U.S.S. San Francisco

Thats what happens when you drive a nuclear submarine into a sea mountain...

I heard that supposedly, the reason it happened was because that sea mountain was never put on any charts, and in fact, it shouldnt have been there. But sattelite images confirm that it is there now.

I wonder if it struck a underwater volcano or something?

-Ben.

To put it simply, there were two main reasons for the accident. Both were, by Navy Regs, the captain's responsibility.
First, the charts were not proberly updated, although there is some question about SubPac's responsibility.
Secondly, and more to the point, the navigation team failed to notify people that the water was shoaling and recommend slowing down.
Of course, the full report is much more detailed, but that's about what it boils down to.
Mike K.

but the captain was cleared in the accident report

Yep. But the completed investigation found him responsible and he was relieve of command.
Mike K.

Thats not right...

From what I read, the sea mount was NOT on any charts.

How could a captain get relieved of command, after running a submarine into a mountain that the Navy didnt even know existed?

Or were the submarines nav maps just not updated since the early 1900s...?

-Ben.

read this
"The findings of fact show that San Francisco, while transiting at flank (maximum) speed and submerged to 525 feet, hit a seamount that did not appear on the chart being used for navigation," the 124-page report said of the incident in the vicinity of the Caroline Islands.

"Other charts in San Francisco’s possession did, however, clearly display a navigation hazard in the vicinity of the grounding," it said. "San Francisco’s navigation team failed to review those charts adequately and transfer pertinent data to the chart being used for navigation, as relevant directives and the ship’s own procedures required.
http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=18257

The sailor who died in this collision was MM2 (SS) Cooter Ashley. His dad and many of his shipmates have been posting on various Sub Vet BBSs since this happened and it seems to be status quo with relieving the Skipper any time a collision takes place regardless of fault. Even if it's not his fault it's still his overall responsibility.. That's the way it has always been. Submarine navigation is a very fine art and there has been several "bottomings" in the past 40 years.. In each case the skipper was canned and rightfully so in my opinion as a Submarine Vet. It has to be so to make the system work.
It's really quite amazing and a testimony to the skills of the SSN 711's crew that this boat was not lost..A book will come and a movie will be made for sure and I'll be in line to read it and see it.

i will confirm the stuff about CO's getting relieved of command. CO's will get relieved of command if there is any evidence showing that the incident could have been avoided, the CO is responcible for what happens to HIS ship, regardless of whether or not he is on the bridge at the time. A Good example is of the USS Winston S Churchill being run into by the USS McFaul. The Churchill was anchored and therefore had no way to avoid being struck and therefore the CO stayed in command. The McFaul's OOD (officer of the deck) was taking part in whats called leap frogging, 2 ships passing eachother repeatedly, when the collision occured. He was relieved along with the CO due to the incident. At the time the CO was asleep in his stateroom, the reason he was relieved was because he was the officer who had qualified that particular OOD, and was therefore responsible since the OOD was "in command" of the ship at that time.

MM3 (SW/AW) Robert Beard, USN

Recently the USS Philadelphia SSN 690 had a fender bender with a Greek Commerce vessel. Even though the Greek was the overtaking vessel and at fault the Skipper of the Philly will most likely get canned because he allowed the other vessel to get too close... The USN is very specific about such matters. I for one agree with this policy, Their are many qualified to command awaiting their chance to do so.

Just take a moment to think about this. She was at moving at flank speed at a depth of 525...........FIVE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE FEET and then hits a mountain, and yet she was still able to surface.
Point one, they must really make those boats tough.
Point two, that must have been one h3ll of an effort by the crew not to loose her.

h3ll of an effort is right. Same can also be said for the crews of the Samual B. Roberts the Stark and most recently the Cole. The ability for these things to happen and for them to save the ship is due mostly if not completely to the extensive amounts of training they put us through on damage control.

but a submarine is different when at depth. when at that depth the water will be coming in like a super pressurized fire hose because of the pressureat that depth is close to a 1000lbs/sq inche compared to the surface pressure.

actually it is less than 250 PSI since 100 ft of water is 44 PSI

Actually it's coming in more than can it be pumped out.. Hence it's called flooding which is a no no on the Boats... The SF's Crew was splendid in their damage control and recovery of this vessel after such trama..
Submarines don't need anymore negative ballast than than can control.

finally someone who understands where i'm coming from. i take it you are an ex-submariner?

Navynuke 85 I am an ex submariner. I'm pretty sure the SSN 711 did not suffer from flooding after the collision they had a number of critical problems not to mention many seriously injured crewmen. . The forward Ballast tanks were severly damaged and when the crew exacuted an emergancy blow the Boat took a long time to start it's recovery. And when she did it had an "aft high" down bubble ( rear of the boat was going towards the surface first). When they finally got the boat on the surface they couldn't get her high enough out of the water to open the deck hatchs without fear of flooding the boat. The boat was nose down and drawing way too much water as well as being in a very heavy sea. This is the reason a helo medivac was not made. Getting the litters up 35 feet to the clamshell in the sail was almost impossible let alone evacuating them from that location. Soooo a SEAL Medical team was put aboard in heavy seas and most difficult conditions to help treat the many injured crewmen.
I'm sure a book will be written.
I was an HM 2 (SS) USS Bang SS 385, USS R.E. Lee SSBN 601 and the USS Lafayette SSBN 616SS) 1969-75..

Hey! Doc (multi-media), I gotta take exception to that first remark. There ain't no such thing as an ex-submariner, only sub vets. Submarining is like malaria, once you get it in your blood, you never, truly, get over it. (Same thing goes for Marines)

Also, are you aware that Floating Drydock has a set of Bang Ship's Plans (<>1953)? I send, a copy of them, to Tom several years ago. They show her with the North Atlantic sail, which, I believe, was her final configuration.
If you plan to make a model of her, out of Revell's new Gato, they're a "must have".
Mike K.

Hi mkeatingss,
Yeh I guess you're right ,I am active in the Groton USSVI. When I was on the Bang she had a " Portsmouth North Atlantic Sail" . They replaced her older Guppy 2a sail in the 60s sometime when the Navy recommissioned her. I was on her for about 7 months while we were transfering her to the Spanish Navy, I did not qual on her though.. almost.. I will check out the floating drydock site. I have been there before but was not aware of the Bang palns.. Thanks shipmate .. The Revell kit should be available next October.. I am counting the days...I have done Yankee models resin Balao in 1/350. I did a scratch built sail and reworked the bow etc.. It came out okay but was a lot of work. Thanks again for the info.

News update on the USS McFaul and USS Winston S. Churchill. Suprising as it is neither of the captains were relieved of command as a result of this incident. both are being allowed to finish their tours on their respective ships.