Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Well, That Sucks- Aegis Vs. Fast Attack Collide  
User currently offlineKBJCpilot From United States of America, joined May 2012, 178 posts, RR: 6
Posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6727 times:

"A U.S. Navy Aegis cruiser collided with a nuclear-powered submarine during exercises off the East Cost on Saturday, collapsing the sonar dome on the cruiser and possibly causing other damage, but no injuries, U.S. Navy officials said."

Two CO's will be kissing their careers goodbye.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...idUSBRE89D00X20121014?feedType=RSS


Samsonite, I was way off!
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineboacvc10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 624 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6693 times:

This puzzles me. I'm only going on by some cursory knowledge, but wouldn't the Sub commander have had a report from sonar that a ship was so nearby, as he surfaced? I understand that (ala, perhaps Titanic) a warship cannot turn on a dime, and hopefully tried to make a turn away from a direct collision, but how much time would they have had to respond, and could the cruiser have made it?

I read elsewhere that the sonar dome of the ship is totally unpressurized due to contact, and that would have been about the depth of the submerged deck of the sub (guess!) so do we have a case of the ship running over a sub (joke!) or a ship and a sub meeting side by side. In that case, the sub hull is a pretty tough cookie then. But it would have left a big dent, right?



Up, up and Away!
User currently offlineNBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6506 times:

Quoting KBJCpilot (Thread starter):
Two CO's will be kissing their careers goodbye.

It will depend on who was not where they were supposed to be. BZ to the watches for seeing the parascope before the collision giving the captain enough time to at least slow the ship down. Hopefully they get some awards for their actions.

At least they can still pull over and exchange insurance information.



"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12970 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6496 times:

Quoting boacvc10 (Reply 1):
wouldn't the Sub commander have had a report from sonar that a ship was so nearby, as he surfaced?

Playing armchair admiral, I'd have to say this is mostly on the sub commander. Both ships certainly should have been darn aware of each other's presence, but it was the submarine commander's decision to surface that's the proximate cause of the incident.

Quoting boacvc10 (Reply 1):
I read elsewhere that the sonar dome of the ship is totally unpressurized due to contact, and that would have been about the depth of the submerged deck of the sub (guess!) so do we have a case of the ship running over a sub (joke!) or a ship and a sub meeting side by side. In that case, the sub hull is a pretty tough cookie then. But it would have left a big dent, right?

That really depends on exactly how fast they were going when the collision happened.

The sub hull is indeed tough, but more so the inner hull (which is what protects the crew) rather than the outer hull (which is used to store ballast water needed to raise or lower the sub).

It sounds like a glancing blow, otherwise we'd be reading of how the cruiser's propellers sliced away at the sub.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineMarSciGuy From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 550 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 5845 times:

Quoting boacvc10 (Reply 1):

This puzzles me. I'm only going on by some cursory knowledge, but wouldn't the Sub commander have had a report from sonar that a ship was so nearby, as he surfaced? I understand that (ala, perhaps Titanic) a warship cannot turn on a dime, and hopefully tried to make a turn away from a direct collision, but how much time would they have had to respond, and could the cruiser have made it?

I read elsewhere that the sonar dome of the ship is totally unpressurized due to contact, and that would have been about the depth of the submerged deck of the sub (guess!) so do we have a case of the ship running over a sub (joke!) or a ship and a sub meeting side by side. In that case, the sub hull is a pretty tough cookie then. But it would have left a big dent, right?

While I'm not a military person and thereby don't know the specifics on cruiser/destroyer propulsion, BUT many modern Civilian ships are equipped with bow thrusters or Azi Pods (Azimuthing Pods) that allow for a great level of maneuverability. A NOAA Ship I was aboard a decade ago had both and instead of doing the Williamson turn they would spin the pods forward and full power, stopping the 274' ship going 16 kts in a ships' length... it was rarely done other then actual MOB drills or incidents, as that maneuver puts a huge amount of stress on the structure and fittings of the vessel.

