nuclear-powered sub & oil tanker collide

thumbs

Tony 'da Rat
Oct 16, 2000
2,484
1
How does this happen with all the radar, sonar and other high tech stuff on these vessels?

Maybe the telescope was broken?:idea:

http://news.aol.com/topnews/article...p/20070109100909990002?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Updated:2007-01-09 11:41:12
U.S. Submarine Collides With Japanese Ship
AP
TOKYO (Jan. 9) - A U.S. in the Straits of Hormuz, through which 40 percent of the world's oil supplies travel, officials said.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Talk About It: Post Thoughts

No one was hurt in the accident that happened Monday night in the 34-mile wide straits, which are bordered by Iran and Oman and serve as the entrance to the Persian Gulf.

Damage to the fast-attack USS Newport News submarine and the supertanker was light and there was no resulting spill of oil or leakage of nuclear fuel, officials from the U.S. Navy and the Japanese government said.

Both ships remained able to navigate, Navy officials said.

The bow of the submarine was traveling submerged when it hit the stern of the supertanker Mogamigawa as the vessels were passing through the Straits, causing minor damage to the Japanese vessel, the U.S. Navy and Japan's Foreign Ministry said. The Japanese government said it was informed of the crash by the Navy and the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo.

The tanker, operated by Japanese shipping company Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd., was able to continue to a nearby port in the United Arab Emirates, the statement said.

Commander Kevin Aandahl of the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet in Bahrain confirmed there had been a crash and that there were no injuries aboard either ship. Aandahl said the submarine had surfaced and its crew was evaluating damage.

The Navy said the sub's nuclear propulsion plant was undamaged. The Newport News is based in Norfolk, Va., and is part of a U.S.-led multinational task force patrolling the Persian Gulf and nearby seas. It has a crew of 127.

The Mogamigawa was traveling from the Gulf to Singapore and was carrying a crew of eight Japanese and 16 Filipinos. It is expected to arrive in the port of Khor Fakkan later Tuesday, company spokeswoman said on condition of anonymity, citing protocol.

She said crew members reported a sudden large bang and shaking just before the collision, but no other details were immediately available.

The Japanese government has asked the U.S. side to investigate. Aandahl said a Navy investigation would begin shortly.

In February 2001, a U.S. Navy submarine rammed into a Japanese fishing vessel in waters off Hawaii, killing nine people. The American captain's delay in apologizing for the crash triggered protests by the victims' families.

U.S. naval vessels have been involved in previous collisions with commercial ships in the busy shipping lanes around the Persian Gulf. In September 2005, the U.S. nuclear submarine Philadelphia collided with a Turkish cargo ship in the Gulf, causing no injuries.

In July 2004, the aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy collided with a dhow in the Gulf, leaving no survivors on the traditional Arab sailing boat. The Navy relieved the Kennedy's commander, Capt. Stephen B. Squires, after the incident.

Fleets of U.S. and allied navy vessels patrol the Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea and western Indian Ocean, attempting to block smuggling of weapons to Iraq and Somalia, nuclear components to Iran, as well as the movement of drug shipments and terrorists.

U.S. and coalition ships started patrolling the coast of Somalia in recent weeks in a bid to capture any al-Qaida suspects fleeing Ethiopia's December invasion.
 

bsmith

Wise master of the mistic
LIFETIME SPONSOR
Jun 28, 2001
1,782
0
Japanese shipping company Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd
So the elusive KKK was involved! :laugh:
 

JPIVEY

Sponsoring Member<br>Club Moderator
LIFETIME SPONSOR
Mar 9, 2001
3,180
0
I can see this happening with all the high tech stuff, It's not easy to pick up something designed to evade radar
 

D Lafleur

LIFETIME SPONSOR
Dec 11, 2001
610
0
The ship's radar has a hard time detecting submarine travel, that would be Sonar. The radar wave effectively bounces off the surface of the water.

The sub crew should never have let this happen. I am sure someone wasnt listening, an Oil Tanker traveling isnt the stealthiest thing in the water.
 

thumbs

Tony 'da Rat
Oct 16, 2000
2,484
1
I can understand the oil tanker not knowing of the subs location. But you would think the sub knows where all vessels short of a canoe are at.
 

76GMC1500

Uhhh...
Oct 19, 2006
2,142
1
The trouble is, the commanders of US Navy ships are rarely experienced seamen and do not have to meet the same standards of competency as the captains/officers merchant vessels, especially those in the US.
 

thumbs

Tony 'da Rat
Oct 16, 2000
2,484
1
D Lafleur said:
The ship's radar has a hard time detecting submarine travel, that would be Sonar. The radar wave effectively bounces off the surface of the water.

The sub crew should never have let this happen. I am sure someone wasnt listening, an Oil Tanker traveling isnt the stealthiest thing in the water.
Exactly what I was thinking.

Maybe someone should have taken a peek through the telescope.
 

