RE: US Navy Sub and Cruiser collide off of Fl

[brad kaste]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/navy-submarine-and-cruiser-collide-off-florida/




I wonder if someone is gonna' walk the plank on this misstep.....:kilroy:

[KellyB]

Yeah, most likely. On the other hand, if antisub warfare was the exercise, then the cruiser won...:blind:

It'll be complicated: The sub should have known the cruiser was that close; the cruiser should also have been aware of the sub at such close range well before she surfaced.
Either personnel or systems failures, or both, but I'd guess there'll be change-of-command ceremonies in both vessels' futures.

[n4gix]

Typical stupid, ignorant and hysterical comments to the article. Yeah, someone's going to get the finger of blame and shame pointed at them, most likely the sub commander.

[hey_moe]

I read about that yesterday.What blows my mind is as big as both of those vessels are, how in the heck did the not see each other on radar. :pop4::isadizzy:

[Willy]

Not the first time this has happened and won't be the last. Stuff happens and everyone involved is fortunate that no one got hurt.

Moe, from what I read, the sub had just went up to periscope depth when the cruiser spotted it and tried to stop. Unfortunately, ships don't stop on a dime.

[TARPSBird]

We'll see how this incident sorts out. When I was at Fighter Squadron 101 at Oceana we had a LT who was a "stash" from the sub community waiting for a quota to attend intelligence officers' school. If the stories he told about the command environment aboard his boat reflected how things were aboard other subs, I'm amazed that there aren't more collisions and accidents in the Navy's submarine force. From my own tour aboard a destroyer I saw enough unprofessionalism and micro-management to give me a very cynical attitude about the surface Navy as well.

[SSI01]

During my tenure with my old agency I can remember seeing a declassified summarization of a Soviet Navy/GRU assessment of U.S. submarine commanders - they were termed "dangerous, cunning and unpredictable." If I were running a submarine force, that's precisely the qualities I'd want in a submarine commander. This in turn implies they will have to cut certain corners in order to achieve those goals. That usually means pushing the boat very close to its design limits, and sometimes beyond. It also implies the willingness to take calculated risks in certain situations. In order to be able to do that with any degree of certitude in war, one has to take them in peacetime drills as well - although not quite as far as in a combat situation. Maybe that's what this submarine commander was doing, we don't know. No one was hurt, which we can be thankful for. That cruiser is loaded with a LOT of sophisticated - and I mean sophisticated - sonar gear that should have detected the boat. U.S. attack subs are very quiet. Judging from the hull number of this boat it is a Los Angeles-class attack sub, not too shabby a platform. Wonder what was going on in the sonar shack on the CG? From what I recall, when subs are caught during an ASW exercise they surface or come to periscope depth and do something - like fire a flare - to show they are dead. Maybe that's what this guy was doing. After all, they can sink anything on the surface - or under it - without coming near periscope depth. Anyone here recall a story from a couple of years ago when a U.S. sub collided with something - whatever it was - and the story got out the boss believed in a relaxed working environment on the boat - so relaxed, in fact, there was a sound system installed in the control room dedicated solely to background music for the watch. Lots of variables here - ambient noise, temperature gradients in the water that can distort sound, differences in current, salinity levels, etc etc. You sure got that right about micromanagement, though.

[KellyB]

Typical stupid, ignorant and hysterical comments to the article. Yeah, someone's going to get the finger of blame and shame pointed at them, most likely the sub commander.

:ques::ques:

[TARPSBird]

n4gix is referring to the comments at the bottom of the article, not ours. Whenever a ship collision or a plane crash occurs, everybody seems to feel the need to post their "expert" analysis or anti-military comments.

[KellyB]

Aha! I hadn't clicked on them to open them up. Now I know why I won't again!
It's why I don't do facebook or twitter. I'm not interested in anything anyone on them has to say.

I quite agree: Idiotic comments by idiots who have never served in any capacity.

Arguing with them is much like trying to get a cat to make sense.

[pfflyers]

I think it will be the sub commander who takes the fall for this. The sub has the same or better sonar gear than the CG. There's no way they should have come to periscope depth when a surface ship was on a collision course. How can the CG OOD be expected to anticipate something like that?

[Willy]

Tarps, having been surface Navy and worked with Sublant a few tours in my personal experience, the sub Navy is pretty mission oriented. At least when they want something out of the tender. We had a few sub skippers willing to sign off on substandard work just to go out on the mission. I can think of one that got bit on the arse by that and lost a few people in the process too.

The surface Navy towards the end of my career matches your assessment. The term "Leadership by Terror" comes to mind. And all in a politically correct package as well. But let me add there at least in the late 90s, there were still a lot of professionals out in the fleet as well. The command environment on my last ship pretty much soured me on any chance of staying in past when I could retire.

[TARPSBird]

I had two CO's during my tour on the DD. The second one was a micro-manager deluxe. I remember many times being outside his at-sea cabin in the evening after 8 o'clock reports and seeing the frustration of department heads having their outgoing message traffic kicked back for rework because they weren't worded in just the right way to satisfy the CO. Most of my intel traffic was formatted in data fields (which he couldn't word-smith) and when I had any narrative he liked my stuff so I had an easy time of it, but I didn't envy the officers. The micro-management extended to underway watchstanding as well. Besides the XO there were maybe three other officers LT and above who I thought would be able to make their own decisions in a combat or crisis situation, the rest would be sending the messenger to wake the CO or waiting for him to show up in CIC. Not a good thing when the safety of the ship and crew requires a decision right now.

[n4gix]

n4gix is referring to the comments at the bottom of the article, not ours. Whenever a ship collision or a plane crash occurs, everybody seems to feel the need to post their "expert" analysis or anti-military comments.

Precisely that! As far as I'm concerned my opinions of the comments made by the "Great Unwashed" with regards to aviation incidents are even more scathing and - well - quite scatological! :icon_lol:

[KellyB]

Precisely that! As far as I'm concerned my opinions of the comments made by the "Great Unwashed" with regards to aviation incidents are even more scathing and - well - quite scatological! :icon_lol:

not to mention idiotic.

[TARPSBird]

Scatological, very well put, n4gix. :icon_lol: