U.S. Navy Not Fit For War

[85SugarVol]

That had to be one hell of a collision. Miracle no one died.

I mean the front of the boat …. It’s gone…

I don’t know how she made it to the surface.

 

[GreyWolf1129]

You have any good links for this?

“Read up on the Pittsburgh and the Louisville. 'hawk shooters. And nobody on the other side had any idea they were within hundreds of miles until the missiles started hitting their targets.”

@GreyWolf1129

Yeah, Google "Submarines shoot missiles in Gulf War". That should get you started.

 

[GreyWolf1129]

That had to be one hell of a collision. Miracle no one died.

Someone did. A sailor was killed when he slammed into the Diesel engine when she hit the seamount. There were a large number of other injuries, ranging from bumps and bruises to broken bones. The Corpsman (all they carry is an IDC Corpsman. No Doctor) did a phenomenal job. I think a surface ship transferred a Dr. and other med help via helo.

Near-miracle they didn't lose the boat. Says a lot as to how tough they build them, and how tough that crew was.

 

[YankeeVol]

Someone did. A sailor was killed when he slammed into the Diesel engine when she hit the seamount. There were a large number of other injuries, ranging from bumps and bruises to broken bones. The Corpsman (all they carry is an IDC Corpsman. No Doctor) did a phenomenal job. I think a surface ship transferred a Dr. and other med help via helo.

Near-miracle they didn't lose the boat. Says a lot as to how tough they build them, and how tough that crew was.

From the article posted:
There were no life-threatening injuries and the US Pacific fleet said at the time that the submarine remained in stable condition.

*not trying to argue or anything, just genuinely curious

 

[GreyWolf1129]

From the article posted:
There were no life-threatening injuries and the US Pacific fleet said at the time that the submarine remained in stable condition.

*not trying to argue or anything, just genuinely curious

Collision with seamount[edit]
On 8 January 2005 at 02:43 GMT, San Francisco collided with an undersea mountain about 364 nautical miles (675 km) southeast of Guamwhile operating at flank (maximum) speed at a depth of 525 feet (160 m).[3]
Official US Navy reporting subsequent to the grounding cited the location as "in the vicinity of the Caroline Islands".[4] The position of the impact was estimated by a newspaper account as 7°45'06.0"N 147°12'36.0"E,[5] between Pikelot and Lamotrek Atolls.
The collision was so serious that the vessel was almost lost; accounts detail a desperate struggle for positive buoyancy to surface after the forward ballast tanks were ruptured. Ninety-eight crewmen were injured, and Machinist's Mate Second Class Joseph Allen Ashley, 24, of Akron, Ohio, died from head injuries on 9 January.[6] Other injuries to the crew included broken bones, spinal injury, and lacerations.
San Francisco's forward ballast tanks and her sonar dome were severely damaged, but her pressure hull was not breached and there was no damage to her nuclear reactor. She surfaced and arrived in Guam on 10 January, accompanied by USCGC Galveston Island, USNS GYSGT Fred W. Stockham, and USNS Kiska, as well as MH-60S Knighthawks and P-3 Orion maritime patrol aircraft.
The Navy stated that there was "absolutely no reason to believe that it struck another submarine or vessel." Later, an examination in drydock showed unmistakably that she had struck an undersea mountain.[7]

From Wikipedia.

FYI, she carried a crew of roughly 130, so about 3/4 of the crew were injured at some level.

 

[YankeeVol]

Collision with seamount[edit]
On 8 January 2005 at 02:43 GMT, San Francisco collided with an undersea mountain about 364 nautical miles (675 km) southeast of Guamwhile operating at flank (maximum) speed at a depth of 525 feet (160 m).[3]
Official US Navy reporting subsequent to the grounding cited the location as "in the vicinity of the Caroline Islands".[4] The position of the impact was estimated by a newspaper account as 7°45'06.0"N 147°12'36.0"E,[5] between Pikelot and Lamotrek Atolls.
The collision was so serious that the vessel was almost lost; accounts detail a desperate struggle for positive buoyancy to surface after the forward ballast tanks were ruptured. Ninety-eight crewmen were injured, and Machinist's Mate Second Class Joseph Allen Ashley, 24, of Akron, Ohio, died from head injuries on 9 January.[6] Other injuries to the crew included broken bones, spinal injury, and lacerations.
San Francisco's forward ballast tanks and her sonar dome were severely damaged, but her pressure hull was not breached and there was no damage to her nuclear reactor. She surfaced and arrived in Guam on 10 January, accompanied by USCGC Galveston Island, USNS GYSGT Fred W. Stockham, and USNS Kiska, as well as MH-60S Knighthawks and P-3 Orion maritime patrol aircraft.
The Navy stated that there was "absolutely no reason to believe that it struck another submarine or vessel." Later, an examination in drydock showed unmistakably that she had struck an undersea mountain.[7]

From Wikipedia.

