Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Obviously it does exist. If in fact it was a seamount. Are there more? How many damaged subs are willing to risk? Who is to say if damage occurred again, the crew could make it back to a friendly port. The Chinese coaxed an AWACs out of sky, stole every bit of technology in it and returned the husk to us. Are we willing to give them a nuclear submarine?The US started really using subs in WWI. It was a small fleet, but effective.
In that 100 years, can you tell me how many time a US submarine has hit an underwater object that comprehensive mapping would have prevented?
It sounds like you have a great, albeit expensive, solution for a problem that does not really exist.
Obviously it does exist. If in fact it was a seamount. Are there more? How many damaged subs are willing to risk? Who is to say if damage occurred again, the crew could make it back to a friendly port. The Chinese coaxed an AWACs out of sky, stole every bit of technology in it and returned the husk to us. Are we willing to give them a nuclear submarine?
If we are not willing to seek solutions, we have no business being there and allowing it to happen again.
This is the third incident in the last 20 years. The USS Hartford ran aground in 2003, the USS San Francisco struck something in 2005. Looks like we haven't learned from our mistakes nor bothered to find solutions. That indicates a level of stagnation on our part. We need to be moving forward not sitting still.First of all, a single collision with undersea terrain in almost 100 years makes this incident as rare as they get.
Second of all, submarine crews are the best trained people in the Navy, as far as damage control goes.
And third, if a crew has to abandon ship, they will scuttle the boat in such a way as to make it useless to the Chinese.
As for how many more damaged subs are we willing to risk, we risk damage and death every time we submerged. There were no deaths in this incident. In fact, only 2 nuclear submarine have been lost at sea since the Nautilus was launched in 1954. The USS Thresher and the USS Scorpion were lost in 1963 and 1968 respectively. The Thresher had a piping issue, which resulted in a design change immediately. The Scorpion's loss is thought to be human error with a Mk 37 torpedo. No loss of a US submarine in over 50 years of continuous use speaks for itself.
Queation..Have they no way to detect depth?This is the third incident in the last 20 years. The USS Hartford ran aground in 2003, the USS San Francisco struck something in 2005. Looks like we haven't learned from our mistakes nor bothered to find solutions. That indicates a level of stagnation on our part. We need to be moving forward not sitting still.
Judging by how our current crop of 'leaders' have conducted themselves I'm not overly confident they wouldn't just hand over a damaged sub.
List of submarine and submersible incidents since 2000 - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
This is the third incident in the last 20 years. The USS Hartford ran aground in 2003, the USS San Francisco struck something in 2005. Looks like we haven't learned from our mistakes nor bothered to find solutions. That indicates a level of stagnation on our part. We need to be moving forward not sitting still.
Judging by how our current crop of 'leaders' have conducted themselves I'm not overly confident they wouldn't just hand over a damaged sub.
List of submarine and submersible incidents since 2000 - Wikipedia
Queation..Have they no way to detect depth?
The Hartford ran aground in 2003. It struck a ship in a separate incident. It's in the link.The USS Hartford hit a US Navy ship. Charting the ocean floor would not have helped. And the investigation found that it was lax leadership and planning that caused the accident.
The USS San Francisco struck an undersea mountain. They had charts that showed the mountain, but did not review them properly. And they were traveling at flank speed. Again, a complete mapping of the ocean floor would not have helped.
The Hartford ran aground in 2003. It struck a ship in a separate incident. It's in the link.
So the real problem is actually incompetence? Great.
The Hartford ran aground in 2003. It struck a ship in a separate incident. It's in the link.
So the real problem is actually incompetence? Great.
It's not BS, it is true. A US Navy submarine crashed into an unknown object underneath the water. Causing damage and injuries.
That's the truth.
What could have it crashed into to cause such damage and injuries?
That's the question.
The earth. My assumption is that this was a spying mission that bumped into something while in Chinese waters and they are painting it as having happened way out in the deep water.
Plain navigation errors. A lot of people got fired.It ran aground in the harbor. I'd be willing to guess that they had maps of the bottom in the harbor.
Fathometers give away the ship's position by making noise in the water.Queation..Have they no way to detect depth?
Let's step back for a moment, and understand the reason for an argument, over an accident that happened. The Admiral has supplied FACTS about how submarines work. There's nothing to argue there.Change the laws of physics? What sort of nonsense is that? You admitted we have mapped 20% of the ocean floor, now you claim it would be against the laws of physics? Wow.
Sadly, it's a little late to start now, and that is the failure. You excuse the failure because it would be hard. Excusing failure only breeds more.
I hardly have a holier than thou attitude, I simply have expectations. Too bad our so-called leadership does not.
How is the accident his fault? What failure did he excuse, to make these accusations? Where are you going with this troll argument?Change the laws of physics? What sort of nonsense is that? You admitted we have mapped 20% of the ocean floor, now you claim it would be against the laws of physics? Wow.
Sadly, it's a little late to start now, and that is the failure. You excuse the failure because it would be hard. Excusing failure only breeds more.
I hardly have a holier than thou attitude, I simply have expectations. Too bad our so-called leadership does not.
en.unesco.org
