It could be hitting the bottom of the ocean (which nearly killed 130+ people on the USS San Francisco years ago - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_San_Francisco_(SSN-711)#Co...), it could be hitting another ship above it (coming to and/or operating at periscope depth is dangerous), or potentially another sub.
Invariably people get fired, and whatever happens becomes a lesson learned that the Navy trains on in the future.
Former enlisted here. Unfortunately death by power point doesn't solve the problem of overworked sailors.
(This happened to us on Ustafish)
It really depends on who dies. Luckily, there are far better ways to solve the problem than by killing someone.
But in the case of subs, aren't there automated warnings and such? Certainly the computers are monitoring the signals as much as the humans.
Certainly the humans shouldn't be overworked, but how does a ultra high end military vehicle (?) strike something?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vanguard_and_Le_Triomphant...
I saw the story about USS San Francisco earlier today and that led me to reading about the USS Thresher... Really sad story but it led to changes that years later resulted in the USS SF surviving intact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_(SSN-593)
In the debates surrounding some of the most recent incidents (see, e.g., https://www.propublica.org/series/navy-accidents-pacific-7th...) I remember reading claims to the effect that submarine captains are the last ones in the Navy who actually know how to pilot a boat. I know that claim is hyperbolic rhetoric but those Pro Publica pieces really make me think it's not far from the truth, and that while submariner training may still be exceptionally rigorous and responsive to newly identified risks, that's not necessarily true in the case of surface ships.
We operated that way even when steaming on the surface in the shipping lanes shared with the Port of New York.
So it isn't always a matter of "actually knowing how to pilot a boat". Sometimes its just plain recklessness.
Edit: this one
https://features.propublica.org/navy-uss-mccain-crash/navy-i...
But submarines don't spend a heck of a lot of time on the surface where piloting skill matters. They stay submerged through the Straits of Gibraltar, the Straits of Hormuz, a lot of the Red Sea, etc. Submarines are slow on the surface and appear much smaller than they really are, so it's generally best for everyone if they go underneath or around chokepoints.
Given that there is a collision about to happen, isn't there a sensor that would give some type of warning? And I'm guessing that the answer to my stupid question is that a sensor would give away the position of the submarine because anything emitting a signal would defeat the point of the sub?
Is this how the Navy deals with accidents? I can understand being fired for failing to do your duty but operating a sub is both hard and dangerous. Things are going to go wrong. If everyone did their job isn’t this just a learning opportunity?
But if you're the captain of a ship that's at fault in a crash? The inadequacies revealed in the crew's training are kinda your fault.
For example, in 2017 when the USS Fitzgerald collided with a container ship [1] and the captain was relieved of his command, despite the fact he'd been in bed during the collision.
It's normal, in 95% of jobs, that if you cause $$$$$$$$ of damage by making a mistake, you get fired.
I imagine it'd be like being on a glacier, hitting another glacier.
Is there any reason why they can't check what's above them before ascending?
This is because they need to stay undetected, and rely completely on passive sensors; which can be dicey.
The inputs they'd be able to use would include:
1. GNSS location (only if surfaced)
2. Passive sonar data (detecting location of electromagnetic signals through water e.g. acoustic noise of another ships propeller)
3. Active sonar data (only if stealth is unnecessary)
4. Radar data (only if surfaced)
5. Bathymetry models/charts[2] (accuracy depends on location in the world)
6. Tide prediction models[3] (availability is location dependent)
7. Inertial navigation sensors (dead reckoning so accuracy drifts over time)
8. Surface Electronic Support Measures sensors (allows geolocation of signals from other ships, aircraft and ground transmitters)
[1] https://osimaritime.com/solutions/software/ecpins-submarine/
[2] https://www.admiralty.co.uk/digital-services/digital-charts/...
[3] https://www.admiralty.co.uk/publications/admiralty-digital-p...
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjHf9jaFs8XWoGULb2HQRvhzB...
If you're up at periscope depth you can stick a periscope up to see and other antennas. If you're on the surface you typically send people up into the sail and the boat is commanded from there. (Only a couple people fit up there, so the people actually operating the rudder and navigating are belowdecks).
Overall you generally get a good indication of what's happening, but... it's definitely possible to be surprised.
This increase in recent collisions (including training jets) is probably due to the Navy's "five and dimes" sleep schedule that basically guarantees every squid mustang and sardine is a combat worthless zombie due to sleep depravation.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017/july/let-our...