FYI, she carried a crew of roughly 130, so about 3/4 of the crew were injured at some level.

Different subs. Got it now

 

[Vol423]

From the article posted:
There were no life-threatening injuries and the US Pacific fleet said at the time that the submarine remained in stable condition.

*not trying to argue or anything, just genuinely curious

You're talking about 2 separate submarine collisions.

 

[85SugarVol]

From the article posted:
There were no life-threatening injuries and the US Pacific fleet said at the time that the submarine remained in stable condition.

*not trying to argue or anything, just genuinely curious

Different sub. Different seamount.

 

[85SugarVol]

Someone did. A sailor was killed when he slammed into the Diesel engine when she hit the seamount. There were a large number of other injuries, ranging from bumps and bruises to broken bones. The Corpsman (all they carry is an IDC Corpsman. No Doctor) did a phenomenal job. I think a surface ship transferred a Dr. and other med help via helo.

Near-miracle they didn't lose the boat. Says a lot as to how tough they build them, and how tough that crew was.

Did she lose pressure? I don’t know how you maintain buoyancy when the front of the damn boat is gone.

 

[hog88]

Did she lose pressure? I don’t know how you maintain buoyancy when the front of the damn boat is gone.

Water tight hatches is my guess.

 

[85SugarVol]

Water tight hatches is my guess.

I mean I guess.

But at some point you trigger a catastrophic failure so severe that no amount of water tight hatches or pressurized hulls is gonna save the boat.

That picture just blows my mind.

 

[85SugarVol]

Yeah, Google "Submarines shoot missiles in Gulf War". That should get you started.

Interesting stuff.

This caught my eye -

There are 123 submarines in the Navy's fleet 89 attack subs and 34 ballistic missile submarines.

The Navy has refused to comment on the subs' role in the war.

123? 90 attack boats?
We don’t have anywhere near that many these days.

 

[Electric Orange]

That's some crazy stuff being in a sub that's damaged. It's gotta be a bad feeling.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Sailor accused of igniting USS Bonhomme Richard was ‘disgruntled,’ Navy says

According to prosecutors, Seaman Ryan Mays (center) allegedly set the USS Bonhomme Richard on fire in 2020 because he was "disgruntled."

The US Navy sailor charged with setting the fire that destroyed the amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard last year was “disgruntled” after dropping out of SEAL training, prosecutors said Monday.

Seaman Ryan Mays was angry about his reassignment to the Bonhomme Richard and lied to his family about his SEAL training, Navy prosecutor Cmdr. Rich Federico said at a preliminary hearing.

Mays was charged by the military with aggravated arson and the willful hazarding of a vessel over the July 2020 blaze, which burned for nearly five days and injured more than 60 sailors and civilians.

The Bonhomme Richard had been undergoing a two-year, $250 million upgrade while docked at Naval Base San Diego at the time of the blaze.

Navy: Sailor accused of igniting USS Bonhomme Richard was 'disgruntled'

 

[Sin City Vol]

'Every officer is up to speed on Diversity Training. Not so much ship handling': Scathing official report finds US Navy is not fit for war because of risk averse, politically correct, control-freak top brass

A scathing new report commissioned by members of Congress has claimed that the Navy's surface warfare forces have systemic training and leadership issues, including a focus on diversity that overshadows basic readiness skills.

The report prepared by Marine Lt. Gen. Robert Schmidle and Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery, both retired, came in response to recent Naval disasters, including the burning of the USS Bonhomme Richard in San Diego, two collisions involving Navy ships in the Pacific and the surrender of two small craft to Iran.

The report found that a staggering 94 percent of the subjects believed the recent Naval disasters were 'part of a broader problem in Navy culture or leadership.'

'I guarantee you every unit in the Navy is up to speed on their diversity training. I'm sorry that I can't say the same of their ship handling training,' said one recently retired senior enlisted leader.

A fire is seen on board USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) at Naval Base San Diego, July 12, 2020 in San Diego. The $750 million ship had to be scrapped due to fire damage

The report focused on issued within the Navy's surface warfare forces, as opposed to submarine and aviation, and suggested that issues in the surface fleet could be unique due to better funding and training for submarine and aviation units.

One of the key issues raised by the officers interviewed for the report was a concern that Navy leaders spend more time focusing on diversity training than on developing warfighting capacity and key operational skills.

'Sometimes I think we care more about whether we have enough diversity officers than if we'll survive a fight with the Chinese navy,' lamented one lieutenant currently on active duty.

'It's criminal. They think my only value is as a black woman. But you cut our ship open with a missile and we'll all bleed the same color,' she added.

One recent destroyer captain said: 'where someone puts their time shows what their priorities are. And we've got so many messages about X, Y, Z appreciation month, or sexual assault prevention, or you name it. We don't even have close to that same level of emphasis on actual warfighting.'

'The non-combat curricula consume Navy resources, clog inboxes, create administrative quagmires, and monopolize precious training time. By weighing down sailors with non-combat related training and administrative burdens, both Congress and Navy leaders risk sending them into battle less prepared and less focused than their opponents,' the report added.

'The Navy treats warfighting readiness as a compliance issue,' said one career commander. 'You might even use the term compliance-centered warfare as opposed to adversary-centered warfare or warfighter-centered warfare.'

Navy is in disarray and focusing more on diversity training than warfighting, report says | Daily Mail Online

Damn in 4 years Trump turned our Navy into this..unreal, anyone text Mark Meadows about it?

 

[Grand Vol]

Damn in 4 years Trump turned our Navy into this..unreal, anyone text Mark Meadows about it?

Oh, this was going on long before Trump got into office.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Biden Joint Chiefs Nom Embraces ‘Gender Advisers’ for Troops

President Joe Biden's nominee for the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the Senate "gender advisers" for combat troops are critical to the United States' success, a position some veterans say is nothing more than a left-wing initiative that distracts from the military's core duties.

The revelation came during a Dec. 8 exchange with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D., N.H.), who asked how Adm. Christopher Grady intends to implement "women, peace, and security" legislation within the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"The role of a gender adviser is a way to attack a very significant issue, and if confirmed, I look forward to leveraging those advisers who can make me think better and smarter about the issues that you raise," Grady said. "So I look forward to, if confirmed, understanding that ecosystem and helping advance that cause going forward again."

Biden Joint Chiefs Nom Embraces 'Gender advisers' for Troops

 

[hog88]

Biden Joint Chiefs Nom Embraces ‘Gender Advisers’ for Troops

President Joe Biden's nominee for the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the Senate "gender advisers" for combat troops are critical to the United States' success, a position some veterans say is nothing more than a left-wing initiative that distracts from the military's core duties.

The revelation came during a Dec. 8 exchange with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D., N.H.), who asked how Adm. Christopher Grady intends to implement "women, peace, and security" legislation within the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"The role of a gender adviser is a way to attack a very significant issue, and if confirmed, I look forward to leveraging those advisers who can make me think better and smarter about the issues that you raise," Grady said. "So I look forward to, if confirmed, understanding that ecosystem and helping advance that cause going forward again."

Biden Joint Chiefs Nom Embraces 'Gender advisers' for Troops

WTF is a gender advisor?

We're screwed if we ever have to fight a peer to peer war with these clowns with stars in charge.

 

[85SugarVol]

Biden Joint Chiefs Nom Embraces ‘Gender Advisers’ for Troops

President Joe Biden's nominee for the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the Senate "gender advisers" for combat troops are critical to the United States' success, a position some veterans say is nothing more than a left-wing initiative that distracts from the military's core duties.

The revelation came during a Dec. 8 exchange with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D., N.H.), who asked how Adm. Christopher Grady intends to implement "women, peace, and security" legislation within the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"The role of a gender adviser is a way to attack a very significant issue, and if confirmed, I look forward to leveraging those advisers who can make me think better and smarter about the issues that you raise," Grady said. "So I look forward to, if confirmed, understanding that ecosystem and helping advance that cause going forward again."

Biden Joint Chiefs Nom Embraces 'Gender advisers' for Troops

Well that ought to scare the sh!t out of the Chinese.

 

[Vol423]

Biden Joint Chiefs Nom Embraces ‘Gender Advisers’ for Troops

President Joe Biden's nominee for the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the Senate "gender advisers" for combat troops are critical to the United States' success, a position some veterans say is nothing more than a left-wing initiative that distracts from the military's core duties.

The revelation came during a Dec. 8 exchange with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D., N.H.), who asked how Adm. Christopher Grady intends to implement "women, peace, and security" legislation within the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"The role of a gender adviser is a way to attack a very significant issue, and if confirmed, I look forward to leveraging those advisers who can make me think better and smarter about the issues that you raise," Grady said. "So I look forward to, if confirmed, understanding that ecosystem and helping advance that cause going forward again."

Biden Joint Chiefs Nom Embraces 'Gender advisers' for Troops

Gender Advisers? WTF does that even mean?

LOL. Hadn't seen your previous post, Hog.

