Posted on 02/12/2005 7:41:28 AM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
Story Number: NNS050212-01
Release Date: 2/12/2005 8:27:00 AM
YOKOSUKA, Japan (NNS) -- The commander of U.S. 7th Fleet, Vice Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert, relieved Cmdr. Kevin Mooney of his command of USS San Francisco (SSN 711) Feb. 12. The decision to relieve Cmdr. Mooney was made following non-judicial punishment (NJP) proceedings held in Yokosuka, Japan. Additionally, as a result of the NJP, Mooney received a Letter of Reprimand.
Following the submarine striking an underwater seamount Jan. 8, Greenert reassigned Mooney to the staff of Commander, Submarine Squadron 15, based in Guam. During the conduct of the investigation into this incident, it became clear to Greenert that several critical navigational and voyage planning procedures were not being implemented aboard San Francisco. By not ensuring these standard procedures were followed, Mooney hazarded his vessel.
One Sailor died and several were injured as a result of the grounding during operations in the Western Pacific Ocean. Of 137 aboard, 98 Sailors experienced some injury, and 23 were injured seriously enough that they were unable to stand duty during the sub’s transit back to Guam.
Cmdr. Andrew Hale, deputy commander, Submarine Squadron 15, has assumed the duties as commanding officer of San Francisco.
For more news from around the fleet, visit www.navy.mil.
The end of his career. Sad.
Yep. As a captain, a Letter of Reprimand means you're done.
bump
ping
The cost of the damage to his boat which must be borne by the taxpayer: sadder.
I was willing to wait for the results of the board of inquiry before criticizing anything.
At this point I need to ask the obvious.
How can a modern submarine, equiped with the latest sonar and gee whiz gadgetry which can spot a sardine at a gazillion yards, fail to register an freakin' underwater mountain?
ping
What about the Naviguesser?
This is already old news but probably worth a ping. This report indicates that Cmdr. Mooney did not follow "proper procedures" for "steaming."
When you cut corners, don't eff up.
Agreed. That's a *mystery* which needs to be answered ASAP.
Captain Kennedy of the USS Oldsmobile (SSN666) did not suffer any punishment for the sinking of his ship along with loss of life of his crew mate.
Before you call an Admiral a moron, you might want to acquire a basic knowledge of the sea. For example, the Navy doesn't use maps; they use charts.
That's very easy,
1. Active sonar is not used in transit, it gives away your position when used, there by defeating the "stealth" factor of a submarine. only passive sonar is used, which listens to sounds out in the water...and an underwater mount don't make any noise!
2. at those speeds (full bell or higher) sonar is usless, because of flow noise over the hull and array. to hear a concact you have to slow down, or it's right on top of you.
how do I know this? Retired STS1(SS/DV) that's Sonar Tech, Submarines for those not in the know.
You two may be interested in post #90 on this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1341625/posts
The cause of the collision isn't so mysterious.
Anyone know what happened with the Sam Houston before it was decommissioned? I heard it had a scrape or two, but not from the guy I know who was an officer on it in the 70's.
I hope this Cmdr. Mooney wasn't trying to draw Mickey Mouse images on his chart plotter.
I'd heard that that 'mountain' they hit wasn't on any existing maps, so if the tsunami had created it just days earlier, the passive listening had no chance to detect it at all. Is that correct?
Obviously, the equipment was not in operation during their high speed run. So I suppose the sub thought they knew their location in relation to all the hazards in the area.
I remember reading that the Russians, during the Warsaw pact days, mapped out the Northern Atlantic valleys and sea mounts from the port of Murmansk doing 40 knot or more high speed runs. So they could break out into the Atlantic in time of war. The would not use sonar, they used time/speed plans to do it in the blind.
Bah. I don't have to know the difference.
What I do know is that the technology has existed for a number of years that would allow for maps, oh I mean charts, to be made current.
Why haven't those in a position to make the fruits of this technology available to commanders done so? Are they lazy? Are they ignorant?
Instead they take their failure and pass the blame down.
How many Admirals have said, "we made a mistake" and "We're behind the times"?
The phrasing of the release sounds like the procedures that were not being followed were NOT the cause of the incident. The seamount was probably not on the charts and the procedures in question were probably not utterly mandatory, and had they been followed there was no guarantee that they would have prevented the accident.
But.
He was the guy in charge when it happened. If he'd been following those procedures he might have gotten lucky and not hit the seamount. It's not about justice for him; it's about maintaining precedent that the commander is responsible for accidents in his command. If someone does not like this rule, they need not become a commander.
I'm ex Air Force. The equivalent event in the AF is refueling accidents. Every once in a long while an enlisted troop will splash himself with fuel and a static spark will fry him. The guy who is blamed for it is the commander of his squadron. Some rule or procedure will be found that was not included in training of the troops. That will be declared the commander's fault.
If you do not like this, then don't become a commander.
Travel at 30 knots underwater and you are deaf, dumb, and BLIND
And before anyone tries to hang the skipper for going so fast, it actually is proceedure to go at that speed during transit. Ships cost $$s/hour to operate. By spending less time in transit they spend more time on patrol. Nukes are not like surface craft that use fuel as the cube of speed due to friction between the ship and the water.
In this case, I don't know if the captain was cutting corners or just got caught in bad circumstances.
