 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style
|
|
|
Subject: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 15 Feb 01 - 03:20 PM Remember Banjo Johnny rejoicing when the Karsk went down? I think it's really great, the way the Glorious Russian People's Navy is handling the "rescue effort"....They are blitheringly incompetent.... Betthey don't put junketing civilians at the controls of their nuclear subs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: CarolC Date: 15 Feb 01 - 04:27 PM Fionn, I've been out of the US for a while and I haven't heard anything about US submarines on the CBC news. Can you please fill me in on what you're talking about? Thanks. Carol |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: SINSULL Date: 15 Feb 01 - 04:35 PM Carol - See below. A senseless tragedy that could have and should have been avoided by the use of electronic sensors which were on board. I am not sure why Fionn is gloating. Civilian Pulled Levers on Submarine The Associated Press Feb 15 2001 9:38AM HONOLULU (AP) - A civilian who was on the Navy submarine that struck a Japanese fishing vessel said Thursday that he pulled levers for the ascent drill but had a crew member right beside him. He also described how the ship ``shuddered'' at the impact. ``I was to the left in the control room, and I was asked by the captain if I would like the opportunity to pull the levers that start the procedure that's called the blowdown,'' John Hall told NBC's ``Today'' show. ``I said, `Sure, I'd love to do that,''' he said. Hall said the nearest crew member was ``right next to me, elbow to elbow. I mean, what's important to know here is you don't do anything on this vessel without someone either showing you how to do it, telling you how to do it, or escorting you around.'' On Wednesday, National Transportation Safety Board member John Hammerschmidt had confirmed that a civilian visiting the sub - closely supervised - was allowed to pull the levers that sent the attack submarine Greeneville streaking toward the ocean surface Friday where it sank the Japanese vessel, the Ehime Maru. ``The accident certainly is unusual. In terms of civilians being in those positions - I'm not sure that's unusual,'' Hammerschmidt said. Nine people, four of them Japanese high school students, were still missing. The Coast Guard said it could call off the search for them as early as Thursday. Another civilian, Todd Thoman, told the NBC show that a periscope was ``most definitely'' used to check the ocean surface before the drill Friday. ``We came up to periscope depth and another member of the crew took the periscope up and made two complete rotations at 360 degrees,'' Thoman said. The captain of the submarine, Cmdr. Scott Waddle, made his own check through the periscope, Thoman said. ``We saw no vessel and at that point he said `OK' and he brought the periscope down and we proceeded with the maneuver,'' he said. Said Hall: ``Everything they do involves a procedure. I recall the captain, after he had done his periscope, I recall him calling out ... or a lot of crewmen calling out to him that they had gone through their procedure and the procedures were OK.'' As the submarine surged upward, Hall said, ``there was a very loud noise and the entire submarine shuddered.'' According to him, Waddle said ``Jesus, what the hell was that?'' and looked out the periscope and saw the Ehime Maru. ``Everybody at that point was in shock,'' Hall said. Waddle has been relieved of duty pending the outcome of the investigation. On Wednesday, the Navy acknowledged that the Greeneville was about 3,000 yards east of a submarine test and trial area when it surfaced underneath the Japanese vessel. The Navy initially had said the submarine was within the 56-square-mile training area designated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and marked on nautical charts to caution commercial and recreational craft. Lt. Cmdr. Conrad Chun, a Pacific Fleet spokesman, stressed that the charts serve only as an advisory and submarines are not restricted to that area. The Navy has refused to disclose the identities of the 16 civilians visiting on board the Greeneville. It has said they are civic and business officials. The Navy has a longstanding tradition of taking civilians such as relatives of crewmen, Navy supporters and journalists aboard its ships. Chun said Friday's civilian tour had been arranged by a former commander of U.S. military forces in the Pacific, retired Adm. Richard Macke. Honolulu TV station KITV said members of the excursion were big donors to the USS Missouri Restoration Fund. One of the civilians, Michael Nolan, had helped organize a charity golf tournament in Hawaii last year to benefit the fund, the station said. Nolan and his wife, Susan, confirmed they were on board but wouldn't comment on the collision. Chun said Macke, as a battleship USS Missouri volunteer, had referred the group of business leaders for the tour but had been unable to join them. ``The Navy receives referrals from a wide range of organizations and individuals,'' Chun said. ``It is not uncommon to receive referrals from retired military members.'' Macke was forced to apply for early retirement in 1996 after he suggested that three U.S. servicemen who rented a car to allegedly abduct and rape a 12-year-old girl in Okinawa, Japan, should have hired a prostitute instead. Macke is now Pacific Region president for Wheat International Communications Corp., of Vienna, Va. He didn't return telephone calls to his office or home. Investigators will continue interviewing the submarine's crew before deciding whether to interview the civilian guests, Hammerschmidt said. He said one of those guest had been allowed to flip the ballast activation levers, an action that pushes air through the ballast tanks and sends water rushing out to raise the submarine rapidly to the surface. The submarine's chief of the watch stood next to the civilian and had his hand intertwined with the civilian's as the levers were pulled, he said. The submarine's helmsman, who controls the vertical movement and direction of the submarine, stood over the other civilian, Hammerschmidt said. The Ehime Maru was on a two-month training trip with students from Uwajima Fisheries High School in southwest Japan. On Thursday, 15 crew members returned home; the fishing vessel's captain remains in Hawaii.