Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US Navy Cruiser and Submarine Collide

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the dude-with-the-nuclear-reactor-has-the-right-of-way dept.

The Military 236

An anonymous reader writes "Despite billions of dollars in advanced electronics, radar, and sonar it seems the Navy needs to install backup cameras on their boats. 'The Pentagon said late Saturday that it is investigating why a Navy submarine collided with an Aegis cruiser during routine operations at an undisclosed location.' According to ABC, 'the two ships were participating in a “group sail” along with another vessel. The three ships were participating in an anti-submarine exercise in preparation for an upcoming deployment as part of the strike group for the aircraft carrier USS Harry S Truman."

cancel ×

236 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Is someone waking up Romney yet? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41647241)

Someone really needs to wake up Romney so that he can point at the President and whine about it.

Re:Is someone waking up Romney yet? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41647885)

He's already on it.

Don't Worry, Obama will blame Bush (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41647959)

Stupid to inject politics into this, but as long we are, might as well do the usual thing that Obummer usually does when thing go wrong under his watch.

Oh shit (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41647247)

This is going to be greeeeeeeeeeeeeat.

Well (4, Funny)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 2 years ago | (#41647249)

Re:Well (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41647883)

The U.S. Navy should have hired this Captain instead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qPRFsV7RF8 [youtube.com]

Uh... (5, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#41647251)

"Despite billions of dollars in advanced electronics, radar, and sonar it seems the Navy needs to install backup cameras on their boats. '

The point of a submarine is to be undetectable. Apparenly it worked.

My speculation, knowing submariners, is that the sub's captain was playing grab-ass with the surface ships, as they are wont to do during these kinds of exercises, due to the utter disdain for the surface fleet.

There are two kinds of seagoing vessels. Submarines and targets.

--
BMO

Re:Uh... (1)

evil_aaronm (671521) | about 2 years ago | (#41647267)

That may be, but they're "friendlies": you'd think they'd talk to each other. Wouldn't they at least know each others' planned moves to avoid something like this?

Re:Uh... (5, Insightful)

Stickerboy (61554) | about 2 years ago | (#41647293)

This was an "anti-submarine exercise". What part of that do you think improves the training on either boat or ship if the "friendlies" talk to each other?

Re:Uh... (1, Insightful)

evil_aaronm (671521) | about 2 years ago | (#41647347)

Then it's epic #fail on the part of the sub for not knowing where its target is. If this had been a real emergency, said sub would've been sunk.

Re:Uh... (0)

philip.paradis (2580427) | about 2 years ago | (#41647413)

Please share your deep insights into the particulars of this event, and don't forget to include your qualifications for speaking on the topic. I've served on a submarine. Have you?

Re:Uh... (1, Informative)

evil_aaronm (671521) | about 2 years ago | (#41647477)

Great counter - providing no real insight.

So, tell us, captain, how is it that a sub, in "anti-submarine exercises," comes up ahead of its target? WTF happened that this sub doesn't know where it is, relative to the target?

Re:Uh... (2)

sumdumass (711423) | about 2 years ago | (#41647879)

Doesn't "anti-submarine exercises" imply that the surface vessels were supposed to be targeting the sub and not the other way around? I can see a cocky captain of a sub saying lets really fuck with them and hide right underneath them or surface right in front to say ha ha did you ever think to look right in front of you. He knew he wouldn't be harmed as it wasn't a real exercise.

Re:Uh... (4, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 2 years ago | (#41647949)

He knew he wouldn't be harmed as it wasn't a real exercise.

There's no equivalent of blank rounds for ramming.

Re:Uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41648257)

not true. how about big-ass bumpers?

Re:Uh... (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 2 years ago | (#41648407)

Ships swathed in massive foam cushions bumping into each other like drunken dumbasses in those sumo wrestler suits.

I'd pay good money to watch that.

Re:Uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41648207)

Great counter - providing no real insight.

So, tell us, captain, how is it that a sub, in "anti-submarine exercises," comes up ahead of its target? WTF happened that this sub doesn't know where it is, relative to the target?

Because being in front of a target is usually the best firing position ?