So when a design flaw causes an accident, is it still the commander that gets the blame?
Suppose food is contaminated before being loaded on to a ship. Hundreds of sailors are poisoned and an accident results.
Still the commanders fault?
Suppose a commander orders that his sub be turned but because of a design flaw the sub goes straight and crashes. Should the commander be blamed?
These charts are part of the ship provided to the commander. He should be able to depend on them.
Outdated maps amount to a design flaw.
The responsibility for seeing that technology is applied to the creation of current maps lies with those higher in the chain.
Instead they pass the buck back down.
---times change--his older brother ran a PT boat into a Jap destroyer in the dark and was made out to be a hero---
Fortunatly for the country, Kenedy's "accident" prevented him from being a serious candidate for higher office. I don't know why the ppl of MA continue to put up with him as a seantor, but that is their choice.
Given the secretive nature of subs, I would think the boat would be running silent with all the sonar, et al, turned off --- being that active sonar is a big "Hello, here I am."
But what do I know? I flew a helicopter in the Army --- I am assuming active sonar is as big a "please kill me, here I am" as active radar.
From what I know, yes. I'm not a submariner of any kind, or even in the Navy, so I'm just going on what others are posting. It looks like this was just a freak accident, nothing else.
Why were they going so fast?
Is their stealth compromised at that speed?
If the sonar won't work at that speed because of all the "hull" noise, it seems other passive sonar would have picked them up!
the Navy doesn't use maps; they use charts.
The tsunami didn't cause it. The tsunami was in the Indian Ocean, and the sub was damaged in the Pacific ocean. (Not even considering the additional fact that tsunamis don't cause sea mounts.)
"several critical navigational and voyage planning procedures were not being implemented"
I was just a grunt and don't do Navy-speak, but I think this is just a polite way of saying they were lost.
Skipper error, simply put?
Guess so, T.
Your points are meaningful, but they do not carry the day.
The commander signed approval for acceptance of the contaminated food on board. He also accepted command of the ship with the design flaw. The same will be true for each of your examples. The commander accepted them. It was his choice.
The choice is to hold those who have assumed responsibility, responsible. If you start to depart from that precedent, then people who really did screw up will start to maneuver more aggressively to avoid being held responsible for their screwups.
It's a bit like the justice system. A choice was made to let 10 guilty men go free to lessen the odds of incarcerating an innocent man. A similar choice is in place with regard to commander responsibility. Ten times you punish a commander who did nothing wrong to avoid having a guilty one escape punishment.
In the movie U571, the skipper was asked, "How deep can this Sub Dive"?
The skipper answered "All the way to the bottom, unless we stop it".
Earlier reports seemed to by sympathetic to the CO. In any event, he's the one who is holding the bag.
There is precedent fore the Navy to blame the skipper of a ship for the Navy's shotcomings. In the late 60's, when the N. Kopreans hijacked the USS Pueblo in international waters, CDR. "Pete" Bucher was held accountable for the loss of his ship and the classified material it carried aboard.
Prior to beginning his ill-fated South China Sea patrol, he had expressed strong concerns to the CNO about the amout of classified material aboard his ship. The Pueblo was so overloaded with classified material, the crew had to stuff it it the overhead on top of pipes and wiring because there wasn't enough room to store it properly.
Bucher complained to his superiors about the amount of material several times between leaving Hawaii and his arrival in Japan. Not only did they ignore his requests, even after he expressed concerns that, in the event it became necessary, the crew would not have enough time to properly destroy the classified material, when he got to Japan, MORE classified material was loaded aboard the ship.
When the N. Koreans finally released Bucher and his crew after 11 months of captivity, Bucher was charged with violating military regs and court-martialed. The court-martial board acquitted him but, sadly enough, his career was over.
Buscher stayed in the Navy a few more years, but never really got fair treatment after the Pueblo incident and the court-martial. When he retired, it was generally acknowledged that he was being forced out and that he career had ended after his court martial.
The entire Pueblo affair is nothing if not a well-documented story of senior Navy officers covering their brass at the expense of a less senior officer.
Russian subs in Tom Clancy's the "Hunt for Red October" used that method to transit to the mid-Atlantic.
That's how I read it, too.
There is nothing qutie like the bright light of an investigation to reveal any flaws in the operating procedures whatever. The true cause of the accident may be classified for good reason or ill. That unexpected problems will occur to the most powerful armed forces in the world is to be expected. That every problem will be aired in public is probably not reasonable.
An earlier article says that the most recent chart didn't show the seamount, but that an earlier one showed a "discolored" spot in the water (maybe observed by an aircraft?).
It's normal practice to use the most recent charts. I've used nautical charts all my life, and it would be extremely unusual to pull out older charts for comparison on a regular basis. Not unless you had some reason for doubt or were navigating a tricky harbor or channel, which doesn't seem to be the case here.
So I wouldn't fault the commander on that basis. The fault was with whoever was responsible for updating the chart. That person either should have kept the "discolored" notation or made some effort to ascertain whether there was anything there by either confirming or refuting the original doubtful report.
Whether he was derelict in any other way, I don't know. Sure, the captain is responsible for his ship, but that assumes he has an opportunity even to make a decision before the event is over.
By this (very stupid) standard, Bush should impeached.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.