But there was one piece of equipment on board that normally runs for ~20-30minutes at a time. It had to run continuously until the ship came into port or the submarine would have sank and 130+ people would have died. They got VERY lucky everything worked out.
Silly question: how do you identify a target? Sound only? It seems like you would want something visual.
During sea trials of a new boat, they have it do passes specifically for sonar to listen to it. Partly so they can learn its sound signature, but also to see if they can hear annomalies during construction. They've found toolboxes left inside a double hull by the builders.
They do have visuals with the waterfall displays and what not. Last I looked into sonar operations was in the early 90s, so not sure what the kids are using now.
They can do all of this without making a sound to allow someone else to know they are there.
The Navy trains to do a series of maneuvers that helps you understand the range to the ships you do hear, and positions the sub most safely to come to periscope depth. And then while you're coming to periscope depth you're looking out to see if there are any indications you've screwed up. But yeah, there's nothing visual available when you're under the water.
My understanding is that US subs don’t travel in packs, so anything they detect is generally the enemy, and especially so if it’s submerged, unless they are escorting a carrier.
> with crack seal-type units only operating them
There already are highly skilled individuals that operate them. Seal team members are in limited supply and think it makes more sense to have those that are more intellectually strong run them.
They are a deterrent and non-nuclear submarines have large drawbacks when in combat. China has become more and more aggressive and they have scaled up their nuclear missile silos a bunch in recent years, have been sprinting towards a large more effective navy and I don't think they will have qualms about using morally questionable tech.
they do not know what reality is, they can compute/evaluate only that which they obtain by some flawed means.
Ridiculous implication that Naval Special Warfare is somehow “intellectually weak” when there are multiple Trident wearers who have qualified as astronauts or went on to Ivy League schools.
US means it can be US + UK because reasons.
Land based ICBMs are more accurate than SLBMs and would launch in retaliation.
The US has stealth cruise missiles it can launch from bombers.
The US has the B1 and B2 bombers that can deliver nukes.
Many Navy ships can launch nuclear cruise missiles.
The USA is the only superpower that has such robust nuclear weapons delivery via a triad (land, air, sea). With Russian SLBM subs it is said they are so noisy that US attack subs are always silently tailing them after they leave port and can take them out before they can launch. Russia and China really only have robust land-based ICBMs. If all of those could be preemptively attacked (by stealth strikes and commando raids) then the US could potentially win a nuclear war. Not that we'd want to try.
a statement like this is just an acknowledgement of facts that would become public anyways, and a pre-emptive refusal to provide any further details. it exists so that when a somebody asks a question, they can say "please refer to our already published statement"
A Sea Wolf attack submarine struct something in the South China Sea. I get the feeling it hit another sub or some anti-sub defense. This is definitely a non-good event.
A lot of cargo containers are lost overboard. They don't all immediately sink to the bottom (sealed air, bouyant cargo, etc)
What's the sonar signature of a 40 foot shipping container that's just floating below the surface? Are you even going to hear it without going active?
What kind of damage does that do, if your submarine plows into it, even at a slow speed? My understanding is that the bow isn't entirely metal, that there's fiberglass (or something similar) where the sonar equipment is located.
> As for what the submarine hit, details remain limit. U.S. officials have reportedly said that there are no indications at present that the "object" was another submarine.
"No indications at present" does not mean the same thing as "did not." Neither gives a proper quote of whatever statement they're paraphrasing, but I can easily see the former being transmuted into the latter by a careless journalist.
Can any military really say this with a straight face? It's obviously not their top priority. If it was, they wouldn't be packing actual live humans into a pressurized nuclear-powered tube packed with explosives and send them into the black. Not to mention that whole "going to war" thing they occasionally do. That's pretty risky stuff, or so I hear.
Sorry for the snark. One can only take so much BS per hour, and I just got out of a meeting so my tolerance was low.
Source: was submariner.
Looks like 11 sailors were hurt. Very interesting indeed. Some sort of reconnaissance buoy? Or perhaps they were traveling close to the bottom of the South China Sea and hit the bottom? China considers the South China Sea an internal lake, so they would think they’re within their rights to mine it or otherwise defend it with submarine nets or booms. I imagine within the context of a larger conflict the PLAN would enact all sorts of submarine countermeasures in the South China Sea. This is why the lack of clarity/conflict regarding ownership of that body of water is so dangerous for the rest of the world.
You know what these subs are doing, right?
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2017/08/27/navy-swo...
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42669/one-of-the-navys...
