SSN collision in Indo-Pacific (USS Connecticut)

Something uncharted, in an area where there is a real threat, hostilities in the open or not. While trying to increase effectiveness of the crew and the boat. How on earth can they fire these people? If you drive a boat on to charted hazards perhaps but that is not the case here. How about firing the folk who decided not to chart the areas of potential conflict knowing boats would be operating there at some time?
 
I can understand the sentiment, but it may not be so simple. Presumably areas not accurately charted are denoted by appropriate warnings, with procedures in place to adopt certain precautionary measures when sailing in such waters. If the officers responsible failed to take these precautions (especially if the investigation also indicates that this affected the outcome), that would constitute legitimate grounds for relieving them of their duties.
 
Mmmmmm..... maybe so but has one of these SUBSMACK inquiries ever not exacted it's pound of flesh? There is never anything wrong with the boat and never anything wrong with the doctrine!

Pilot error...again. Really? Might be time for a little oceanographic survey out that way then COMSUBCHUMP. :rolleyes:
 
Opportunistic Minnow said:
Well that was inevitable. One wonders what the incentive to be a sub driver is with a draconian sword of Damocles in every Admiral's pocket. How exactly are you meant to avoid an uncharted seamount? Perhaps Karl can show us all how it is done?

What's American for scapegoat? Fall guy I guess?
Click to expand...
SONAR. If I had to choose between not being potentially detected in peacetime in international waters or avoiding an accident in literally uncharted territory, I'd choose the latter any day of the millennium. It's like driving on an unfamiliar country road through the woods in the middle of a moonless night with the headlights off - simply irresponsible. I'm not a military apologist by any stretch of the imagination, but the USN made the only logical call here.
 
Last edited:
When 711 T-boned a seamount, CO was relieved despite an otherwise stellar record. While there was plenty of off-boat blame for that incident, the investigation found the navigation practices onboard were....not great. Turns out it's possible to be a good leader and good person, and still be bad at driving subs through dangerous waters.
 
There are probably procedures for operating in a way that reduces the likelihood of grounding in uncharted waters. Were they followed? Without knowing what they were supposed to do, compared to what they did do, accusations of "scapegoating" are just guesses. Less informed than a basketball fan screaming at the refs from the nose-bleed seats.
 
Maybe submarines should just run LIDAR. If a solar powered satellite from OUTTTERRRR space can measure the seafloor, a submarine with nuclear reactors pumping stupid power.....
 
sferrin said:
......accusations of "scapegoating" are just guesses. Less informed than a basketball fan screaming at the refs from the nose-bleed seats.
Click to expand...
Thank you for that....picturesque depiction of me. For reference, I've never watched a basketball game in my life.

You are correct that my assertion of scapegoating is a guess in this instance but it does happen. BoIs tend to have vested interests. The phrase "for the good of the service" gets uttered and the military-industrial complex rolls ever onwards. We wouldn't want our multi-billion $ boats to look vulnerable or flawed in any way or jeopardize the Admirals' consultancy position with the Rubber-Ducky Corporation coming in 3 years would we? So the most inexpensive and expendable component, humans, are efficiently disposed of. All is then well again. The fallout never even brushes the more braided shoulder-boards, does it?

Operating an SSN in the littorals is a gamble. The USN rolled the dice and these 3 men lost. It comes with the job. Doesn't mean it doesn't stink.

Now, if you disagree with my assertions, that's fine, even expected but as for asserting my being "less informed"? Isn't that making an ill-informed assumption while decrying same? Oh, the irony.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Opportunistic Minnow said:
Now, if you disagree with my assertions, that's fine, even expected but as for asserting my being "less informed"? Isn't that making an ill-informed assumption while decrying same? Oh, the irony.
Click to expand...

"Connecticut commanding officer Cmdr. Cameron Aljilani, executive officer Lt. Cmdr. Patrick Cashin and Chief of the Boat Cory Rodgers were removed from their positions at the direction of U.S. 7th Fleet commander Vice Adm. Karl Thomas.

The reliefs are “due to loss of confidence. Thomas determined sound judgement, prudent decision-making, and adherence to required procedures in navigation planning, watch team execution and risk management could have prevented the incident,” reads a statement from the Navy.
“Capt. John Witte will assume duties as interim Commanding Officer. Cmdr. Joe Sammur will assume duties as interim Executive Officer. Command Master Chief Paul Walters will assume duties as interim Chief of the Boat.”"

I'm sorry, you were saying?

news.usni.org

USS Connecticut CO, XO, COB Relieved Over Collision in South China Sea ‘Due to Loss of Confidence’ - USNI News

The commander, executive officer and senior enlisted sailor for attack submarine USS Connecticut (SSN-22) have been fired following the results of an investigation into the Oct. 2 underwater collision in the South China Sea, the Navy announced on Thursday. Connecticut commanding officer Cmdr...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
 
Parroting the official line doesn't necessarily make it so! You are, of course, free to believe what you will, just as I am free to see more "shades of grey". Despite my efforts, I was trying to avoid that cliche!
 
