do such surveys. As I recall less than 1% of the ocean bottom has been accurately surveyed by those ships.

Even without that possible seamount shown on the chart, there was enough data available for them to have realized that doing All Ahead Flank in that area was not prudent, which is why people were held accountable.

Looks like someone else is getting an early retirement(possibly with a reduction in rank).


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,489590,00.html



How the heck do you hit a reef in what is one of the most charted ports in the world? And what is the typically visibility off Honolulu? 25'? Hell, you should have been able to just look out the window and say, "Hey, Cap, you might want to steer to starboard so we don't hit that reef."

I'm guessing a big part of the answer is...
Even in the GPS age, the ship doesn't drive itself. You have a crew that hasn't been to sea in at least 4 months and they're going to be rusty. Combine that rustiness with some complacency ("Just a routine small boat transfer off the reef runway...") and next thing you know you're in a bad spot.

Mechanical failure could also be in play.

33 foot draft in 22 feet of water..hmmm. This could get ugly fast.

So who was stalking whom?

Huh, very interesting. Being on the left coast I hadn't heard anything about this. I'll have to see if I have any compadres in the Lant or Med that might have some details (not that I could post them here, of course :) ).

Since pretty much every country in Europe has subs, AFAIK they all deconflict waterspace with each other so that this sort of this can't happen. My thinking is this isn't a case of who was stalking whom, but instead is a case of who wasn't where they were supposed to be?

Pat

I guess so. You would think that with both being boomers they would avoid contact, let alone getting close enough to collide.

The French have been getting something of a reputation with regard to their aggressive sigint/RCS activities over the past decade. They're known for putting enough RF on new planes to pop a bag of Pop (top?) Secret every chance they get. Probably selling the data to Iran or at least setting up the marketing pitch that the weapons they have on the market are effective against xx platform... (speculation)

Emitters? I can't see a reason for an aircraft to emit a ton of RF other than an AWACS-type of bird, and you typically don't have a ton of those in your arsenal.

(Yes, warbirds have targeting radar, and most everyone has weather-type radar. I'm talking about light-up-the-entire-sky, flying-aircraft-traffic-controller radar here.)

I believe he is referring to how much RF the French are aiming AT the new planes in order to generate target profiles, etc. Hence the selling info to Iran comment afterwards.

Ah -- I see. I've never worked with active RF (radar, etc...) The stuff I did Way Back When was entirely passive (i.e. listen to the RF spectrum and identify known signals hiding out in all the static.) It's a lot harder for the enemy find you if you're not spraying RF all over the place...

I was referring to the latter. The last time they showed up to red flag, it was pretty much a recon mission to gather electrons from every asset they could spot. We didn't take the F-22 to Paris for the longest time because we knew the frogs would burn the paint off of the thing trying to get a profile they could use. Not to mention the "customs" inspection...

I can only surmise their efforts are just as aggressive in the field and in other branches of the military. Then again, the Brits probably like to sniff butts to get a feel for how their neighbors do business from time to time as well. I know diddly about sub ops - would it even make sense for two ICBM boats to interact?

Not at all. The more I think about this, the more I think it's gotta be either a navigation error or a coordination mistake. Either someone's inertial navigators were on the fritz, or someone got assigned the wrong waterspace.

Or, maybe the information just isn't shared, which is what an article on Time's website is now saying.

So there you have it. A break-down of the "big ocean, small boat" theory. Two modern, very quiet SSBNs creeping along on patrol aren't going to hear each other until they're extremely close.

I do love the ridiculously paranoid press release from the anti-nuke nannies:
:rolleyes: The PHILADELPHIA was hit by a 600+ft, 35,000 ton merchant while on the surface a few years back near Bahrain. The merchant's bow hit a little ways aft of the sail and the merchant rode up and literally drove over the top of PHILLY and got hung up on the sub's rudder. Even a 35,000 ton merchant did nothing but dent the hull. The KURSK had an onboard explosion that tore the nose of the ship off, yet there was no damage to the reactors. The SAN FRANCISCO came about as close as could be to being lost when it slammed into that seamount at 35+mph, and there wasn't any hint of damage to the reactor. The THRESHER and SCORPION, both of which were lost in the 1960s, still have released nothing to the environment (I'm not sure if there's more recent data available, that was the first I found in a quick search). It would take something pretty frickin' catastrophic to rupture the hull and damage the reactor to the point that radiation was released to the environment, but of course the no-nuke nannies wouldn't let a little bit of fact get in the way of a good opportunity to spread fear and misinformation. :mad:

Pat

Port Royal in the dock.