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: mousethief Date: 15 Feb 01 - 04:35 PM Carol, a US sub struck a Japanese fishing boat when it was doing an "emergency surfacing" exercise. Indications were that a couple of civilian guests were at the controls at the time. Fionn, it's hard to see how these two incidents are at all comparable, except that they both involve submarines. The Russians didn't try to rescue, or allow anybody else to try to rescue, THEIR OWN MEN, until it was certain they would be dead. The US is frantically searching the crash site as we speak, and has sent multiple apologies to Japan and has launched a rather serious investigation into why the sub wasn't aware that the Japanese trawler was in the way of its surfacing. Apples and oranges, as far as I can see. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: Sorcha Date: 15 Feb 01 - 04:39 PM I doubt very much that the civilians had much to do with it, sounds like either the periscope or the sonar (if used) was not properly working. We might find out someday........... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: CarolC Date: 15 Feb 01 - 04:46 PM Thanks, guys. Out of fairness to the CBC, I should say that I think they did have some coverage of this, but I guess I wasn't paying very close attention. Carol |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 15 Feb 01 - 07:30 PM Sorry if that sounded like gloating Sinsull, as I guess it did. But I remembered the venom thrown at the Russians (certainly not by everyone) and wondered if the American cock-up might provoke a similar reaction. And cock-up it certainly was, Alex, if only because there were survivors and civilian witnesses to say what happened. But for that little difficulty, the trawler's loss would probably have been just another seafaring mystery. British subs have sunk at least one (Irish) trawler, and I'd be surprised if American and Russian subs haven't taken out a few. As for the multiple apologies, I can't see they've got the slightest option about that, particularly in view of why the civilians were there. Just for a moment, try to imagine what the American reaction might have been if a Japanese or Russian sub had sunk an American trawler in those circumstances. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: Irish sergeant Date: 15 Feb 01 - 07:45 PM I expect our reaction would have been about the same as the Japanese reaction has been so far. As far as I've heard, I don't believe that the civilians were actually controlling anything but I haven't checked the news. The United States Navy has some hard questions to answer. I expect the captain will be permanantly relieved. I believe that he has been relieved pending the results of the naval investigation that is currently underway as we speak. I send my prayers and condolences to the families of those passengers and crewmen of the trawler who were lost. Kindest Reguards, Neil |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 15 Feb 01 - 08:07 PM If he _IS_ relieved, seems to me it would have to be on the basis of not seeing what WAS there to be seen, and what should have been seen--whether by periscope or sonar or whatever. From everything I've heard, at least, the civilians' participation is really a non-issue. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: Amos Date: 15 Feb 01 - 10:23 PM 1. They did a periscope surface search while "broaching" the boat so its decks were just awash; the sail and scope probably had a height above sea level at that position of about (I think) 35 feet. 2. The Japanese vessel was at that time apparently only a mile or so away; but bear in mind that it was in stern aspect. The fact that the vessel was 170 feet long means nothing if it is only twenty feet wide, viewed from stern-on. 3. I believe the vessel was white, and that weather conditions were enough to cause widespread whitecaps all around. This means (if I remember my Beaufort scale correctly) that it was greater than force 4 with wind speeds over 20 (I could be wrong about the last, though). 4. Anyone who thinks that you can do a sonar scan on the surface in choppy water and expect to differentiate a target should try it some time. 5. They did (probably) have radar which would have been atop the sail, but still very (relatively) close to the water, and depending on the sea state a less experienced radar operator could easily have missed a target in the sea-clutter IF they were using it. Submarines as a rule don't carry expert radar ops because their use of it is infrequent for obviosu reasons. 6. The visual use of periscope detection of a white hull, presenting stern aspect in choppy waters with whitecaps blowing around is a problematical proposition at best. This is especially the case if the observer is (a) hastening through a rote procedure without due real attention or (b) not a veteran observer sensitive to small anomalies. The presence of guests could not have had any contribution to the accident except possibly putting the sailors in a more social and less rigorous frame of mind contributing to (a). A sub has no control at all over its rate or net direction of ascent once it blows ballast in a test of this kind. The entire vessel is completely in the grip of a purely physical process, bouyancy, uncontrolled as a cork popping up from the bottom of a rainbarrel. 7. One point of caution that could have been taken but which probably was not was a close supervision of the crewman's scope scan by the CO monitoring the TV monitor which shows by television what the 'scope is viewing optically. It is not a doctrinal part of the procedure but something a veteran sub commander might due out of caution and experience. However the CO did repeat the scan optically. Again, he may have been rushed by the presence of guests, feeling perhaps like a showman instead of a CO. I have seen no data indicating any other error that could have been caused by the presence of civilians on board. 