This is an old Naval story, if you run your boat aground during peace time, it's a desk job for you.
 
kitnut617 said:
Do the subs have windows that can be seen out of when submerged ?
Click to expand...

All the *best* subs have great big windows up front.

731ec8eeec62cef7b0822542c76a7da0.jpg
 
Opportunistic Minnow said:
Parroting the official line doesn't necessarily make it so! You are, of course, free to believe what you will, just as I am free to see more "shades of grey". Despite my efforts, I was trying to avoid that cliche!
Click to expand...
Instead you'll embrace the cliche' of automatically believing the conspiracy theory. Uhm, okay. You do you Boo Boo.
 
Now, I just read about a new holographic camera (synthetic wavelength holography) out of Northwestern University. Phys.org has a blurb about possible underwater use.

Might even replace a periscope.

It would be nice if a sub could detect objects above it..maybe even being able to hit aircraft one day.

I also seem to remember talk of a passive milimetric wave camera that could look through fog. Perfect for storm chasers.
 
The questionable steel didn't help. She needs to be on the thing after repairs as it does a drone trip to crush depth.
 
publiusr said:
The questionable steel didn't help. She needs to be on the thing after repairs as it does a drone trip to crush depth.
Click to expand...
The USN has already concluded the questionable steel was not used in positions where it it had an impact on hull structural integrity.

For projects like this, there's complete traceability: each hull plate (and pretty much every metal part) can be traced all the way back to the start of its manufacturing process.
 
www.navytimes.com

Here’s the damage the submarine Connecticut sustained when it hit an undersea mountain

Wednesday’s disclosure to Navy Times is the first official tally of what the October mishap in the South China Sea did to the Seawolf-class sub.
www.navytimes.com www.navytimes.com

The stealthy and pricey fast-attack submarine Connecticut sustained damage to its forward main ballast tanks and sonar sphere when it collided with an undersea mountain Oct. 2 in the South China Sea, and the sonar dome needs to be replaced, Submarine Force Pacific officials said Wednesday.

But neither the pressure hull nor the nuclear propulsion plant suffered damage in the mishap, according to SUBPAC spokeswoman Cmdr. Cynthia Fields.

“Based on the damage, there was no risk to the submarine’s buoyancy or stability,” Fields told Navy Times.

For months, sub veterans and online Navy watchers have speculated about what sort of damage the boat suffered based on public photos of its transit back to the states.

But Wednesday’s disclosure to Navy Times is the first official tally of what that undersea mishap did to the Seawolf-class sub, one of only three in the sea service.

The sonar sphere sits within the sub’s fiberglass-like sonar dome at the bow of the ship, while the forward main ballast tanks span from the dome to the rest of the ship and help the boat submerge and surface.

An industry source, who was not authorized to speak to Navy Times on the record, said replacing the sonar dome may be the toughest part of the repairs because the three-sub Seawolf class is unlikely to have replacement parts on hand.

When the submarine San Francisco had a similar underwater incident in 2005, the Navy pulled a sonar dome from a recently decommissioned Los Angeles-class boat to replace it.

That won’t be possible for Connecticut, the source said, meaning the Navy will have to work with industry to engineer a new dome and find a supplier to build it — amid the other work being done to build new Virginia- and Columbia-class boats.

The boat entered drydock at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Feb. 8, and is undergoing “a thorough assessment,” SUBPAC spokeswoman Cmdr. Cynthia Fields told Navy Times.

But how long it will take to get Connecticut back into the fight, and how much it will cost, remain unclear.

“Once complete, the damage assessment will inform an estimated timeline and cost to restore the ship,” Fields said. “Until the Navy completes its detailed assessment, we cannot provide an estimated cost or time to fully restore the boat.”

Eleven sailors were injured in the collision, Soon after, the boat made its way back to Guam and reached its Bremerton, Washington, home port in December under its own power.
Click to expand...
 
Speculation on my part, but there's a good chance that building a new air-backed sphere as was originally fitted is something the Navy just isn't interested in. They could adapt the current array used on the Block III, IV and V 774s, which uses hardware from the Seawolf program as it is, and then the main headache is making the software all work together. Or they could use 22 as a test boat for SSN(X)'s sonar.
 
IIRC, the surveys for that airliner which went missing in Southern Indian Ocean found a lot of complex topography that had been uncharted beyond broad sweeps. In that case, all too deep to be of further interest to other than oceanographers etc. Much of South China Sea is much shallower.

Would most have been 'feet-dry' during last ice-age, akin to vast Sundaland shelf to NW of Australia ?

Which means any sea-mounts would have been wave-cropped at ~120 metres below current sea-level, though less due growth of now-drowned coral reefs...

FWIW, I'm told those storm-lashed container ships which shed hundreds of TEUs between them are responsible for a lot of yachty and trawler accidents...
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom