Posted on 04/09/2005 9:08:56 AM PDT by Textide
You're probably correct. It just amazes me, after reading all the info coming out about what was known, and what WASN'T know of the area, that the CO would permit a high speed transit.
They must have had a high PIM/SOA and were almost out of the box.
You'd think they'd do all that as "regular business"----you'd also think they'd write up a better excuse. Follow me here: Their story is they were driving south from Guam and were 400 miles out. If you do that at hi speed by definition you are going to hit an ISLAND, not just dirty water. There is a chain of islands that surrounds Guam, east to west right at 400 miles south and the passages between them are not deep water. They either were not where they say they were or the scrubbers weren't working?
I've never operated there, so I can't speak to the characteristics of the OPAREAS or the transit route. I have, however, done high-speed transits down though Baffin Bay where you cruise along and hope you don't nail an ice keel.
Anyway, ventilating is a routine operation regardless of the status atmosphere control equipment such as scrubbers and burners. They do nothing to replenish the oxygen supply; ventilating saves the trouble of bleeding O2 or using candles. Also ventilating equalizes air pressure and besides there's no replacement for real, clean air.
Had to be something like that. There are a couple of other reasons I can think of to go deep and fast like that but none of them are good.
Yeah, I used to build these things so have a handle on the gear. I mentioned the scrubbers in passing as a way of suggesting someone's mind wasn't right---either on the boat or writing the transit orders. Doubt if we're gonna get a straight answer as to WHERE this happened as well as HOW?
Typically the subs have redundant inertial navigation systems - one forward, one aft - with a central control/display unit reading inertial position, depth, speed, and the time of the last GPS reading. Even if they do surface to get a GPS fix, depending on how long it has been since the last one, the correction will be interpolated between the GPS and the inertial fix - the longer the time between GPS fixes, the more weight is given to the inertial fix.
Even so, we're not talking about a discrepancy of even half a mile between typical GPS and inertial fix, and that would probably have been well within the parameters of the chart they were using.
"But updates are expensive and take time."
As opposed to the sub repairs which Earl Schibe will complete this weekend for only $99.95!
Try getting electronic charts for open ocean or any point in the world from the commercial suppliers. Some of them are unavailable because of copyright issues, some of them simply don't exist outside of the NGIA charts.
Also, the NGIA electronic charts CAN be updated quickly with a download package to reflect known hazards, notices, etc. What the commercial packages do not offer is integration with radar and depth detection devices, input from inertial navigation systems as well as GPS, and other goodies like threat assessment, targeting, collision avoidance, parameters to match the operating characteristics of each individual vessel, man overboard, and search pattern presets. Most of that is not really necessary on Uncle Bob's fishing boat, and I doubt Uncle Bob wants to shell out for those features unless he's got a real axe to grind with the fish.
Try threading your way through a carrier battle group in the open ocean at 2:00 in the morning in a 42-foot sailboat! I think the only reason we didn't get shot at was that I had established contact with the lead vessel beforehand, thinking from the radar that it was a lone freighter. We actually chatted a little and then he warned me about the MASSIVE force about 40 miles behind him and went silent.
That only applies to boomers. Real submarines only have one inertial nav system - backed up the Mk-19 and Mk-29 gyrocompasses.
Mk-29 was supposed to read Mk-27.
Wouldn't the SF have had an RLGN? If so, they usually come in pairs.
The story sounds pretty plausable, actually (if true). Procedures, IF followed, mitigate the risks associated with submerged high-speed transits. Chart inaccuracies are common - more common than you would think - and the ocean is a dynamic place. These inaccuracies and dynamics are accounted for in navigation best practices.
Sounds like this incident was preventable, even with chart inaccuracies, if the findings described in the story are in fact what happened.
They would have most likely had ESGN. They only reason she's even commissioned still is because she's got five years of reactor core left.
Thanks..........Stay safe !
Worse than that---she was refueled/overhauled at Pearl just two years ago. That's gonna be a 15 year core and the Navy is NOT gonnawanta give that up.
Yeah, your right. I was thinking S5W instead of S6G. Whoops.
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.