US Nuclear Sub Runs Aground

[xarir]

From the NY Times website. I suspect that this is the first of many incidents we'll see in that area of the world. Undoutedly the tsunami also caused a lot of changes to the ground under the water as well as the damage we've all seen above it.


Nuclear Sub Runs Aground
Published: January 9, 2005


WASHINGTON, Jan. 8 (Reuters) - A United States nuclear submarine ran aground Saturday 350 miles south of Guam, in the Pacific Ocean, injuring about 20 crew members, one of them critically, the Navy said.

There was no damage to the reactor that powers the submarine, the San Francisco, and the ship's hull was intact, said a Navy spokeswoman, Petty Officer Alyssa Batarla. She said the Los Angeles-class submarine was able to resurface and head back to its base in Guam, where it is to arrive on Monday.

The submarine was carrying 137 crew members and was en route to a routine port visit in Brisbane, Australia, when it ran aground.

 

[great bear]

Why is it that submarines run but ships float?

 

[johnfoxx]

I have a little boat, an awful lot cheaper than a nuclear powered submarine, and it has a fantastic device that goes "PING" when sea bed and boat bottom are a little too close. Maybe I should introduce this to the US military?

 

[great bear]

The sub went "pong" because it lacked a "ping".

 

[yychobbyist]

Why is it that submarines run but ships float?

Well, a sub that floats kind of defeats the purpose of it being a sub - a floating sub is kinda useless.

 

[great bear]

Well, a sub that floats kind of defeats the purpose of it being a sub - a floating sub is kinda useless.

Yes, but you would save money on not having to have a periscope.

 

[yychobbyist]

Good point.

 

[Don]

haha we should be the last country to make fun of the quality of other countries subs!

 

[great bear]

Our subs are subs!

 

[Mr. K]

Why is it that submarines run but ships float?

A ship or a submarine can "run aground".

A submarine is always referred to as a "boat" versus a "ship".

Floating craft are always referred to by the female gender as in "she's a fine ship (canoe, boat, sub, cork)

 

[Keebler Elf]

That would be interesting if the sub ran aground due to the tsunami. I dunno how it would, since I thought they relied on sonar rather than maps. But it would be interesting.

 

[yychobbyist]

Well Captain Marco Ramius sure as shit would have done that in "Hunt For Red October". What the hell was that sub driver thinking not doing that?

And remember: the Russians don't take a dump without a plan son!

 

[happywanderer]

Canada's undersea naval force... well the one that works.

http://www.mrsub.ca/


TTFN

 

[great bear]

Well Captain Marco Ramius sure as shit would have done that in "Hunt For Red October". What the hell was that sub driver thinking not doing that?

And remember: the Russians don't take a dump without a plan son!

Ya, but what would Captain Nemo have done?

 

[VincenzoTurismo]

Canada's undersea naval force... well the one that works.

http://www.mrsub.ca/


TTFN

I personally prefer Quizno's. Toasted tastes better

Ciao,

VT

 

[Keebler Elf]

Update...

The sub struck some kind of undersea landmass. It was too deep for whales and the navy states it wasn't another sub. It took place 3500 miles away from the earthquake/tsunami so they don't think it's related. They're now checking to see if the sub had made a navigation error and was somewhere it shouldn't have been.

 

[onthebottom]

That's one USN CPT that will be looking for a new job - there is no scenario that reasonably ends with "and the I drove the worlds most sophisticated sub into the bottom". That boat must be somethink like the 4th largest military all on it's own.

OTB

 

[Keebler Elf]

Apparently the sub didn't run into the bottom, but ran into an undersea rock formation; so it basically drove forward into the obstruction. The report said that subs only use passive sonar upfront so the rock formation wouldn't be detected. Pretty much, it all hinged on whether the sub's maps were accurate and, if so, whether the sub had made a navigational (human) error that put it in the wrong place. If the sub was where it should have been, the report said the sub commander wouldn't be facing any discipline (presumably b/c the maps would have been wrong).

 

[onthebottom]

KE,

Yes I agree, although I wouldn't think we'd be driving boats where we don't have good charts. Sounds like the boat was going at full speed and hit something head on, I can imagine the carnage in that sub - they can go 20 mph+.

Interesting site if anyone is interested: http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-ssn.html

OTB

 

[Cardinal Fang]

They should really put windows in those things.