8. Although (7) under most circumstances might have been a non-significant error it combined with other circumstances in this case to suddenly become highly significant. 9. My own conclusion, based on incomplete data, is that a terrible tragedy occurred due to a human error well within normal range of human error -- meaning not a bizarre or highly unusual human failing -- namely, failing to see a narrow white object among whitecaps and wind through a periscope in a (probably) single moving 360º sweep. The CO has been relieved, predictably, because he is held in absolute responsibility for the vessel regardless of all other factors; the OOD is certainly under severe scrutiny, or formal inquiry leading to a possible trial under Military Code of Law procedures. This tragedy has struck both those officers as well; the chances (in my opinion) are very high that they believed they were executing correct procedures and were performing at their normal excellent standard right up to the moment that god-awful sound penetrated the pressure hull. Regards, A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 15 Feb 01 - 10:32 PM VERY informative background Amos, for which thanks. Presumably this is knowledge built up from experience, rather than gleaned from reading up on this specific incident? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: Sorcha Date: 15 Feb 01 - 10:34 PM Thank you Amos, for a very intelligent overview of the situation. I, for one, hope that the CO has not lost all of his Naval career and benifits over this. It was a MISTAKE, and which of us can claim to never have made one? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: Amos Date: 16 Feb 01 - 12:19 AM I sailed the "targets", not the subs; but I am friends with a couple of retired sub commanders from whose discussions I assembled the key points about subs, above; I have worked both radar and active sonar as a watch officer, and even a couple of stories up and under 30, your eyes can be readily deceived by sea clutter; and the closer to the deck you get the worse your optical picture. Apologies if I seemed to be posing as an expert, I meant to just rattle out the best data I could come up with. I believe the perspective to be reliable. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: catspaw49 Date: 16 Feb 01 - 12:35 AM The survivors and the families of the fishermen are mad and I think we might all be in that situation. I have heard several reports that the majority of the Japanese people are far more angered over their leader continuing his golf game for another two hours AFTER hearing the news. Seems odd, this accident, but when you consider the number of air collisions................As Amos says, that is a very small target in any hind of sea at all. In '84 I was on the opposite end of one of these things when the 52 foot sloop I was crewing in the SORC was nearly run down at night by a supertanker. Due to bad weather and visibility, we didn't see that monster either until it was less than a half mile away. We were lucky to be on an opposite bearing and not on a crossing one. They were far to the north of the "normal" tanker lanes for some reason. Makes me scared as hell every time I remember it. I feel for the loss and for the families, and also for the men on the Greenville. I'm sure this was not in their plans either and that they too feel deeply for the loss. Spaw
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: wysiwyg Date: 16 Feb 01 - 01:26 AM Anyone else here have kids serving? I do. Two. One at Pearl, on a nuke sub. One on carrier duty. Story has its own feeling to us. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: Wotcha Date: 16 Feb 01 - 03:29 AM Amos: Thanks for the overview but not likely to be an excuse (strict liability here, me thinks) ... the US will still be villified ... we are such an easy target ... nothing will likely comfort the families of the missing/drowned and our prayers should be with them ... just a nasty mess for us all. "May the Lord put an end to these cruel old wars And bring peace and contentment ... to all our brave tars, Cheers, Wotcha |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: mkebenn Date: 16 Feb 01 - 06:57 AM My thought was, ain't it a mighty big sea to have these two vessels in the same place at the same time? All precautions aside, the odds seem staggering. I feel for the lost fishers as well as the submariners. Mike |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: GUEST,stkly Date: 16 Feb 01 - 07:18 AM If the U.S. is at fault, its a "tragic mistake in judgement", but if its those damn Rooshans, its "criminal negligence". Right you are. Why all the furor anyway? There are no dead or injured Brave American Servicemen!! Cheers |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: mkebenn Date: 16 Feb 01 - 07:23 AM Well, that's certainly helpfull. Mike |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: Grab Date: 16 Feb 01 - 07:54 AM The fishing boat survivors said that the submariners made no attempt to help them - they had to wait half an hour for helicopters to come from the nearest Navy base to rescue them. They said they could see ppl stood on the sub just watching them. The submariners said that the seas were too rough to risk an inflatable. The survivors said that the sea was sufficiently calm that they had no problems swimming to the life-rafts. Whilst the survivors who reached the life-rafts were in no danger, maybe some of those 9 missing could have been saved - anyone injured in the accident who couldn't make it to a life-raft, for instance. There's always the danger of 20-20 hindsight in anything like this though. If the submariners believed they couldn't safely launch boats, then that's their judgement call. They did put out a call for assistance immediately and helped coordinate the rescue. Grab. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: SINSULL Date: 16 Feb 01 - 08:37 AM Fionn, I may be wrong but I think the anger at the Russians was for their refusal to allow anyone to come in and help before it was too late. The families of the dead had the same complaint. Banjo Johnny's comments were meant to be sarcastic. Unfortunately, and we have beaten this one to death, the written word does not necessarily convey the tone or facial expressions of the writer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: Mrrzy Date: 16 Feb 01 - 09:19 AM The one similarity I see is the sub personnel's refusal to put themselves in danger to help rescue the survivors. Apparently they would have taken on water, and that is why they didn't help. However, I think they should have, in that it was a) their bloody fault, accident or no, and b) they were military and the victims not, so it was their duty to put themselves in danger in order to effect a rescue, whether it was their fault or not. HOWEVER again, it doesn't seem as if anybody who got off the ship subsequently (ha ha) drowned, it seems more as if the missing never made it off the ship, so it's unclear if their help would have helped, if that makes sense. But my main question is, why are they practising dangerous maneuvers in shipping or fishing lanes? It isn't like we're at war, why not do that kind of drill in the deep ocean where there isn't a CHANCE of doing this kind of thing? I see Amos' point that they could have done everything right and STILL hit this ship, but all that does is strengthen my feel that right in populated waters is the last place to blow ballast. Go scare some whales, why don't they. I also see from the coverage I've been watching/reading that whether it was civilians or not who pulled the lever isn't why this happened. It reminds me more of when military exercises over populated areas go wrong, and the plane crashes into the school. Do the drill somewhere else, like over the desert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: catspaw49 Date: 16 Feb 01 - 09:37 AM The area has been a designated Sub testing area for many years and is marked on charts. There is also a 5 mile safety zone around the area. The Greenville did surface outside of the area, but within the 5 mile safety zone. Brings a whole new meaning to the word 'safety' doesn't it? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: mousethief Date: 16 Feb 01 - 12:36 PM Deep ocean? They were saying on the radio it's 2000 feet deep there. TWO THOUSAND FEET. That's pretty doggone deep. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: Naemanson Date: 16 Feb 01 - 12:57 PM As in any well publicized accident there are probably plenty of fingers to be pointed in plenty of directions. Fishermen in the 20th Century have always known that subs present a peculiar danger to their gear and their lives. One of the dangers for trawlers has been to snag a sub with their nets. As I understand it there was a crowd of people in the control room. It is probably understandable why the trawler was not spotted. I do not for a minute believe that the civilians at the controls were to blame. This is a real tragedy for the Japanese victims and their relatives. It could have been prevented but wasn't. Now we have to learn our lessons and make sure those people didn't die in vain. New regulations will be promulgated to ensure it doesn't happen. In the meantime a Navy commander's career will be ruined and international relations are strained. In Japan families weep and a politician's career has been tarnished. I can only hope that nationalistic posturing doesn't make the tragedy a focal point for shouted slogans and sign waving. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: Irish sergeant Date: 16 Feb 01 - 02:02 PM It's easy to justify actions and point fingers after an event. The survivors of the fishing trawler say the water was calm enough to effect a rescue by infalatable boat. I'm not saying they are wrong, however, the Navy trains for these events and with reasonable frequency. I think they would have more experience in dealing with recue operations in those conditions than the crew of the fishing vessel. Secondly, the implication of criminal negligence RE the Kursk was due to there being no effort made by the Russian government until there was no hope. These charges were not levelled by the United States but by the families of the Kursk victims. The captain of the submarine has been relieved and will likely have his career ruined. Should the investigation find he was criminally negligent, he will be court martialled. I agree with Amos' views and don't believe that will happen but his career is over either way. Very likely, the crew was ordered not to lower inflatables for the reason I stated above. The crew radioed and got rescue personell thee as quickly as possible. My understanding is that the sub was operating in a designated operations area that has been well defined as such since before the second world war. It has been on charts that are readily available through out the world. So perhaps, the question should be why did the trawler's captain choose that particular spot? My purpose here isn't to shift blame but it seems to me that there are people more than willilng to cast it before all of the facts are in simply because the sub was a U.S. vessel. Ultimately, the facts will come out and recompense will be made but keep in mind, we, the Americans are not the only ones who screw up like this. The Japanese navy had a similar incident not too many years ago in Yokuska Harbor if I'm not mistaken. Kindest reguards, Neil |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: Mrrzy Date: 16 Feb 01 - 03:16 PM When I said deep ocean, I didn't mean to refer to the depths of the water, but the distance from the shore. "Deep ocean" I thought could refer to waters very far from any shore, even if right there there is an underwater something that makes the water more shallow... My mistake, I only read nautical stuff. If they were outside their zone, again, why is their zone near civilians? Surely there are areas in the sea way out in the middle of nothing where they can do these kinds of maneuvers. If it takes days to get there then don't take the civilians along, take them for stuff that isn't as risky. And I do agree that things look worse when the US, who's so busy telling the rest of the world how to live, screws something like this up. But I also agree that it doesn't necessarily MAKE it worse, just LOOK worse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: mousethief Date: 16 Feb 01 - 03:53 PM Certainly looks like the fishing boat was off-limits, not the sub. This of course is part of what the "investigation" will have to investigate. Kudos to naemanson who has hit the nail on the head. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: Irish sergeant Date: 16 Feb 01 - 05:41 PM Mrrzy: I don't know how far out. There may be regulations concerning that since we lost two subs to undisclosed reasons in the 1960s, The Thresher and the Scorpian, one of which was doing precisely that sort of excersize when it was lost but don't ask me which. As to the U.S. telling evryone else what to do, let's not confuse politicians with real people. Kindest reguards, Neil |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: GUEST,John Gray / Australia Date: 16 Feb 01 - 06:15 PM To Amos & others who might be able to help me out on this. I'm ex-navy too, 60's $ 70's,and the underwater sound equipment then was good enough to detect the noise of the exhaust bubbles from a divers demand valve, at some distance too. Even if the screws were stationery the sound print from the trawler must have been extensive with the operating noise of diesel generators, compressors, air-con & and refrigeration machinery, sundry pumps etc. Now, the vast leap in technology in the last 30 years would lead me to believe that the sound detecting equip. on US subs should be able to pick up the sound of my goldfish farting in his tank in the kitchen.Well, nearly. How come they didn't "hear" this trawler cranking out all this noise ? Regards / John Gray F.M.E. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: catspaw49 Date: 16 Feb 01 - 06:36 PM That's the best question I can think of John! From all reports, everyone on board the sub were completely surprised. I truly am anxious to hear the Sonar explanation, because everything else seems like things that could happen...radar, periscope, etc. The sonar on the L.A. attack subs is pretty sophisticated from what little I know from reading and all. Your "goldfish fart" is pretty accurate. The only things I know of that would have kept it from picking up the trawler would be a layer of extra salinity (not likely), a thermal inversion (not likely either), or it was just not being monitored (or off). I'd like to know how this one can be explained.....or not. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: mousethief Date: 16 Feb 01 - 07:17 PM Or the ship was drifting with its engines off? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: GUEST,John Gray / Australia Date: 16 Feb 01 - 07:40 PM Mousethief. In my post I allowed for the fact that the screws ( propellers ) may have been stationery i.e. engines shut down. But all the auxilliary machinery, that I detailed, remains operating and, if you've ever been on a ship, it puts out a shitload of noise. JG / F.M.E. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 16 Feb 01 - 07:42 PM Reports I've seen is that the sub was out of the advisory area for sub activities. FWIW, the sub did an "emergency ascent" where the sub comes popping up, bow way out of the water, and comes down with a big splash (our pale imitation of a whale breaching). Comments that they did a periscope scan should be taken with a grain of salt; they wouldn't have time for much of that. Claiming a periscope scan sounds a bit too much like making up stories to cover up your guilt (anyone remember one of the Diallo cops claim under oath that Diallo held his wallet in a "combat stance"? No one holds their _wallet_ in a combat stance ... an obvious lie to cover for a guilty conscience and culpability). I wouldn't put it past those folks to have tried to splash the fishing vessel and scare the bejeezuz out of them, just for the jollies of the civvies on board. Kind of like those hot shots in the EA-6 in Italy a while back. Surprising they don't have periscope or sonar records available (say, remember the videotape from the EA-6?. . .). It is reported that two civilians _were_ at the controls. While active sonar might have some problems in heavy surface chop, you can't miss the clanging and screw sounds from a fishing boat right in front of you. It would have been screaming in the headphones of the sonar operators. If we can't spot a _fishing vessel_ right in front of our nuclear submarines, there's either criminal incompetence, criminal cover-up, or we have been wasting _billions_ of dollars. *sheesh* This stinks to high heaven. Amos, I think you're reading it wrong. Consider what I said, and rethink it a bit, willya? Cheers, -- Arne Langsetmo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: GUEST,John Gray / Australia Date: 16 Feb 01 - 08:07 PM Yeah 'spaw, we'd all like to have eplanations of how these things occur. Back in 64 I was on our only carrier and at 16 the youngest man at sea in our navy. ( We could enlist at 15.5 in those days )We ran right over one of our destroyers during night flying operations, cut her clean in half and she quickly sank. 96 sailors out of a crew of 300 were lost. Still our biggest peacetime maritime disaster. It took two royal commissions of enquiry ( equiv. to your senate enquiries I guess ) to come up with the reasons as to how it happened. This was a terrible tragedy. Probably only about 8 to 10 thousand personnel in the navy at the time. We knew most of the sailors that were killed. The standing joke back then was that, as our navy was so small, we didn't official service numbers - we all knew each other ! JG F.M.E.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: Amos Date: 16 Feb 01 - 11:05 PM Arne: My data, second hand at best, is that the fishing vessel was adrift and not under power when the incident occurred. I would be inclined to assume they did a 'scope scan because it WAS the drill, and the kinds of civilians who get onto such a ride are not usually the kind who would be impressed by joy-riders messing about with a 100 million dollar piece of Navy equipment (number guessed at, sorry). And the skipper said that he repeated the 'scope scan. But amidst the unusual chatter of their civvy supernumeraries, my "imagined scenario" is that they did the routine hastily under conditions where ordinary attentiveness would have been insufficient. The civilians at the controls were a nonissue because the only controls involved would have been the blow-valve master control (whatever it is properly called) which initiated the ascent, and the for'ard planes which would have had an unknown and probably unpredictable effect on the net track of ascent. The is because, even if you start a large object like that at an exactly known depth, angle of aspect and known location, your next instant does two things: it unleashes (by blowing the total air out of the tanks and replacing it with sea water) a chaotic condition of pressure, current and variable drag and lift in the immediate boundary between the sub and the surrounding water and (2) it unleashes an uncontrolled, completely over-ruling and unstoppable force on the entire boat, which will not stop no matter what you do until the vessel has broached and relaxed back to a floating posture on thesurface. It could have been Davey Jones at the controls ...once those valcves blow you're a cork in a hurricane. This was not a controlled ascent. That's why, given the unpredictable components of such a manuver, they do scan for traffic and why those operational zones are marked with safety zones on the charts that are often ignored by those with local knowledge and local concerns. You fish those waters daily for a year, say, and in all that time you only happen to see two subs, both doing surface exercises, so you think you have a fix on what really goes on there and you discount the markings because you don't need the chart anyway -- it's turf you know. Add in the silence of the vessel and the roughness of the visibility and you have the simpler, if more tragic and less culpable, hypthesis as the more probable. But who the hell knows beyond a sort of weighted speculation? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: Amos Date: 16 Feb 01 - 11:38 PM If you want to get some sense of the amount of forcve and random motion involved in the emergency-blow surfacing event, here's a clip of a different class of sub doing it. On the morning of April 10, 1963, the USS Thresher proceeded to conduct sea trials about 200 miles off the coast of Cape Cod. At 9:13 a.m., the USS Skylark (a surface vessel assigned to assist Thresher) received a signal, via underwater telephone, indicating that the submarine was experiencing "minor difficulties, have positive up-angle, attempting to blow." Shortly afterward, the Skylark received a series of garbled, undecipherable message fragments from the Thresher. At 9:18 a.m., The submarine community, the Navy and the nation were stunned. Thresher was the best of the newest. The ship was built at USS SCORPION specialized in the development of nuclear submarine During the late winter and early spring of 1966, and again in the fall, she was deployed for special operations. Following the On 1 February 1967, SCORPION entered the Norfolk Naval Shipyard for another extended overhaul. In late October, she A search was initiated; but, on 2 June, SCORPION and all hands were declared, "presumed lost." Her name was struck from The search continued, however and, at the end of October, the Navy's oceanographic research ship, Mizar, located sections of One hypothesis is that she carried a class of torpedo that had a vulnerability during maintenance of intiating a runaway condition, as though it had been fired, but never left its storage rack. This can be caused by as simple a mistake as mismanaging cable connections while recharging the torpedo's electric batteries. In an extreme case of runaway, the doctrinal manuver is turn the boat through a 180º turn; the fail-safe solution built into its targeting circuitry to force an abort of the program. If not aborted the program ends in detonation. The location at which the vessel was finally located supports the possibility that it turned on such a reversal of course, and the damage is not inconsistant with that manuver failing to have its desired effect of forcing an abort in the middle of a loaded torpedo rack. The reason the Navy failed to locate the vessel was because it assumed an ongoing track from last known location. I believe it was a civilian mathematician who had the genius to replot based on a different assumption (the 180º turn) name an entirely different search zone hundreds of miles back toward the med, and finally locate the vessel. SCORPION is in two major sections. The forward hull section including the torpedo room and most of the operations Regards, Amos |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: Metchosin Date: 17 Feb 01 - 01:44 AM Being in close proximity to any Naval vessels, even in peace time, is a bit of a crap shoot at best, especially when you live on Vancouver Island, due to the proximity of CFB Esquimalt and the Nanoose Bay Underwater Test Range. Fortunately, there have been no known fatalities, of which I'm aware, but it has created more than a few ruffled feathers.
VICTORIA (CP) - Embarrassed Canadian Navy officials launched an investigation Wednesday to probe reports that live ammunition may have been fired from a Canadian warship docked near Victoria.
A sailor on board the HMCS Huron. reported hearing a bang and seeing a flash at the end of the ship's anti-missile machine gun while the weapon was undergoing routine maintenance Tuesday. It's the second military misfire by the Canadian Navy in the area in recent years.
Commodore Ken McMillan, commander of the Pacific Fleet, said military police and a board of inquiry from National Defence headquarters in Ottawa will attempt to determine what happened in the most recent incident,
Thousands of people live near CFB Esquimalt, home of the Pacific Fleet. In August 1996, the Navy accidentally launched a 20-kilogram, 1.5-metre long chaff missile from HMCS Regina into the neighbouring community of View Royal.
The missile travelled almost three kilometres before crashing through a garage roof behind Pete's Tent and Awning, located on the main street in View Royal. There were no injuries, but the missile, which was not loaded with explosives, embedded itself into the ground after hitting the garage.
Shortly after the missile accident, Pete Bishop painted a bull's-eye onto the side wall of his business and put up a poster declaring Pete's Tent and Awning a missile free zone. A Navy inquiry determined human error caused the accidental firing.
''There were a lot of lessons learned from that particular incident,'' McMillan said Wednesday. ''We have hoisted in those lessons and we have moved forward. There is the policy that no live rounds are in any of our weapons systems while we are in harbour.'' (Although apparently not enough lessons to prevent the second occurrence) Brackets mine.
In another military misfiring incident two years ago, hikers on the world-renowned West Coast Trail in Pacific Rim National Park were forced to duck for cover as American naval vessels fired 50 calibre rounds into a wooded area near the popular hiking spot. Following that incident, measures were taken to ensure American and Canadian naval ships test their weapons far away from areas frequented by the public. (Yup, just send them a little farther up the Island, away from the German tourists, where there are only some Stellar's Sea Lions and a few Indians.)
(Fishermen are usually the ones at greater risk though.)
(Georgia Strait Alliance) In August, 1991 the USS Omaha, a nuclear attack submarine, was en route to the Nanoose range when it ran through a fleet of gillnetters. It snagged a net, tore it to pieces and terrified the fishermen aboard who thought their vessel was going to be overturned or submerged. Fisherman on site said that the sub was travelling at 17 knots and ignored Canadian Coast Guard warnings that a fishery was in progress. The same morning, the US Navy supply vessel Lewis B. Puller narrowly missed numerous fishboats and ran over up to twenty nets dragging several boats along behind. Fishermen report that the US sailors on deck laughed at the chaos their ship was creating and that when they left the river, cut the remnants of the nets loose to drift around in Georgia Strait.
(And if fishing isn't dangerous enough, God help you if you are in a sailboat, although you would think a fog horn would be detectable by technically more sophisticated vessels.)
In 1994 a German-built Chilean submarine on its way back from testing torpedoes at Nanoose Bay collided with and sank the B.C. sailboat Moonglow, nearly drowning its owner, Jory Lord. This collision happened even though the Moonglow was using full running lights, radar and a foghorn, and the modern, high-tech submarine was deploying radar reflectors.
"A West Vancouver man whose sailboat was sunk by a Chilean submarine about two years ago has launched a lawsuit against Chile, the United States and the Attorney General of Canada.
Jory Lord clung to a floating propane tank as his 15-metre (50-ft.) ketch, Moonglow, sank to the ocean floor in Juan de Fuca Strait on Sept. 11, 1994. The sailboat went down off Sheringham Point on the south coast of Vancouver Island.
Since then, Lord has fought unsuccessfully for redress in a David and Goliath battle. Lord has been up against the armed forces of the Chilean, Canadian and United States governments.
In a statement of claim filed on Wednesday in BC Supreme Court, Lord alleges that the Chilean submarine, Thomson, entered Canadian waters at the invitation of the United States under an agreement with the Canadian government.
The Thomson, the claim states, engaged in naval warfare exercises with Canadian and American navy vessels in Georgia Strait.
The Thomson, under the command of Capt. Juan Eduardo De La Cerda Merino (also named in the suit), left Nanoose Harbor on Vancouver Island and was en route to San Diego at the time of the collision. On board the diesel-powered sub were United States naval personnel. The sub was participating in military exercises at Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental and Test Ranges (CFMETR) near Nanoose, according to an August 1995 News story. Lord, a veteran seaman, was heading from Port San Juan to Victoria on a foggy evening.
The lawsuit alleges that the defendants were solely negligent in the sinking because they failed to keep a proper or "any" lookout at the time.
The claim also alleges that the submarine's captain falsely imprisoned Lord for 11/2 hours after the hypothermic Lord was rescued by Thomson crew and brought on board. Lord, the suit states, requested to be transferred to a Canadian port or a Canadian Coast Guard vessel. The suit claims the captain and two unidentified United States naval officers on board refused the request. They "confined" Lord to the sub until he signed a prepared statement, according to the lawsuit.
Lord, 27, is seeking damages for the loss of his boat and personal possessions. The lawsuit is also seeking punitive and aggravated damages. Lord's ketch was a 1939 wooden vessel. Its value is estimated at $300,000. The cost of insuring it for perils was prohibitive." (Sunken Sailor Sues by Anna Marie D'Angelo, News Reporter)
(Never heard about the outcome of this, I imagine if he hasn't run out of money, he's still in court.) The subs noted above were not submerged. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: sledge Date: 17 Feb 01 - 02:50 AM In all this I have to agree with Amos, the reason, I spent six years as a submariner in the RN. He describe the dynamics of an emergency surface very well, as a planesman I was often involved in the operation of surfaceing the boat, our station being next to the ballast control operator and a few feet from the officer of the watch position. Prior to surfacing an examination of the local area was always carried out using both periscopes and passive sonar equipment. For sonar to hear something there needs to be a noise source, the stuff you see in the movies regarding sonar is usualy complete tosh. Visibilty and sea state would also affect the use of the periscope, remember that they only have a foot or two of clearance in normal operation. in any kind of chop thats quite a lot. As for people doing things in designated submarine exercise areas, I have seen acts of stupidity (no navigation lights at night for example)that makes you wonder how they are allowed out the house alone let alone take a vessel to sea. Sledge |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: GUEST,John Gray / Australia Date: 17 Feb 01 - 04:50 PM Sledge, yes, I agree with you on the presence of a noise source and that the movies have clouded our view on this. No, they probably couldn't hear a couple of dozen pairs of chopsticks clacking together but, as stated in my previous post, even if the main engines were shut down and the prop. stationery, the amount of auxilliary machinery running is considerable. Diesel generators -for electricity, compressors - for refrigeration & air conditioning, lube-oil pumps, fresh water pumps, cooling water pumps etc.etc. All these items are generally below waterline, they are bolted to the ships hull, so, the mechanical noise print from them goes straight out into the ocean. It' bloody loud and it travels a long way - ask the whales, they've been communicating by underwater noise for some time now. JG F.M.E. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: Metchosin Date: 17 Feb 01 - 05:07 PM How about fog horns? And if they can't "hear" normal marine vehicle traffic or see running lights aren't they travelling blind? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: SINSULL Date: 21 Feb 01 - 04:52 PM From today's news: Sub Crew Aware of Japanese Boat The Associated Press Feb 21 2001 3:25PM WASHINGTON (AP) - For the first time, federal investigators are saying the crew of the USS Greeneville detected a surface ship in the area where the submarine later collided with a Japanese fishing boat. A crewman who was plotting sonar readings also has told investigators he was distracted by civilian guests in the control room and halted his work. The revelations came as the Navy delayed a rare Court of Inquiry until Monday in order to give the submarine's three top officers more time to prepare, officials said. And we wonder why we can't keep our kids from playing with guns. Grown men playing with a nuclear sub. Four mothers have lost teenage sons to pure stupidity.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: Amos Date: 21 Feb 01 - 09:55 PM So they _did_ have a sonar detection? Something does not make sense; a crewman who knew he had a positive 'hit' going into a forced-ascent exercise plan would not just let it drop. If the distraction occured before he had analyzed the trace, and it was too skimpy to be drop-dead certain about, I can see losing focus on the task; it is my understanding that analyzing faint sonar nujmbers can be very demanding, not easily done in noise. But I seriously doubt even a rating would drop the job if had actually "known" what he had. It gets muddier and muddier as the stories roll out, doesn't it? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: catspaw49 Date: 21 Feb 01 - 10:07 PM Hard to tell Amos. The sonar has always been, to me, the toughest to explain and the idea the op was "distracted" by civilians ain't gonna' wash. did he report to the OOD or Captain that he had a contact at any time? If so, what of the OOD and Captain re: being more meticulous in the scope check. Was it a twice around as first stated or just a cursory check? They needed to be sure anyway, but a report of a sonar contact should have made them extremely careful. Nine men dead. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: Sorcha Date: 21 Feb 01 - 10:09 PM Yes, it does. From what I have read, the sonar reading was over an hour (71 minutes?) before the collision, and the sonar operator stopped doing his job about 50 mins. before the collison.......apparently there was also not the approved ratio of supervisors to trained operators on board the boat......there was 1 operator and 2 trainees, or something...... God Bless America, and her Armed Forces.........it's just a total fiasco, and I am crying for the families involved......Friendly Fire, indeed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Karsk fiasco, US-style From: Metchosin Date: 22 Feb 01 - 01:19 AM Amos, I'm still curious. I was not making a flippant comment regarding "hearing foghorns and seeing running lights", I was legitimately asking a question because I have no knowledge regarding how submarines travelling on the surface keep watch.
I can understand that sound produced below water level travels well, but is using a foghorn on a sailing vessel of any use when in the proximity of larger vessels such as subs and the like? |