Re:Uh... (-1, Troll)

philip.paradis (2580427) | about 2 years ago | (#41648299)

You are privy to neither the objectives of nor the operational timeline of the exercise. In other words, you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Let me be perfectly clear: your first mistake was attempting to speak with authority on a topic you have absolutely no fucking knowledge of, and your second mistake was attempting to refute the public assertion of your ignorance with a hollow demand for "insight" that clearly cannot be provided in accordance with universally understood principles of certain oaths involving clearances. Put even more simply, you have no goddamned idea what you're talking about, and things are so much more interesting than you might imagine. Perhaps you should have had the fucking nuts required to wear a uniform. Sadly, you didn't. So instead, try to have a nice day, and perhaps think about giving a bit more thought to thinking before you speak.

Re:Uh... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41648357)

You might have cleaned the toilets at NASA but that doesn't make you an astronaut, Mr Justsignedup.

Re:Uh... (-1, Troll)

philip.paradis (2580427) | about 2 years ago | (#41648369)

Actually been here since 2004. Second account, dumbfuck.

Re:Uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41647519)

Please share your deep insights into the particulars of this event, and don't forget to include your qualifications for speaking on the topic. I've served on a submarine. Have you?

as an ex quartermaster/subs i can say this, the sub fucked up and did NOT do its job before surfacing, even my old boomer would have done a proper survey before surfacing, sounds t me like the dub driver didnt clear his baffles nor pop up the attack scope for a lookaround before surfacing

Re:Uh... (-1, Troll)

philip.paradis (2580427) | about 2 years ago | (#41648317)

Thank you for your service. I'd like to remind you that you aren't privy to comms, misleading comms, or lack of expected comms during this exercise, and would encourage you to consider alternate scenarios. In other words, sometimes it takes two to tango.

Re:Uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41648281)

This was an "anti-submarine exercise".

An anti-submarine exercise involving three ships, two of which were on a "group sail," ie: on the same team, moving in formation, and those two collided. The "enemy" got away.

Re:Uh... (2)

PReDiToR (687141) | about 2 years ago | (#41647379)

Yeah, you would.

There are several variations of the old "your call" [snopes.com] scenario though.

Subs like to mess around (5, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 2 years ago | (#41647383)

A friend who was a coastie told a story about a sub messing with them:

The guy watching the radar grabbed the first officer because he was confused. He was seeing an occasional weak reading from behind them, a real small return like a little boat or something, fairly close, but when he'd look there was nothing out there. It was daytime, plenty of visibility, all that. It was inconsistent, not always there. Nothing seemed to be wrong with the radar. The XO saw this too, so they grabbed my friend and had him continually monitor aft to see what was going on.

The answer? A sub goofing around. It would raise up part of its sail, wait until it got hit with the radar (they have ESM antennas) and then dive. When it came back up again, my friend flashed Morse at it with a light and the sub then surfaced and came over to say hi.

It wasn't an exercise or anything, just a sub screwing around. Was it against Navy regs? I dunno, probably, but the sub was doing it anyways and it wasn't like anyone got in trouble. Everyone had a laugh and the sub went on its way.

Re:Subs like to mess around (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41647443)

Even if it isn't strictly allowed by regulations, I suppose that kind of playing around gives the crew real-world experience in how to stay just at the edge of radar detection, and how to tell if they actually are detected.

Re:Subs like to mess around (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41647717)

Well, it's hardly like they could actually "do" anything - I suspect a coast guard ship versus a submarine would involve in a sunk coast guard ship. It would make a good entry for the Darwin Awards, though!

Re:Subs like to mess around (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41647997)

I suspect a coast guard ship versus a submarine would involve in a sunk coast guard ship.

It might also involve in [sic] a sunk submarine.

The US coastguard aren't something off Baywatch, they're more like a Navy-lite. They bagged plenty of U-boats in WW2.

Re:Subs like to mess around (1)

f3rret (1776822) | about 2 years ago | (#41648345)

I suspect a coast guard ship versus a submarine would involve in a sunk coast guard ship.

It might also involve in [sic] a sunk submarine.

The US coastguard aren't something off Baywatch, they're more like a Navy-lite. They bagged plenty of U-boats in WW2.

Kinda doubt they carry anti-submarine gear today, maybe during wartime but probably now now.

Re:Subs like to mess around (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41647777)

Since when are submarines sailing ships?

Re:Subs like to mess around (5, Funny)

Genda (560240) | about 2 years ago | (#41647999)

I had a friend who was an electrical engineer who worked on RF equipment at El Toro Marine air base in CA. This was in the early 80s. He was on a chopper, talking to the lead RF Engineer about jamming gear as they flew over the 405 over Costa Mesa. He did a little demo, he pointed the antenna at different cars and they were able to determine what stations these folks were listening to. Then they pick one guy out on the freeway, jammed his FM and started talking to him.

This is GOD! I'm watching you in your blue Pontiac driving the 405. I'm talking to you, with your short brown hair, there in the 3rd lane, 4rth lane, 3rd lane... The guy started swerving all over the road. Then pulled off at the next exit parked the car and just stared all around.

Twisted, but funny.

Isn't jamming gear just a stronger transmitter? (1)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about 2 years ago | (#41648197)

So is jamming gear just the same as having a stronger transmitter than the other guy and blowing out their signal? Interfering with comms wouldn't require blowing out the signal level but just introducing enough noise to screw with it. And if they're using other modulation or spread-spectrum or multi-frequency transmissions, than a simple FM/AM transmitter wouldn't work so well. Would just plain old spark coils with a super-wide noise band be enough? (though I wouldn't think so since lightning doesn't screw with FM radio as much as it does with AM radio.) Sorry for the ramble, just some naive questions from someone who doesn't know all the buzzwords to search for on the wikipedia or other sites...

Re:Uh... (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | about 2 years ago | (#41647279)

There are two kinds of seagoing vessels. Submarines and targets.

You've been listening too hard to your bubble-head friends. I served on a destroyer, and to us, submarines were nothing but targets.

Re:Uh... (2)

McDrewbie (530348) | about 2 years ago | (#41647323)

is it really a "target" when the strategy is to just toss a bunch of exploding, sinking, "bombs" into the water and hope you hit the sub?

Re:Uh... (5, Informative)

techno-vampire (666512) | about 2 years ago | (#41647399)

Depth charges are so...so...so...WW II. Even back in the early '70s when I was in we were using ASROC: a rocket-thrown torpedo that homed in on its target. Much more effective, especially if we used one with a nuke.

Re:Uh... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41647535)

Much more effective, especially if we used one with a nuke.

Remind me never to let you take my fishing boat out, Captain Kamikaze.

Re:Uh... (0)

Nocturnal Deviant (974688) | about 2 years ago | (#41647591)

Why on earth did you post this as AC....now i cant use my mods points for this hilarious comment xD

Re:Uh... (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#41647749)

Funny doesn't count for karma, so a +1 funny for an AC has as much effect as +1 funny for a logged in user.

Re:Uh... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41647341)

What I do know, as an ex-Airforce who has worked for Navy contractors on ships, is that all Navy men (and most Navy women) are homosexual whether or not they're on a sub.

Have you ever been in fan rooms on surface ships? The pipes in some of those things are the perfect height from the floor for bending a fellow sailor over them and plooking him up the ass. The navy uniforms are very polite as you aways know who you're screwing because they have the names on the asses.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41647665)

Sorry, but modern torpedoes are so fucking intelligent and deadly, a surface ship wouldn't stand a chance against a sub. With satellite intelligence communications, the sub is going to know exactly where the surface ships are. The surface ships will never know where the sub is, not even as a fleet of ships is being destroyed.

Re:Uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41648209)

> With satellite intelligence communications, the sub is going to know exactly where the surface ships are.

Like the one in the article did?

Re:Uh... (1)

codepunk (167897) | about 2 years ago | (#41648131)

Exactly the last sound that is heard is the sound of a splash just as the Orion is marking on top. Shortly there after a mile and a half of ocean water vaporizes into a ball of steam.

Re:Uh... (2)

dcherryholmes (1322535) | about 2 years ago | (#41648331)

IME we had to break out the heavy wrenches and hammers and start banging on the hull[1] in order to give the surface guys a chance, so they could get a little practice targeting something. Somebody else's mileage may vary, of course, and I'm sure there's differences between 637's, 688's, Tridents, etc.

[1] The more disgruntled among us *might've* chosen to bang out "F-T-N" in morse, but I can't say for sure if that ever happened.

Re:Uh... (1)

DThorne (21879) | about 2 years ago | (#41647815)

My speculation is, someone screwed up, big time. Arguing stealth as a reason for running into a friendly is like arguing a running back plowed into his teammate carrying the ball because he's supposed to be fast.

More than a fender bender, it seems (0)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 2 years ago | (#41647255)

the two ships were participating in a âoegroup sailâ along with another vessel. The three ships were participating in an anti-submarine exercise

Heck of an impact. Seems it split one of them in two. Luckily the fragments appear to be able to float independently.

Re:More than a fender bender, it seems (1)

perbert (241785) | about 2 years ago | (#41647269)

Apparently, reading comprehension isn't your strength. Did you miss the bit about "along with another vessel"?

Re:More than a fender bender, it seems (1)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 2 years ago | (#41647911)

The two ships involved, the submarine, the Aegis cruiser and... The three ships involved...

Basic seamanship (1)

saphena (322272) | about 2 years ago | (#41647277)

Not much of a sailor on the cruiser. According to TFA he saw the sub 100-200 yds ahead and ordered "all back". Should have been hard a port or starboard

Re:Basic seamanship (0)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 2 years ago | (#41647331)

Because you know exactly how to do his job, right?

Re:Basic seamanship (3, Informative)

humanerror (56316) | about 2 years ago | (#41647559)

Because you know exactly how to do his job, right?

He also has a keen grasp of basic physics, apparently. Hint: a warship does not steer like an Indy race car. (I was qualified master helmsman in the USN a couple decades ago. I do in fact know how this works.)

Re:Basic seamanship (5, Informative)

humanerror (56316) | about 2 years ago | (#41647637)

"All back" is how you say "hit the brakes!" on a ship.

The ship in question displaces 9900 tons (full). It does not turn on a dime. Ordering all back shifted the pitch on the controllable-reversible screws so that they were pulling the ship in reverse (without having to reverse the rotation of the shafts, so it happens pretty quickly).

Maneuvering to either side while doing this would have simply placed a larger portion of the ship in jeopardy by exposing it in profile to the head-on threat.

Clearly you have never sailed a warship. (I have - actually, one that I sailed was a Belknap class CG, a predecessor of the Ticonderoga class, which is what the San Jacinto is).

Re:Basic seamanship (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41647763)

So *you* are one of those people we see in movies, fleeing from the car (or toppling space ship) behind them, by running *in the same direction that the car is moving*??
Because that is exactly the same logic.

PROTIP: Accelerating backwards is THE guarantee, that the thing you will hit will stay in your collision course. Slower, yes. But avoidance is by definition made impossible.

Also, if it does not turn on a dime, then *by definition* it also does not stop on a dime!

PROTIP2: You can accelerate sideways and downwards *while* "breaking". That’s why they are also controllable in reverse.

How about a physics and basic logic course for you?

Re:Basic seamanship (1)

humanerror (56316) | about 2 years ago | (#41647793)

And you were qualified master helmsman in the US Navy when, exactly?

Re:Basic seamanship (1)

deniable (76198) | about 2 years ago | (#41648115)

Good thing Titanic didn't hit the iceberg head on.

Re:Basic seamanship (5, Interesting)

ewanm89 (1052822) | about 2 years ago | (#41648223)

Head on collision slowed down as much as possible damages the bow sonar dome and possibly the first 2 hull plating, though the triangular shape would help strengthen this section of hull so damage to the cruiser is limited also the triangular shape is sloped to push objects down under the boat (usually it's water being pushed out of the way). So a few days to weeks in dry dock.

If one starts to turn instead and still hits the submarine it now scrapes down the side of boat putting dents in the hull plating as it bounces along it. Now it's weeks to years in dry dock as they replace half the hull.

The sub probably wouldn't get off so lucky.

I expect commendations for the actions of the cruiser crew as the submarine was at periscope depth and therefore only a shadow (possibly) and the periscope above the water to detect it by and they took fast and appropriate action.

Anyway 1) Why on earth didn't the sub crash dive when the sonar operator heard the noisy screws go full back? and 2) What the hell was the sub doing surfacing to periscope depth right ahead of another ship and that close to it?

Re:Basic seamanship (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41648263)

So *you* are one of those people we see in movies, fleeing from the car (or toppling space ship) behind them, by running *in the same direction that the car is moving*??
Because that is exactly the same logic.

PROTIP: Accelerating backwards is THE guarantee, that the thing you will hit will stay in your collision course. Slower, yes. But avoidance is by definition made impossible.

Also, if it does not turn on a dime, then *by definition* it also does not stop on a dime!

PROTIP2: You can accelerate sideways and downwards *while* "breaking". That’s why they are also controllable in reverse.

How about a physics and basic logic course for you?

You're pretty much talking about a car avoiding something one car length away, on loose gravel. Turning will only make it worse.

Re:Basic seamanship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41648259)

I haven't served in the Navy, but that sounds right. You give up the ability to turn by doing it, but you reduce the forces involved and reduce the portion of the ship that has to be locked down when you do hit.

And presumably, the sailors can lock down those hatches before the actual impact. With a side swipe, I would imagine that would be quite a bit tougher to do and would possibly leave you listing to one side in a relatively unpredictable fashion.

Re:Basic seamanship (1)

DamageLabs (980310) | about 2 years ago | (#41647797)

Titanic sank because of hard a starboard. The captain made the correct choice of all back.

Re:Basic seamanship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41648201)

Not much of a sailor on the cruiser. According to TFA he saw the sub 100-200 yds ahead and ordered "all back". Should have been hard a port or starboard

So the cruiser is probably about 200 yards LONG... the bow should move in a straight line about that distance, all you'd do is kick the ass end out and make a bigger target.

God's Punishment (-1, Flamebait)

Dionysus (12737) | about 2 years ago | (#41647297)

*sarcasm* this is what happens when you have a Socialist president. It would never have happened under a True Conservative President. Remember this in November, people. If Jesus or Paul didn't want bat-shit crazy people to hate the socialists, why did they never speak up against it? *sarcasm*

Shit happens... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41647313)

...tell me something that's news.

Better info on Navy Times (4, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | about 2 years ago | (#41647317)

Navy Times [navytimes.com] has better information. The collision occurred off Jacksonville, FL. The sub was surfacing to periscope depth when it was hit by the cruiser. The cruiser's bow sonar dome was damaged. No injuries.

"A collision at sea can ruin your whole day". It's usually a career-ending event for a Naval officer. The captain of the USS Essex, which had a collision with a fleet oiler during a replenishment operation in May 2012, was removed from command. Even though the collision was apparently due to a steering malfunction, the captain is responsible.

Re:Better info on Navy Times (3, Insightful)

SpzToid (869795) | about 2 years ago | (#41647545)

Yeah they busted Captain Waddle too, when his submarine destroyed a Japanese fishing vessel training high school students in the Pacific in 2001. Many were killed.

It must suck when out there in the entire Pacific Ocean you're minding your own business on a boring fishing boat when all of a sudden a US submarine decides to demo an emergency surfacing maneuver to civilians on-board the sub. What are the odds?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehime_Maru_and_USS_Greeneville_collision#Findings_of_the_court [wikipedia.org]

Re:Better info on Navy Times (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41648125)

What are the odds?

Astronomical. This was of course not an accident, but quite intentional. Probably the Japanese vessel were caught spying and this was the way the US told Japan to stay away, while making sure the Japanese could keep face.

Re: what are the odds (1)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about 2 years ago | (#41648219)

It seems like that sub-captain was hot-dogging it, just the pilots like to do at NAS-Miramar near San Diego. And if you look at the history of crashes, when you've got flat-hatting and hot-dogging, it's almost inevtiable that someone's going to get hurt and lose a job and lose a command, along with th e loss of lives, sadly.

Re:Better info on Navy Times (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41647727)

Way to let the actual idiot who did it keep his job. Because we have to make sure it happens again... *facepalm*

Re:Better info on Navy Times (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | about 2 years ago | (#41647771)

Way to let the actual idiot who did it keep his job. Because we have to make sure it happens again.

On the internet all errors are committed by idiots, therefore only idiotic errors are possible, and a good test of idiocy is to determine if the subject has ever made a mistake. If so he's obviously an idiot.
So far nobody has passed. It's a big club.

Sounds like (4, Funny)

TClevenger (252206) | about 2 years ago | (#41647329)

They need a man with "Welcome Aboard" tattooed on his dick.

Re:Sounds like (-1, Offtopic)

Nocturnal Deviant (974688) | about 2 years ago | (#41647605)

oh god mod this guy up.

To be fair (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 2 years ago | (#41647349)

This isn't exactly unusual when you have subs and surface ships in close proximity. If I remember correctly, the Royal Navy lost at least a couple of subs which sank after colliding with a surface vessel during anti-submarine training; admittedly decades ago when they had far less expensive electronic gadgetry to tell them where the other guy was.

Re:To be fair (3, Insightful)

FlyingGuy (989135) | about 2 years ago | (#41647669)

There is no fair. The CO is given complete charge of a multi-billion dollar war machine and has absolute authority over its operation and crew, therefor he has absolute responsibility for everything that happens, his fault, your fault, my fault, nobodies fault he still burns.

According to an ECM Chief that I used to work... (1)

Nutria (679911) | about 2 years ago | (#41647351)

with, aircraft carriers are *stupendously* noisy. In fact, one time, as they were deploying out of San Diego, they barged right over a Soviet sub waiting for them. A chunk of one of the sub's propellers was stuck in the hull for the whole deployment.

Re:According to an ECM Chief that I used to work.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41647395)

it helps to conceal the noise generated by the homosexual sex.

Ouch! (0)

lennier1 (264730) | about 2 years ago | (#41647359)

Depending on the result of the investigation that's at least one CO's career that's down the drain.

I'm Guessing that... (1, Funny)

Dangerous_Minds (1869682) | about 2 years ago | (#41647363)

...someone in the US Navy is in a world of ship.

Like two ships (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41647435)

Like two ships that pass in the night, when worlds collide.

not looking at this the right way (1)

Goldsmith (561202) | about 2 years ago | (#41647481)

Does having a faster computer make you a better programmer?

We can give the Navy better tools, but that's just going to push them to try more difficult maneuvers. In the end, we can't get rid of human error.

Next Week On The Simpsons (3, Funny)

martin-boundary (547041) | about 2 years ago | (#41647495)

Homer: On the water, under the water. On the water, under the water. Hey, this pentagon operations coordinator gig isn't so difficult at all. On the water, under the water. On the water, on the water. D'Oh!

It's my first day (1)

mumblestheclown (569987) | about 2 years ago | (#41647501)

quack,quack quack quack

Hot Dogging Sub Commander (5, Informative)

tengu1sd (797240) | about 2 years ago | (#41647539)

Generally, an incident like this will be traced to the submarine commander skipping the surfacing protocols spelled out in the exercise tasking. The submarine CO has everyone tracked, knows where everyone is and can torpedo at will. The reality is there are surfacing protocols, signals and course/speed specified to avoid collisions built into any ASW exercise. USS Leftwich [wikipedia.org] collided with submarine in 1982 during exercises. The Leftwich CO and bridge watch were cleared and commended for rapid damage control reaction and rendering assistance. The submarine CO was selected to pursue other career options.

The CO and the OD (5, Informative)

FlyingGuy (989135) | about 2 years ago | (#41647657)

just lost their jobs. For the CO ( commanding officer ) his career just ended. The JO ( Junior Officer ) that more then likely had the Deck and the Con ( In other words he was in charge of operating the sub at the moment and a single person is normally the Officer of the Deck and the Conning Officer generally referred to as the "OD" ) more then likely will get a punitive letter of reprimand ( A kiss of death) and here is why:

Periscope Depth (PD) is ~ 65' feet of water over the Deck ( The top of the submarine you see ). When preparing to go to PD the sequence is: The Conning Officer gets a round ( a spoken list ) of contacts from the Sonar Supervisor on watch, eg: "Sonar, Con give me a round." and the list of all known contacts is told to the OD orally. In addition to there is a display repeater to show the OD what the sonar guys see on their displays.. Generally if the CO is awake the OD informs the CO that he believes all is clear to come up to PD from ~ 150'. At this point the sub is going slow enough to raise the #2 Periscope ( they have two ). So the OD raises the Scope and the takes a look around. He looks for shadows or hulls form in the vicinity. When he is satisfied he then gives the order to the Diving Officer ( Normally a Chief Petty Officer that is in charge of the Chief of the Watch, the Helmsman ad the Planesman), "Dive make your depth 65 feet." the Diving officer responds, "Make my depth 65 feet, aye sir." and he will then tell the Helmsman and Planesman to position the control surfaces to accomplish that.

At this point the OD is just basically on the Scope spinning around looking for anything that will ruin his day and focusing most his attention to a 30 degree area in front of the sub and should be calling out to everyone in the control room, "No underwater hull shapes or forms, no shadows." When the Scope lens breaks the surface, he calls out, "Scope Clear, no close aboard contacts." This lets everyone in the Control Room chill out a little. Meantime he is still looking everywhere to make damn sure that they are not going to get run down."

So a chunk of the officer corp is now fucked but my SWAG on this is that it will go a little deeper then that. My guess is that the Sonar Supervisor ( an enlisted guy ) will at minimum get his Watch Supervisor certification yanked ( possibly for good ) and quite possibly demoted since an Aegis Class Cruiser is VERY damned obvious to submarine sonar and the Fire Control guys should have had a continuous plot on the damn thing and the SONAR system should have had them locked on with Automatic Target Following.

The Submarine Squadron Commander more then likely met the boat at the pier and relieved the CO on the spot as that is pretty much SOP for the Navy. The CO of a naval ship at sea is responsible for everything except when the Bow of the sub crosses over the sill of a dry dock ( at which point it shifts to the docking officer ) and when transiting the Panama Canal ( The Co takes orders from the Certified Canal Pilot as far as navigation and speed ) and even then he will still get singed of the shit goes wrong.

And yes I was a Submarine Sonar Tech ( SSN-650 and SSN-692 ).

Two more questions for you re the CO and the OD (1)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about 2 years ago | (#41648255)

Excellent and interestingly high level of detail from you; many Thanks for that information. That's the cool kind of stuff I like reading here. What's your opinion on what happened out near Hawaii with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehime_Maru_and_USS_Greeneville_collision [wikipedia.org] ? Was the captain/OD hot-dogging (or would it be show-boating) in your opinion?

.

Second question regarding timing: how fast would the sequence you described usually occur? Is it all happening real fast like a movie sequence, or are these definite key-points or lock-points which must be verbally okayed and takes 5 or more minutes and anyone could shout out a veto or warning or so? Would the time scale be faster in case of a real emergency, or are people even more cautious when it's the real-deal instead of a controlled training exercise?

Divert your course now! (5, Funny)

deek (22697) | about 2 years ago | (#41647659)

The article reminds me of that old US/Canadian joke that circulates every so often ...

------------------
This is the transcript of an actual radio conversation between a US naval ship and Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October 1995. The Radio conversation was released by the Chief of Naval Operations on Oct. 10, 1995.

US Ship: Please divert your course 0.5 degrees to the south to avoid a collision.

CND reply: Recommend you divert your course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.

US Ship: This is the Captain of a US Navy Ship. I say again, divert your course.

CND reply: No. I say again, you divert YOUR course!

US Ship: THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS CORAL SEA, WE ARE A LARGE WARSHIP OF THE US NAVY. DIVERT YOUR COURSE NOW!!

CND reply: This is a lighthouse. Your call.

Re:Divert your course now! (1)

hairyfish (1653411) | about 2 years ago | (#41647969)

The article reminds me of that old US/Canadian joke that circulates every so often ...

And that joke reminds me of an old English joke that is exactly the same except it has neither Americans or Canadians in it.

Re:Divert your course now! (3, Insightful)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 2 years ago | (#41647975)

It's not a "US/Canadian" joke. It's an oldy moldy that when I first saw it had a cruise ship in the buttmonkey role. It's only recently that ugly nationalism has changed the roles around. The next time I saw it, it appeared as British ship vs. Irish lighthouse. This was in a printed book, before the internet. Honestly, like all ugly jokes, it says more about the person telling it than it does anything else.

Re:Divert your course now! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41648239)

I think the original story was about a Roman galleon and the Lighthouse of Alexandria...

Chinese AEGIS System? (1)

guttentag (313541) | about 2 years ago | (#41647693)

Perhaps the AEGIS system had some Chinese made parts, which were actually bought from Russia, where the traditional equivalent of the AEGIS system is a Crazy Ivan [wikipedia.org] . Perhaps the defective AEGIS directed the ship to make a sharp turn to clear the baffles... not realizing it was installed on a cruiser.

On the other hand, maybe it just saw a whale and froze up, like a dog with a squirrel. "Ship... ship... ship... ship... WHALE!!!"

Re:Chinese AEGIS System? (1)

Nutria (679911) | about 2 years ago | (#41648015)

Except that Aegis is for air/missile combat.

More commanders lost (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 2 years ago | (#41647695)

This is yet another career-ender for some unfortunate officer. These incidents aren't even called "relieved" any more, they're flat-out called "firings". They have skyrocketed in recent years, so much so that the Navy Times keeps a list, updating it frequently. [navytimes.com] It is a long list. A few of them are justified, such as "a loss of confidence in Parkerâ(TM)s ability to command" (incompetent) or "a survey found a poor command climate" (officer is such a prick above and beyond normal officer prickishness that it makes his subordinates do a bad job). A few are DWI or other arrests, which makes sense as you don't want someone with that lack of self-control in charge of nuclear weapons. A lot of these firings are what's called "zipper failure" or more formally "having an âoeunduly familiar relationshipâ with a female member of the crew." Hey, humans are humans, you put females on a ship and this is what will happen. Well, equal opportunity, right? Cmdr. Etta Jones was fired for among other things, taking a 9mm pistol out of a gun safe and pointing it hat her crew. [hamptonroads.com] It's a hard life being a Navy commander, all eyes are on you and you can be held accountable for everything, even if you didn't do it.

Cut this, cut that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41647703)

They sure don't make sailors like they used to.

PEBKAC. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41647705)

Because no amount of high-tech out-balances cuts and cuts and cuts to the educational system (which already is designed to stop people from thinking for themselves in favor of becoming memorizing drones) and opposition against food made for actual humans (in favor of what is a nearly pure diet of high-fructose corn syrup mixed with saturated fats and salt).

Fi8st (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41647869)

wall: *BSD faces a Fr3eBSD because or make loud noises Maintained that too have an IRC client volume of NetBSD consider worthwhile that have raged Codebase became something that you

To be fair they succeeded in their mission (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41647895)

"The three ships were participating in an anti-submarine exercise"

Seems to me that it was successful.

Off topic, but ... (1)

slimdave (710334) | about 2 years ago | (#41648055)

"We have had circumstances where Navy vessels have collided at sea in the past, but they're fairly rare as to how often they do take place,"
Yes, that would be the usual meaning of the word rare.

Billions, really? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41648073)

Billions, really? Any idea just how much a billion is? [Citation needed]!

Meanwhile, in Persia... (2)

http (589131) | about 2 years ago | (#41648089)

The Iranian Navy are pissing themselves laughing.

Re:Meanwhile, in Persia... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41648399)

From their bass boats?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>