Link fixed. Fucking Chrome can be a pain.

Your link is broken, but I think it was just a cut/paste error.

Link is broken, but it looks like it'll buff out!

That's a lot of trees supporting that ship. That's just damned impressive.

That's WAY higher than when my ship was drydocked in Long Beach, no doubt to clear the bulbous bow. I always had to stoop somewhat to work underneath it. Eerie feeling to know you might get squished if someone miscalculated something or the big one came along.

Try that under an Aircraft Carrier (CVN-65)...I only had to go once under there and it was once too many.

What are the rows of pad-eye's along the hull for?

From the S.F. piece:

Bullshit. They do an NJP when there is a systemic problem that they do not wish to have examined openly. Had they gone to Courts Martial the issues would have been examined from every angle and heads other than those on the boat would have likely rolled.

Looking at the photos it seems like they may have hit a sandbar rather than a reef. Having served in Astoria Oregon (Colombia river bar) and in Hawaii I can assure you that sandbars move.

There are a number of them along the Oahu south shore that move around quite a bit. South swells will create, erase and expose surf spots that weren't there a week ago.

"Hogging in," whatever that is.

edit: (according to some model builder's site reviewing a model of one of an Arleigh Burke class destroyer. which also has them)

Whoops. :(

Damn you Stack... ya beat me by 15 seconds...LOL

The headline is gone off CNN.com's homepage now, but I had to laugh at the headline this morning: "Two US Navy Vessels Collide Near Iran". :rolleyes: Uhhhh, yeah, they were also near Oman and the UAE. What the fuck does Iran have to do with anything, other than it makes your headline sound more inflammatory?

What? Why were our Navy boats near Iran? What were they up to? This will be seen as inflammatory to their Govt. These renegade cowboys in the Military must be reined in.

USS Hartford Pics,

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/hts.../20090322.aspx

Scroll to the bottom of the page,
click on the View Comments
Scroll to the bottom of the page

That'll buff out.

Ouch.

Do they make bondo that holds up under sea water?

That conning tower is.....oh what's the word......fucked?

How much of that structure has WTI?

Unrelated:

Pic # 2. The Navy really needs to do something about the UDT shorts. Every time I see them I am reminded of Rick Barry in the '76 NBA finals.

"Is that someone taking a fuckin picture?!?!" LOL

http://www.navy.mil/management/photo...-9909C-848.jpg

The overwhelming majority of the sail is a free-flood area. The watertight portion is the bridge access trunk, which runs vertically from where the guys are sitting straight down. There's a hatch at the pressure hull, and then another in the bridge cockpit about 4 or 5 feet below the top of the sail.

And yes, that sail is fucked.

Pat

This is the second time the Hartford had a run in with something other than water. She ran aground in 2003 off Sardinia (Italy) in the Med.

The account of what led to the grounding was amazing if not good for a few chuckles ala Keystone Kops:

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/top...ford_grounding

What's up with all the US Subs seeming like they're running into shit lately? Has it always been like this and we just didn't hear about it? They had the Japanese fishing boat thing, the japanese tanker thing, the san fran running into the seamount, now this.. is it just a bad decade or are we driving these things pretty aggressively?

The rate of collisions/allisions/groundings has stayed pretty consistent for years (just to show an example), despite lots of effort to learn from the mistakes of others and avoid these sorts of things. There have been some particularly high profile incidents in the recent past, but it's not like all of the things you mentioned just happened the other day. It may not seem like it, but the sinking of the Ehime Maru off Oahu was just over 8 years go.

And yes, the Hartford grounding is one that just makes me cringe, particularly as a former Navigator. We actually just had training on that one last week with our officers and navigation team - that whole "learing from the mistakes of others" thing in action.

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/464/failsub1.jpg

Pat
Based on the damage do you think the Sub was submerged except for the exhaust pipe? Looks like the surface ship's draft made contact with the top of the tower but not the rest of the sub.

Wes

That looks like haze grey paint to me. One hell of a sliding push.
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c3...nDiego/sub.jpg