PDA

View Full Version : USS San Francisco



andyhunter
01-29-2005, 09:45 PM
Check this (http://navysite.de/ssn/ssn711.htm) out. I couldn't imagine that happening to me. They lost 1 sailor and another is critically injured with back injuries. I know something like 40 people were injured to the point of not being able to stand watch (aka broken bones, lacerations, ect).

Just whoa.

*edit*

They hit an underwater sea mountain doing the equivalent of around 40 mph. BTW - roughly the size of a football field (the submarine)
*/edit*

SMurf
01-30-2005, 08:19 AM
Let me guess... the sonar GPFed? :rolleyes:

Darkness
01-30-2005, 01:24 PM
That's really scary stuff. I would hate to be in a submarine, the claustrophobia and what not. Some time ago (70s I think?) a US submarine (called the thresher I think) collapsed due to pressure, everyone died. Then what happened to the kirsk...eek. I've also heard of explosives going off inside ships and people suffocated (the blast used up all of the oxygen in the lower decks), but I think that was on surface ships not submarines.

andyhunter
01-30-2005, 01:29 PM
Yeah, the Thresher went down due to many, many problems. She wound up sinking until she passed her crush depth. All hands lost.

As for the claustrophobia thing you wind up getting use to it. After a while you just don't even think about it, although it is weird to see the sun again.

Darkness
01-30-2005, 01:42 PM
Wait, are/were you a sailor?

You know what they say about sailors, cute stuff :)

andyhunter
01-30-2005, 01:45 PM
Yep, been in over 5 years now. Actively serving on a sub right now.

Darkness
01-30-2005, 01:47 PM
Oh, wow. That's pretty cool dude. So evidently we've got a marine on the website and a sailor.

edit: yes, I did just call you dude. Sorry.

andyhunter
01-30-2005, 01:59 PM
Who's the jarhead, err marine? ;)

Govtcheez
01-30-2005, 02:03 PM
Thantos.

andyhunter
01-30-2005, 02:11 PM
I measured it out and from what I can tell from the message traffic I got the poor kid who didn't make was thrown around 8 to 10 ft before crashing head first into 'a big metal pump'(not sure what name allowed to use).

It just like whoa. I mean there you are sitting, sleeping, walking whatever and then bam! Your big football field sized submarine goes from doing roughly 40 mph to just about nothing as it scraps along the mountain. *shudder*

adrianxw
01-30-2005, 02:48 PM
How does a modern submarine with presumably the latest and greatest underwater detection equipment fail to notice a mountain?

Zach L.
01-30-2005, 03:04 PM
I don't know the details, and andyhunter probably has a better idea, but I know that sonar can be used in active (emit and detect sound) or passive (detect sound from other objects). Presumably, a mountain is rather quiet, and if the crew had no reason to think they were close to terrain, I could see something like this happening.

Also, with steeply rising terrain, I could forsee problems if the equipment did not look forward (tells you how high you are above the floor, but doesn't bother mentioning that you are about to hit a cliff). Anyway... random speculation on my part.

Darkness
01-30-2005, 03:16 PM
Who's the jarhead, err marine? ;)

If you guys get into a fight, please start a thread where I can take bets, and for the love of god record it and post it on the internet.

andyhunter
01-30-2005, 03:16 PM
I don't know the details, and andyhunter probably has a better idea, but I know that sonar can be used in active (emit and detect sound) or passive (detect sound from other objects).


And you would be correct. Furthermore to use active sonar is to give away your position so we rarely do.

The maps in use did not have the mountain listed so the route they layed out to travel was unfortunately through it. And a sounding was taken a couple of minutes before and returned satisfactory depth, thus the whole steeply rising terrain thing.

And yes, mountains are indeed quiet.

adrianxw
01-30-2005, 04:39 PM
Sorry to be a bore, but if they were travelling in "uncharted waters", not using an active bottom sensing sonar or whatever is simple negligence?

I do not believe the US Navy operates in uncharted waters by the way. Why be afraid of giving your position away to a geological feature? Who is the enemy here you are avoiding? Sounds, (groan), like some cartographic surveying was in order, and justified.

Brian
01-30-2005, 04:48 PM
Sorry to be a bore, but if they were travelling in "uncharted waters", not using an active bottom sensing sonar or whatever is simple negligence?

