Ooops..nuclear sub hits underwater object

[Clivevon]

For goodness sake dont tell the Chinese where it is. They’ll turn into yet another island..

[Raggedglory]

If you want to believe the U.S. navy. 😉

[Alan Mighty]

Originally Posted by Raggedglory

If you want to believe the U.S. navy. 😉

[1] A source close to the Chinese navy said Beijing was aware of the location of the collision and its main concern was what the USS Connecticut was doing there.

“It happened in a narrow ocean trench in the South China Sea. So what China is worried about is not the object the USS Connecticut hit, but what it was doing before the accident,” said the source, who requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter.

...

The Seawolf-class submarines are used for specialised intelligence gathering.

According to Beijing-based naval expert Li Jie, the US Navy sends its submarines towards China’s coastline to collect the “voice prints” of People’s Liberation Army vessels.

Source: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/mili...-hasnt-clearly

[2] US special-purpose aircraft the Constant Phoenix may have been in the South China Sea region to examine radioactive material, military experts said, after a Beijing-based think tank cited satellite images to report five American reconnaissance planes operating in the area at the weekend.

Source: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/mili...rveyed-nuclear

[GordMay]

U.S. Navy: Stealthy Seawolf-Class Sub Hit an Uncharted Seamount

The US. 7th Fleet has completed a command investigation [1], into the recent collision involving the submarine USS “Connecticut” [SSN-22], in the South China Sea, and it has determined that the sub struck "an uncharted seamount, while operating in international waters."

The Connecticut's command will now review "whether follow-on actions - including accountability - are appropriate."

USS “Connecticut” sustained an underwater collision on October 2, at an undisclosed position in the South China Sea. At least 11 crewmembers sustained minor cuts, scrapes and bruises in the incident. The damage, to the forward section of the submarine, damaged its ballast tanks, and prompted “Connecticut” to make a week-long voyage, on the surface, from the South China Sea to Guam. The submarine’s nuclear reactor and propulsion system are undamaged.

The boat is in currently in Guam undergoing initial repairs overseen by Naval Sea Systems Command, personnel from the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and submarine tender USS Emory S. Land (AS-39).

Military submarines typically operate without active sonar, while under way, relying on survey data, to navigate safely, without giving away their position. That survey data is not always complete enough to reveal underwater obstructions, especially as the seabed is not an entirely static surface.

Subs have struck seamounts before: in 2005, the USS “San Francisco” struck a submerged feature at full speed, resulting in severe damage to her bow. 98 crewmembers were injured, including one individual who later died of his wounds.

[1] USN Statement regarding USS "Connecticut" (SSN 22) Command Investigation
➥ https://www.cpf.navy.mil/News/Articl...investigation/

[dannc]

Originally Posted by Alan Mighty

[1] ....
[2] US special-purpose aircraft the Constant Phoenix may have been in the South China Sea region to examine radioactive material, military experts said, after a Beijing-based think tank cited satellite images to report five American reconnaissance planes operating in the area at the weekend.

Source: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/mili...rveyed-nuclear

The WC-135 Constant Phoenix is a plane with sensor's used to see if nuclear explosions/tests have occurred.

Interestingly, of the three references to the WC-135 flight I could find, all of them referenced the story from Bejing and used words such as may and alleged.

Usually, these flights get picked up on US websites and show the planes flight path. Hard to believe but the planes are flown with their tracking devices active so their flight paths are visible.

For instance a WC-135 was flown into the Baltic in August and the tracks were clearly seen.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...sniffing-plane

One would think the PLAAF would be able to show the tracks of the WC-135 that may have flown over the South China Sea, either from normal ADS-B or the PLAAF's own sensors.

Later,
Dan

[garyfdl]

Nightly news reported tonight that the Navy relived the CO, XO, and the COB (Chief of the Boat), a Master Chief Sonarman, of duty (essentially ending their Naval careers). The Navy's reasoning was the boat was traveling too fast for being in a poorly charted area.

As an (old - was in Sub school, Groton, CT this time 50 years ago) ex-bubblehead, I'm wondering: why not the Navigator? Or is the 'Nav' a thing of the past? (Can any, more recent bubbleheads fill me in?)

[GordMay]

USS Connecticut CO, XO, COB Relieved Over Collision in South China Sea ‘Due to Loss of Confidence’
The commander of the Navy's Seventh Fleet, Vice Adm. Karl Thomas, relieved the commanding officer, of the submarine USS “Connecticut”, Cmdr. Cameron Aljilani, the executive officer, Lt. Cmdr. Patrick Cashin, and the top enlisted sailor, Master Chief Sonar Technician Cory Rodgers, "due to loss of confidence", according to a Navy statement.

More ➥ https://news.usni.org/2021/11/04/uss...-of-confidence

Evidently, the sub' hit an 'uncharted' seamount.
I'd be interested to know, how the Navy expected the sonarman to detect the seamount, if required to remain stealthy.

[garyfdl]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Evidently, the sub' hit an 'uncharted' seamount.
I'd be interested to know, how the Navy expected the sonarman to detect the seamount, if required to remain stealthy.

From my brief time in the Navy, this is a "the buck stops here" situation/someone has to be accountable, and, in situations like this, that 'someone' is always the 'Captain' (commanding officer).

I am a bit surprised though that they also 'hung' the XO and the COB out to dry; I would have expected the Navigator to get canned as well, unless there are no longer officer position-Navigators on board.

On the boats I was on (again almost 50 years ago) the 'fathometer'/monitoring depth was the responsibility of the Nav ET's, who were under the direction of a Navigation officer. Sonar had nothing to do with it. But, that may have changed.

[mabowers]

Originally Posted by GordMay

USS Connecticut CO, XO, COB Relieved Over Collision in South China Sea ‘Due to Loss of Confidence’
The commander of the Navy's Seventh Fleet, Vice Adm. Karl Thomas, relieved the commanding officer, of the submarine USS “Connecticut”, Cmdr. Cameron Aljilani, the executive officer, Lt. Cmdr. Patrick Cashin, and the top enlisted sailor, Master Chief Sonar Technician Cory Rodgers, "due to loss of confidence", according to a Navy statement.

More ➥ https://news.usni.org/2021/11/04/uss...-of-confidence

Evidently, the sub' hit an 'uncharted' seamount.
I'd be interested to know, how the Navy expected the sonarman to detect the seamount, if required to remain stealthy.

The Master Chief's rating (specialty) of Sonar Technician was irrelevant, it was his rate (rank) of Master Chief Petty Officer and assignment as Chief of the Boat that gave him responsibility and accountability.

As far as navigation equipment, they would be using SINS (Ships Inertial Navigation System) and fathometers (maintained by Electronics Technicians vice Sonar Technicians) for navigation.

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by garyfdl

Nightly news reported tonight that the Navy relived the CO, XO, and the COB (Chief of the Boat), a Master Chief Sonarman, of duty (essentially ending their Naval careers). The Navy's reasoning was the boat was traveling too fast for being in a poorly charted area.

As an (old - was in Sub school, Groton, CT this time 50 years ago) ex-bubblehead, I'm wondering: why not the Navigator? Or is the 'Nav' a thing of the past? (Can any, more recent bubbleheads fill me in?)

Yep, the buck stops here.
Relieved of command. I'm not surprised, with all the fancy sonar etc, someone wasn't paying attention even though it was uncharted.
Their Navy careers end here as far as moving up.

[Wallaby]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

Yep, the buck stops here.
Relieved of command. I'm not surprised, with all the fancy sonar etc, someone wasn't paying attention even though it was uncharted.
Their Navy careers end here as far as moving up.

It may well be a cover-up. Seamounts tend to be large--being extinct volcanoes--so hard to miss given "all the fancy sonar etc.". Here's an interesting place to find known seamounts: https://earthref.org/SC/#top



That said, as I posted way back...


"Based on the Navy's investigations of prior collision incidents, it is likely someone was not doing his/her job."

[garyfdl]

Originally Posted by Wallaby

It may well be a cover-up. Seamounts tend to be large--being extinct volcanoes--so hard to miss given "all the fancy sonar etc.". Here's an interesting place to find known seamounts: https://earthref.org/SC/#top



That said, as I posted way back...


"Based on the Navy's investigations of prior collision incidents, it is likely someone was not doing his/her job."

Based on NOAA only about 5% of the worlds oceans are mapped. That said, areas of strategic interest have certainly been mapped more thoroughly, but it is still easy to miss some things. And new sea mounts are forming all the time.

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/d...0210928a/full/

And these instances aren't what I would call unusual. Back in the early 70's one of our fast attacks 'ran aground' while submerged near the Virgin islands. On my first command we came very close while on patrol. The Nav ET noticed the bottom coming up and alerted the OOD/CDO. The OOD in turn ordered the diving officer/planesmen to reduce speed and decrease our depth. We came up more than 100' to clear the 'hump', were above periscope depth, and had less water under the keel than overhead. The biggest factor in the whole scenario was our speed. We were not in transit, were moving slowly, and the boat had time to react to the control input. The skipper said we were lucky, a couple knots faster and we might have hit bottom. That 'hump' btw, was not on any chart at the time.

I'm also going to disagree about people not doing their job(s). Sometimes everyone is doing their job and it's just bad luck. But the Navy will still hold someone accountable.

[Polar Opposite]

Originally Posted by garyfdl

As an (old - was in Sub school, Groton, CT this time 50 years ago) ex-bubblehead, I'm wondering: why not the Navigator? Or is the 'Nav' a thing of the past? (Can any, more recent bubbleheads fill me in?)

NAV is certainly still a "thing". It's now the "Nav/Ops", but he/she is still responsible for keeping the boat off the rocks. It may be that the NAV recommended a slower track through the area and was overruled, or that he/she wasn't afforded the opportunity to weigh in.

[Polar Opposite]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I'd be interested to know, how the Navy expected the sonarman to detect the seamount, if required to remain stealthy.

Gord, the Navy wouldn't have expected them to detect it. But every sub driver knows the lesson of the SAN FRANCISCO grounding...you don't operate at high speeds in poorly charted water. If you look at the chart and see lines of sounding that are 5 miles apart and are credited to the BEAGLE or Sir Francis Drake, it's time to slow down and poke your way through.

[garyfdl]

Originally Posted by Polar Opposite

NAV is certainly still a "thing". It's now the "Nav/Ops", but he/she is still responsible for keeping the boat off the rocks. It may be that the NAV recommended a slower track through the area and was overruled, or that he/she wasn't afforded the opportunity to weigh in.

Thanks!

Have to admit I chuckled at "he/she" - and while I don't doubt a woman's ability to do the job - locking up (young) men and women, together, in a 'sewer pipe', for months at a time... what could go wrong???

Maybe with today's technology, boredom isn't as big a thing as it was 50 years ago.