 

[Vol423]

Biden Joint Chiefs Nom Embraces ‘Gender Advisers’ for Troops

President Joe Biden's nominee for the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the Senate "gender advisers" for combat troops are critical to the United States' success, a position some veterans say is nothing more than a left-wing initiative that distracts from the military's core duties.

The revelation came during a Dec. 8 exchange with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D., N.H.), who asked how Adm. Christopher Grady intends to implement "women, peace, and security" legislation within the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"The role of a gender adviser is a way to attack a very significant issue, and if confirmed, I look forward to leveraging those advisers who can make me think better and smarter about the issues that you raise," Grady said. "So I look forward to, if confirmed, understanding that ecosystem and helping advance that cause going forward again."

Biden Joint Chiefs Nom Embraces 'Gender advisers' for Troops

I can only assume that a Gender Advisor's role is to try to convince our Navy Seals, Delta Force and Army Rangers that they are actually women trapped in a man's body, and they need gender reassignment surgery.

 

[Freiwillige]

Another reason to not join the military.

The PC disease is so advance that I don't think that it can be cured.

 

[Orangeburst]

Biden Joint Chiefs Nom Embraces ‘Gender Advisers’ for Troops

President Joe Biden's nominee for the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the Senate "gender advisers" for combat troops are critical to the United States' success, a position some veterans say is nothing more than a left-wing initiative that distracts from the military's core duties.

The revelation came during a Dec. 8 exchange with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D., N.H.), who asked how Adm. Christopher Grady intends to implement "women, peace, and security" legislation within the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"The role of a gender adviser is a way to attack a very significant issue, and if confirmed, I look forward to leveraging those advisers who can make me think better and smarter about the issues that you raise," Grady said. "So I look forward to, if confirmed, understanding that ecosystem and helping advance that cause going forward again."

Biden Joint Chiefs Nom Embraces 'Gender advisers' for Troops

" is a way to attack a very significant issue"

Heaven help us

BTW...he looks like Phil Fulmer

 

[GreyWolf1129]

I mean the front of the boat …. It’s gone…

I don’t know how she made it to the surface.

So there are some intelligent questions here about how she (711) made it to the surface; didn't flood out; survived, etc. I never inspected the boat. All I can see is the same photos you see. But I am familiar with the 688 and 688i class, and all subs share common features, so...

711 was lucky. She hit the seamount nearly head-on. For a sub, that's the best angle to have a collision at. They are weakest on a "broadside" hit, so there's that. Next, from what I can tell, the pressure hull...which is the hull within the hull, and keeps water out of the proverbial "people tank" wasn't broached, or at least not fatally. It's likely that there was some water intrusion into the hull, but it probably fell within the boundaries of a "controlled leak", where the pumps could keep up with the inflow, as opposed to "flooding", in which they could not.

Subs have ballast tanks at the bow and the stern. Usually three at each end. They are outside the pressure hull. These are flooded to make the boat submerge, and blown dry (nearly dry) to make the boat surface. There are a host of other tanks, both inside and outside the pressure hull, that are used for similar and other purposes, but the ballast tanks are the way she submerges and surfaces. They are big tanks. Tons of seawater.

So her (711's) forward ballast tanks were all but destroyed, which means when she did surface, she would have been down by the bow. There are ways to mitigate that somewhat, which I'm sure she did, but that still had to be a desperate fight to get her on the surface, and keep her there. That crew did a helluva job to save that boat.

I hope that answers any remaining questions. I'm pretty much up against the limit of what is unclassified, so let's just leave it here. If you're really interested in this sort of thing, there's a ton of information out there on the 'net. Suffice to say, if you could get a tour of a modern attack or missile sub, and they were allowed to show or tell you exactly what their actual capabilities were, you'd want to sign up on the spot. And I've heard that the 774 Class (Virginia's) are even better than that.

Way back in '92, on the old BillyBoat, we were SpecWar capable, and we didn't fear or worry about a damn thing that we might run in to. And that, my VN brothers and sisters, was a long, long time ago. Odds are we'd be a Third Rate ship at best today.

Now...if you dare go down that path...do some research on the USS Scorpion (SSN 589). Don't believe the first thing you read. Look at the pictures of her wreck and ask yourself "what took that great big chunk out of the base of her sail?"

FWIW, the Soviets blamed us for the K129. Both were "lost" in '68, which was when John Walker was serving as a Comms Watch Officer at SubLant.

Remember, I warned you...

 

[Freiwillige]

Now.

Biden Joint Chiefs Nom Embraces 'Gender advisers' for Troops

Then.

TOP 16 QUOTES BY WILLIAM HALSEY | A-Z Quotes