I do not believe the US Navy operates in uncharted waters by the way. Why be afraid of giving your position away to a geological feature? Who is the enemy here you are avoiding? Sounds, (groan), like some cartographic surveying was in order, and justified.


The whole point of submarines is that their position is a secret. Take that away and they might as well just be another boat.

andyhunter
01-30-2005, 04:50 PM
Sorry to be a bore, but if they were travelling in "uncharted waters", not using an active bottom sensing sonar or whatever is simple negligence?


They weren't in uncharted waters. The map in use did not have the mountain on it.



Who is the enemy here you are avoiding?


Noone, standard operating practice is to not give ones position away just because. The world is not a friendly place.

Darkness
01-30-2005, 04:55 PM
Quite literally, the world is not a friendly place, as technically that's what they crashed into.

SMurf
01-30-2005, 05:02 PM
Presumably the fishies aren't friendly either, they either give you a whack or try to hump you. ;)

InvariantLoop
01-30-2005, 05:02 PM
doesnt sonar works the same way a radar works? for example send a singnal, the signal bounces off an object and when the signal returns back then you know the distance of the sub from the object?

andyhunter
01-30-2005, 05:06 PM
That would be active sonar, and then yes - big picture the same.

Now that is something that is not used normally since it gives away your position - just like radar.

Usually we "listen" to determine what is going on around us - aka who is where.

Brian
01-30-2005, 05:07 PM
doesnt sonar works the same way a radar works? for example send a singnal, the signal bounces off an object and when the signal returns back then you know the distance of the sub from the object?

it works like eyes, if it's dark you turn a torch on and you can see stuff, but usually stuff is lit up anyway so you don't need your torch.

andyhunter
01-30-2005, 05:09 PM
it works like eyes, if it's dark you turn a torch on and you can see stuff, but usually stuff is lit up anyway so you don't need your torch.


?
I think you are talking about infra-red and infra-green technology.

Which by the way is very cool to use.

Govtcheez
01-30-2005, 05:11 PM
Infra-green?

Brian
01-30-2005, 05:15 PM
?
I think you are talking about infra-red and infra-green technology.

Which by the way is very cool to use.

I was trying to explain the whole passive sonar idea. You don't really get passive radar.

andyhunter
01-30-2005, 05:16 PM
yep, new improved infra-red.

Uses a smaller wavelength aka green light vice red light so the pictures are crisper and you can make out more stuff. It turns out that the human eye can interpret more shades of green thus more elaborate shading and object viewing can occur.


Oh, i get you Brian. Sorry about that. Yes, normally stuff makes a lot of noise so you don't need to bounce anything off them.

Zach L.
01-30-2005, 05:19 PM
?
I think you are talking about infra-red and infra-green technology.

Which by the way is very cool to use.
I think his analogy works... It's a little contrived, but it works.

Salem
01-31-2005, 02:40 AM
Perhaps it was one of these new stealth mountains which roam around the world's oceans undetected :p

adrianxw
01-31-2005, 03:38 AM
They weren't in uncharted waters. The map in use did not have the mountain on it.

So they were in fact. Surely using a map that does not include significant topographic features is, by definition, working uncharted?

I find it hard to believe an outfit like the US Navy does not have at least an idea of where there are and are not mountains. If they genuinely did not have an adequate map, I think it is absolutely ludicrous that they would drive around at high speed in expensive pieces of kit without looking where they were going.

Negligence. What could it otherwise be described as?

andyhunter
01-31-2005, 04:19 AM
It was an error with the map. Now I am not going to get into a discussion involving the events that led to that error as the investigation is still going on, but when the investigation is over and the results published I would be glad to discuss it.

hk_mp5kpdw
01-31-2005, 06:37 AM
Thought I saw something somewhere that said the Russian Naval/Nautical charts of the area in question were more accurate but still even they did not list the mountain as being there. Time for everyone to update those maps.

Govtcheez
01-31-2005, 09:37 AM
Perhaps it was one of these new stealth mountains which roam around the world's oceans undetected :p
Those terrorists are tricky.

B0bDole
01-31-2005, 10:11 AM
>Those terrorists are tricky.

Bush should go remove from power the leader of Canada, that will stop them.