OT: USS Marx Brothers Part II

[TulliusDetritus]

I guess you know the news. American nuclear submarine collided with a Japanese tanker (when she rised to surface). An “accident”. On 2001 there was exactly the same “accident”. Another nuclear submarine collided with a Japanese large fishing-scientific boat (“scientific” is a Japanese jargon: it is also known as “illegal fishing”). Again, when she was rising to surface.

According to Hollywood (and the History Channel [:D]), these things are ultra-mega sophisticated. So what’s going on? Is this a “let’s have some fun, boys! Make your bets –- mine is that we’ll sink an Al Qaeda raft this time -- and surface the thing!”. I have to be missing something: what’s the periscope for? My grandmother would use it. “No, if you use the periscope they might detect you”. Oh yes, that’s vital, especially when you are about to surface the huge thing.

What’s next? Another submarine will hit & sink the Japanese Prime Minister’s private yacht (with him aboard)?

[rtrapasso]

[&:]

it was reported here as a collision with a Japanese tanker... not a fishing boat.

EDIT: Somehow i misread your original...
[:o] [8|]

[rtrapasso]

"Japan seeks probe of ship collision By HANS GREIMEL, Associated Press Writer
Wed Jan 10, 1:15 AM ET



TOKYO - Japan pressed Wednesday for a thorough investigation of a collision between a U.S. nuclear-powered submarine and a Japanese oil tanker near one of the world's most crucial shipping lanes.

The fast-attack USS Newport News submarine rear-ended the supertanker Mogamigawa on Monday night in the 34-mile wide Straits of Hormuz, through which 40 percent of the world's oil supplies travel."

[TulliusDetritus]

Rtrapasso, there have been 2 "accidents".
A few days ago => the Japanese tanker.
And on 2001, near Hawaii, a Japanese fishing-scientific boat (18 persons died).

That's why the subject is [blah blah blah Part II]

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Rtrapasso, there have been 2 "accidents".
A few days ago => the Japanese tanker.
And on 2001, near Hawaii, a Japanese fishing-scientific boat (18 persons died).

That's why the the subject is [blah blah blah Part II]

Yeah - sorry, i misread your original... (see my corrected post)...

When one of these subs collides with a large vessel, they often go into drydock... and never come out. Several US subs were involved with "minor collisions" with Soviet subs back in the cold war era. They were reported as having some "non-threatening" damage. But when i tracked these subs (using Jane's) - i found most of them were "retired" after the collisions.

[TulliusDetritus]

The collisions during the Cold War era are understable. They were playing the cat & mouse game. But these 2 accidents are weird or utter absurd: the ships rise to surface and... KABOOM!

P.S.:
I wrote my reply before reading your edited message, sorry [:)]

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

The collisions during the Cold War era are understable. They were playing the cat & mouse game. But these 2 accidents are weird or utter absurd: the ships rise to surface and... KABOOM!

P.S.:
I wrote my reply before reading your edited message, sorry [:)]

Just meant to state that these collisions are NOT just a minor event - probably end up costing hundreds of millions of dollars, and maybe removing a ship from the fleet, even if they claim only minor damage at first.

[Mundy]

The Japanese aren't immune to this, either...

Sub Collision Link

[Monter_Trismegistos]

It's was a USN trick to make Congress raise funds for new more sophisticated sub as a replacement.

[wdolson]

As I understood the last collision between a US sub and a Japanese ship, the US sub was doing a demonstration for civilians and porpoised near a Japanese ship that was a school ship full of young students. It was not a fishing boat or anything shady.

Here is a list of sub accidents since 2000: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_submarine_incidents_since_2000

I also recall two separate incidents from the Cold War where the Enterprise collided with a Russian sub while is was surfacing. Both times the sub survived, but neither fared very well.

Bill

[ChezDaJez]

I also recall two separate incidents from the Cold War where the Enterprise collided with a Russian sub while is was surfacing. Both times the sub survived, but neither fared very well.

I think you are referring to the USS Kitty Hawk that collided with a Victor class SSN in 1984 on the Sea of Japan. The Victor had been monitoring the TF conducting exercises when the sub surfaced about 300 yards in front of the Kitty Hawk. KH hit her a glancing blow which caused the sub to roll 360 degrees. Her reactor scrammed and there were several casualties. The Soviets never admitted to any deaths onboard. The sub initially proceeded a short distance under emergency power while refusing all offers of assistance. A Soviet Amur class repair ship towed the sub back to Vladiostok. It never sailed again.

I was on deployment to Misawa, Japan at the time and was part of one of the aircrews that kept watch on the sub as it was towed back. I've got pistures of it in my sea chest showing the deep gash along the hull. Luckily for the crew, the pressure hull wasn't penetrated. Kitty Hawk had a couple of dents.

Chez

[ChezDaJez]

You have a good point concerning periscope use while surfacing, especially when operating in a very crowded area like the Straits of Hormuz. However, even a periscope may not save you from hitting a deep-drafted vessel like a loaded tanker. Even being partially surfaced won't necessarily save you. Remember the Echo-II that collided with the USS Voge in the Med during the 70s? Mind you, the Echo-II was trying to cut the towed array on the Voge but still...

Unfortunately, passive sonar in that area is virtually useless due to the extreme noise levels of the hundreds of surface craft around. Given that the sub rear-ended the tanker, I would assume that the tanker was proceeding at a very slow speed as subs generally don't surface at very high speeds unless something is wrong. Coming from astern also means that that TMA would have yielded only a bearing, not a range.

Active sonar is even worse due to the extreme reverb and bottom bounce conditions found there, not to mention the very warm water and strong currents play hell with the ray paths.

Chez

[tanjman]

Chez is right. I was aboard the USS Leftwich (DD-984) on 29 Nov 82 when she collided with the USS Thomas A. Edison (SSBN 610) which was at periscope depth. To make a long story short, we were doing ASW ops with her when the Edison lost sonar contact with the Leftwich (I can't remember if we had contact or not, since I don't remember the collision alarm going off until after the collision we may not have) and we collided.

BTW #1 - Spruance class destroyers could be very quite when they wanted to.
BTW #2 - Our CO was not relieved of his command.

Link - http://navysite.de/dd/dd984.htm
Link - http://navysite.de/ssbn/ssbn610.htm

[Greenhough222]

Give them a break, so the USN sub fleet has occasionally hit the odd ship here or there.  What takes great skill is to hit collide with land!!! and 'I think you will find' her Majesty's Royal Navy are way ahead....  Contrary to news reports the RN is not mothballing half its surface vessels to cuts costs. It is just not dragging of the rocks anymore[:D][:D][:D] 

[YankeeAirRat]

I have made the transit through the Straits of Hormuz a few times and can say that even on a clear day it is very busy and very easy to loose track of all the seperate ships and small craft that are trying to manuver. I remember standing a watch on an American carrier and watching with fear as a little dhow ducked in and out of the outbound lane chasing some fish. It almost seemed to stop and wait until a couple of large tankers were on top of it before manuver on to chase the school.  On top of that I also know that the Straits are not one of the best places for sonar operations due to the water density,tempatures, and how shallow the bottom is.