VintageDirt

Baked Spud
LIFETIME SPONSOR
Jan 1, 2001
3,043
9
76GMC1500 said:
The trouble is, the commanders of US Navy ships are rarely experienced seamen and do not have to meet the same standards of competency as the captains/officers merchant vessels, especially those in the US.
Are you sure about that?
 

thumbs

Tony 'da Rat
Oct 16, 2000
2,484
1
76GMC1500 said:
The trouble is, the commanders of US Navy ships are rarely experienced seamen and do not have to meet the same standards of competency as the captains/officers merchant vessels, especially those in the US.
So you are saying the U.S. Navy puts a unexperienced commander in charge of $900 million Sub that is one of most deadly weapons in the world?

What is your source?
 

76GMC1500

Uhhh...
Oct 19, 2006
2,142
1
I believe my source was the USCG published magazine, Proceedings. I have been unable to find the article. It was very critical of the Navy saying it was involved in more collisions than any other organization on the water.
 

84cr125flyer

~SPONSOR~
Oct 2, 2002
49
0
76GMC1500 said:
Here is an article, it is not the exact one I read previously: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1992/SJT.htm

Don't mean to be critical but the thesis is surface warfare not subsurface. However, it does bring into question how can there be two major collisions, one resulting in multiple deaths and the other none, not result in improvements with the systems on board submarines to detect surface vessels before they ascend. The weird thing is both major accidents involved Japanese vessels. :think: What about all the other incidents that have gone unreported
 

VintageDirt

Baked Spud
LIFETIME SPONSOR
Jan 1, 2001
3,043
9
thumbs said:
Periscope up!
Did you catch the Paris scope vid? It was one of them inter nets, I think it was using night vision and maybe viagra.
 

thumbs

Tony 'da Rat
Oct 16, 2000
2,484
1
VintageDirt said:
Did you catch the Paris scope vid? It was one of them inter nets, I think it was using night vision and maybe viagra.
 

Attachments

  • That'sFunny.jpg
    That'sFunny.jpg
    28.3 KB · Views: 88

76GMC1500

Uhhh...
Oct 19, 2006
2,142
1
The earlier accident with the fishing boat was not entirely the fault of the sub. The fishing boat was likely tracking the sub with its fish finder. So, as the sub sufraced, the fishing boat was right on top of it.
 

JPIVEY

Sponsoring Member<br>Club Moderator
LIFETIME SPONSOR
Mar 9, 2001
3,180
0
Just heard that Japan has ordered all commercial and private vessels to surround themselves with dock bumpers and the DOD has ordered all Subs to be equiped with curb feelers
 

mtk

Member
Jun 9, 2004
1,409
0
76GMC1500 said:
I believe my source was the USCG published magazine, Proceedings. I have been unable to find the article. It was very critical of the Navy saying it was involved in more collisions than any other organization on the water.

We also operate the largest submarine fleet on the planet.

Some former colleagues were submariners and they all agreed that surfacing a sub is one of the most dangerous operations they do. It is very easy to hit a surface ship while coming up and if you do the sub will be fine and the surface ship will be making an express trip to the bottom. Submarine pressure hulls are pretty durable creations.
 

Solid State

Member
Mar 9, 2001
493
0
mtk said:
It is very easy to hit a surface ship while coming up and if you do the sub will be fine and the surface ship will be making an express trip to the bottom. Submarine pressure hulls are pretty durable creations.

Since the pressure hull referes to the inner hull which holds the difference between outside and inside pressure, wouldn't the sub still sustain damage to it's outer light hull in such a collision during surfacing? Just asking.
 

76GMC1500

Uhhh...
Oct 19, 2006
2,142
1
I believe the pressure hull and outer hull are one in the same for submarines, I'm not sure, though.

However, it is a major misconception to think that Navy ships will survive a collision better. Navy ships are built to be light weight for speed, merchant ships have tighter frame spacing which makes them tougher, but heavier.
 
Jan 13, 2007
2
0
Numbers...

The Navy may be more involved in more collisions at sea, but you also need to take in to consideration how many vessels we have at sea at any given time. With that being taken in to consideration, of course our numbers will be higher than most. And I would never believe that the Coast Guard published anything about the US Navy Captains/Commanders being unexperienced, considering that ALL US captains (regardless of Coast Guard or Navy) qualify under the same standards.
 

mtk

Member
Jun 9, 2004
1,409
0
76GMC1500 said:
I believe the pressure hull and outer hull are one in the same for submarines, I'm not sure, though.

However, it is a major misconception to think that Navy ships will survive a collision better. Navy ships are built to be light weight for speed, merchant ships have tighter frame spacing which makes them tougher, but heavier.

Navy ships are frequently armored, unlike merchant ships.

No matter, the hull on a surface ship is in no way comparable to a submarine.
 

76GMC1500

Uhhh...
Oct 19, 2006
2,142
1
Missiles have made armor obsolete, you will not see armored ships being built by the Navy any more.

Hulls can be compared, a large tanker or bulk freighter may sit 70 feet below the surface at full load, it has to be somewhat of a pressure hull.

Any groundings and collisions are unexceptable and I was suprised to find that the Navy was having a problem. US merchant marine officers and even those from overseas have to meet STCW standards of competent watchstanding. Navy officers do not. The US Coast Guard would like the Navy to bring its officers up to everybody else's standards. Driving a ship from sea buoy to sea buoy is easy, but once in a manuvering situation, Navy captains have to rely on a pilot. They should not rely on the pilot, he should only be on board as an advisor.
 
Top Bottom