Cheers! (now back to cleaning the house as the baby is about to return from an appt   )



"There weren't a ton of gnats there where a ton of gnats and their families as well!"
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10251 posts, RR: 97
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 5791 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 3):
but it was the submarine commander's decision to surface that's the proximate cause of the incident.

As a technicality, the article doesn't say he decided to "surface", but was at periscope depth.

Whether the cruiser knew the sub was there before they saw the periscope is a good question - the alarm being raised by the sighting of the periscope suggests they might not have, but we don't know.
I can't imagine the sub didn't know there was a cruiser steaming at some speed within stone throwing distance

Gut feel? Just rank bad seamanship on the part of the sub's OOW.
Seen that before.........  
Quoting boacvc10 (Reply 1):
I read elsewhere that the sonar dome of the ship is totally unpressurized

It will probably be free-flood (be full of sea-water), to allow the incoming sound waves to propagate right through the medium of the water until they impact the transducers..

Rgds


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1859 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5642 times:

Quoting MarSciGuy (Reply 4):
While I'm not a military person and thereby don't know the specifics on cruiser/destroyer propulsion, BUT many modern Civilian ships are equipped with bow thrusters or Azi Pods (Azimuthing Pods) that allow for a great level of maneuverability. A NOAA Ship I was aboard a decade ago had both and instead of doing the Williamson turn they would spin the pods forward and full power, stopping the 274' ship going 16 kts in a ships' length... it was rarely done other then actual MOB drills or incidents, as that maneuver puts a huge amount of stress on the structure and fittings of the vessel.

The Tico's are traditionally laid out; no bow thrusters, twin screws. Warship construction have not fully embraced Azi Pods or bow thrusters yet.


User currently offlineBladeLWS From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5625 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 6):

The Tico's are traditionally laid out; no bow thrusters, twin screws. Warship construction have not fully embraced Azi Pods or bow thrusters yet.

Ticos have a traditional layout but that's where the similarity ends. Those ships are powered by gas turbines and variable pitch propellers, you can get immediate full astern power with a few seconds of going from flank to full back. IIRC you can stop a ship that size within a boat length or two but if you're to close it doesn't really matter.

There was a breakdown command on the sub that caused this to happen. Sonar must validate the area as clear, and the OOD or CO will visually confirm the surface picture via the scope before coming up, unless it's an emergency blow.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1859 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5601 times:

Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 7):
Ticos have a traditional layout but that's where the similarity ends. Those ships are powered by gas turbines and variable pitch propellers, you can get immediate full astern power with a few seconds of going from flank to full back. IIRC you can stop a ship that size within a boat length or two but if you're to close it doesn't really matter.

There was a breakdown command on the sub that caused this to happen. Sonar must validate the area as clear, and the OOD or CO will visually confirm the surface picture via the scope before coming up, unless it's an emergency blow.

Indeed, but the the more exotic azi pod thrusters have not fully been embraced by warship designers.

Warship designers have used Voith Schneider Propellers in the past, but realistically, only for ships that require lots of maneuverability and can sacrifice speed, such as minesweepers. A big switch has been for newer designs to use Integrated electric propulsion, which considering the increasing electrical demands on warships today, is a necessary switch.

Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 7):
There was a breakdown command on the sub that caused this to happen. Sonar must validate the area as clear, and the OOD or CO will visually confirm the surface picture via the scope before coming up, unless it's an emergency blow.

Indeed. I will not be surprised to see the CO of sub to be removed from duty at the very minimum. The captain of the cruiser will probably still continue to serve on the ship.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10251 posts, RR: 97
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5316 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting boacvc10 (Reply 1):
In that case, the sub hull is a pretty tough cookie then. But it would have left a big dent, right?

Didn't see this earlier. But no. The sonar dome would be lucky to scratch the sub's hull, much less dent it. Might pull some tiles off  

It could easily make a nice mess of the free-flood fore and aft ends, hydroplanes, rudders, bridge-fin (that'll be the "sail" to all you gents from across the pond   ), or casings (if US SSN's had any)

Rgds


User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1412 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5236 times:

Quoting NBGSkyGod (Reply 2):

At least they can still pull over and exchange insurance information.

Nahh, that'll buff right out.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 3):

It sounds like a glancing blow, otherwise we'd be reading of how the cruiser's propellers sliced away at the sub.

Well... Are the cruiser's screws made of the same metal? I always thought that there they traded some brute strength away to get a more corrosion resistant metal. I always figured that's why they were made (or is just coated with) from brass.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 5):
Whether the cruiser knew the sub was there before they saw the periscope is a good question - the alarm being raised by the sighting of the periscope suggests they might not have, but we don't know.
I can't imagine the sub didn't know there was a cruiser steaming at some speed within stone throwing distance

Yeah, you'd think a cruiser's screws would be audible through the sub's hull even without needing the sonar suite for that one. Should have been louder than a train wreck at that range.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 5):

It will probably be free-flood (be full of sea-water), to allow the incoming sound waves to propagate right through the medium of the water until they impact the transducers..

Hmmm.. Interesting. I had previously assumed it was pressurized to avoid balance issues. But I guess having a water medium right up to the 'phones probably does save quite a lot of processing power what with not having to compute out the massive speed of sound differences between water and sea level air. Good point.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10251 posts, RR: 97
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5190 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 10):
I had previously assumed it was pressurized to avoid balance issues. But I guess having a water medium right up to the 'phones probably does save quite a lot of processing power what with not having to compute out the massive speed of sound differences between water and sea level air. Good point.

A reference....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulbous_bow

Quote:
The entire compartment is flooded with water and the acoustic window of the bulb is made of fiber-reinforced plastic or another material (such as rubber) transparent to underwater sounds as they are transmitted and received.

Amazing what you can find out from Wiki....  

Rgds


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4457 times:

Is it just me or does this collission sound similar to the USS Greenville (SSN-772) and the Ehime Maru back in 2001?

User currently offlinewoodreau From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1053 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4357 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 10):
Yeah, you'd think a cruiser's screws would be audible through the sub's hull even without needing the sonar suite for that one. Should have been louder than a train wreck at that range.

It depends if the prairie masker was in use or not. If it was in use the acoustic signature of the surface ship is significantly reduced.

If its an exercise, there is usually a designated safety course for the participants to come to if there is an unexpected sighting of a periscope or submarine. And during routine operations there usually are designated operating "water space" areas that are supposed to separate submarines from other submarines and surface ships laterally vertically and in time.



Bonus animus sit, ab experientia. Quod salvatum fuerit de malis usu venit judicium.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1859 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4284 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
Is it just me or does this collission sound similar to the USS Greenville (SSN-772) and the Ehime Maru back in 2001?

Very similar. Also similar in terms of what happened between the USS Hartford and USS New Orleans.


User currently onlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29839 posts, RR: 58
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4131 times:

Interesting thing is that histirically there are many documented US-Soviet sub collisions

And those are just the ones we know about



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Well, That Sucks- Aegis Vs. Fast Attack Collide
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Is That The Parking Brake? posted Tue Aug 14 2012 14:05:18 by Blobusus
Red Flag Raptor Vs. Typhoon posted Thu Aug 2 2012 06:29:38 by wingman
S-IC Stage Vs. SRBs Question posted Sat Mar 24 2012 10:00:30 by Thrust
Iran Vs. The Super Tankers posted Tue Jan 3 2012 16:08:48 by cmb56
Is It True That A F-35C Is Super Heavy. posted Mon Dec 12 2011 09:10:34 by 747400sp
Rafale Vs Typhoon Again In The UAE posted Sun Nov 13 2011 06:21:48 by Devilfish
EF2000 Vs Su-30MKI posted Mon Jul 25 2011 01:27:21 by epten
Single Unit Rockets Vs. SRB Assisted Ones posted Sat Jul 16 2011 13:19:51 by Thrust
Efficiency Vs Numbers posted Tue Jun 28 2011 14:57:16 by packcheer
Saturn V Launch Performance Vs. Shuttle posted Sat May 21 2011 11:48:39 by Thrust

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format